From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 1 02:13:54 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:13:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is economic patriotism? Message-ID: <01C51DC1.44431DB0.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From guavaberry at earthlink.net Tue Mar 1 04:01:50 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:01:50 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] K12 Education, Technology, St. Patricks Day, Sports & Music Fans: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050228225903.01cf9e90@mail.edu-cyberpg.com> hi, i know this is kinda off topic but it's pretty snazzy :-) best, karen K12 Education, Technology, St. Patricks Day, Sports & Music Fans: MARCH 1913 at spring training for SF SEALS BASEBALL TEAM that the word JAZZ first appears in S.F. Bulletin Newspaper sports columns of SPORTS REPORTER SCOOP GLEESON. It appears as many as a hundred times that summer as only a sports and baseball word. The Irish, Baseball and JAZZ Heat up the Educational CyberPlayGround Karen Ellis founded the Educational CyberPlayGround [ECP] http://www.edu-cyberpg.com provides a community for intuitive learners, adult learners, and educators working with students on the Web and in classrooms. Using her experiences teaching music, dance, and elementary education to young people in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Ellis set up a learning site that celebrates diversity in students' backgrounds while "highlighting the variety in students' preferred approaches to learning." Ellis integrates linguistics, music, and technology into the classroom and while doing research for her most recent project the National Children's Folksong Repository she hit upon an answer to a question that has eluded everyone in the 20th century. "News is the first rough draft of history." Philip L. Graham (1915-63), U.S. newspaper publisher. Where does the word Jazz Come From? It all starts with the Irish sports writers and baseball. Ellis: "There have been many discussions and debates over where the word Jazz comes from and we are now able to explain it's origins." Dan Cassidy, Director of Irish Studies at New College in San Francisco, singer, author of 2 books: Irish Language influence on Poker and American Gambling and The Tongue of the Saol Luim (slum) from University press in Ireland due out in the fall of 2005, explains its roots. "The word Jazz, like the music, is part of our entwined American roots culture and was first used in March 1913, by Irish American sports reporter "Scoop" Gleeson in The San Francisco Bulletin as a baseball slang term for exciting, hot, spirited play" says Cassidy. Jazz Etymology: Irish American Vernacular English and the hidden influence of Irish and Scots-Gaelic on what we call American English. The sanas of jazz is explained in 7 articles with numerous resources. The Pizzazz of Jazz: The Sanas (Irish etymology) of Jazz, Fizz, Fizzle, and Sizzle, St. Bridget's House of Fire and The Secret Irish Traveller Bain-Fhile (Woman-Poet) of "Whoopie Ti Yi Yo, Git Along Little Dogies" is available. http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/irish.html Another opportunity for the Educational CyberPlayGround to recognize the nation's unknown culture makers is The National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ A public folklore project where children record and submit their folksongs, indigenous playground chants and songs into the online archive. When you access her award-winning site, you can choose the map that matches your learning style (intuitive, logical, or visual) by clicking on the "search this site" pull-down menu. Explore playful educational approaches to music, arts, literacy, linguistics, internet, technology, teachers and online curriculum. The New York Times Learning Network selected the Educational CyberPlayGround as its "Site of the Day." The Times noted that the site provides opportunities for parents, teachers, and librarians, even with limited online experience, to learn how to use the World Wide Web to provide more effective teaching. USA Today in January 2000 selected the Educational CyberPlayGround as one of its "Best Bets for Educators." The Educational CyberPlayGround was also a USA Today "Hot Site," in both its online and print editions, and MSNBC News online named the portal as a "Web Pick." The site also includes the Hot List a Master Registry of K12 Schools Online, http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/schools/ 6 Mailing Lists reaching across the world with thousands of readers http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/community/ and access to "Ring Leaders," experts in their fields who will assist site users. -- 30 Karen Ellis The Educational CyberPlayGround <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Mar 1 05:31:22 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:31:22 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] math and music? Message-ID: <4223FE2A.3090207@solution-consulting.com> Nicholas, On a slightely different note. There is some overlap between musical ability and math. A quick couple of references: Title Inter-domain transfer between mathemetical skills and musicianship. Abstract Investigated the nature of transfer of problem solving skills between 2 domains which are very dissimilar at a surface level but which overlap at a deep structural level in specific areas. The domains are formal musical skill and mathematics. This study examined specifically whether this transfer occurs without explicit instruction to facilitate transfer. Structural Learning Theory provided a frame of reference for the study of the deep structural similarities between music and math. 85 public secondary school students (mean age 15.5 yrs) enrolled in an extension math course completed a mathematics test in their regular classroom. One wk later Ss completed the Musicianship Rating Scale to measure trained musical knowledge. The results indicate that in the domains of mathematics and music, students who had training in musicianship performed better than students with no musical training in mathematical areas of structural overlap. However, they did not perform better in areas without overlap. The author concludes that transfer occurs as a result of deep-structural similarity of domains and that this transfer can occur spontaneously without explicit instruction designed to facilitate transfer. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved) Authors Bahr, Nan; Christensen, Carol A. Affiliations Bahr, Nan: U Queensland, Graduate School of Education, QLD, Australia Source Journal of Structural Learning & Intelligent Systems. 14(3), 2000, 187-197. Title Music as embodied mathematics: A study of mutually informaing affinity. Abstract The argument examined in this paper is that music - when approached through making and responding to coherent musical structures, facilitated by multiple, intuitively accessible representations - can become a learning context in which basic mathematical ideas can be elicited and perceived as relevant and important. Students' inquiry into the bases for their perceptions of musical coherence provides a path into the mathematics of ratio, proportion, fractions, and common multiples. In a similar manner, we conjecture that other topics in mathematics - patterns of change, transformations and invariants - might also expose, illuminate and account for more general organizing structures in music. Drawing on experience with 11-12 year old students working in a software music/math environment, we illustrate the role of multiple representations, multi-media, and the use of multiple sensory modalities in eliciting and developing students' initially implicit knowledge of music and its inherent mathematics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved) Authors Bamberger, Jeanne; Disessa, Andrea Affiliations Bamberger, Jeanne: Music and Theater Arts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, US Disessa, Andrea: University of California, Berkeley, CA, US Source International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning. 8(2), 2003, 123-160. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 1 12:14:36 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 04:14:36 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Message-ID: <01C51E15.30150E80.shovland@mindspring.com> Sometimes it is not what you say that matters but what you don't say. Other times a single word or phrase can undermine or destroy the credibility of a paragraph or entire presentation. This memo was originally prepared exclusively for Congressional spouses because they are your eyes and ears, a one-person reality check and truth squad combined. However, by popular demand, I have included and expanded that document because effectively communicating the New American Lexicon requires you to STOP saying words and phrases that undermine your ability to educate the American people. So from today forward, YOU are the language police. From today forward, these are the words never to say again. 1. NEVER SAY Government INSTEAD SAY: Washington The fact is, most Americans appreciate their local government that picks up their trash, cleans their streets, and provides police and transportation services. Washington is the problem. Remind voters again and again about Washington spending, Washington waste, Washington taxation, Washington bureaucracy, Washington rules and Washington regulations. Then remind voters that if Washington created this mess, it is Washington's responsibility to fix it. "If we expect to succeed, we must look to ourselves and not to Washington to raise our kids, start our businesses and improve our day-to-day lives." If you must talk about government, use the context defined by President Bush: "Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives." 2. NEVER SAY Privatization/Private Accounts INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts Many more Americans would "personalize" Social Security than "privatize" it. In fact, two-thirds of America wants to personalize Social Security while only one-third should privatize it. Why? Personalizing Social Security suggests ownership and control over your retirement savings, while privatizing it suggests a profit motive and winners and losers. BANISH PRIVATIZATION FROM YOUR LEXICON.(Emphasis mine, caps lock theirs) 3. NEVER SAY Tax Reform INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification While a majority of Americans are generally in favor of tax reform, one-third of the population fears that they would end up paying more in taxes if the tax code was in fact reformed. However, almost all Americans believe they would personally benefit from a tax code that was simplified-in terms of money they owe, time they spend and anxiety about the IRS. When more Americans fear the IRS than root- canal surgery, something should be done to simplify the tax code. 4. NEVER SAY Inheritance/Estate Tax INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax While a sizable 68% of America thinks the Inheritance/Estate Tax is unfair, fully 78%think that the Death Tax is unfair. And while a narrow majority would repeal the inheritance/estate tax, an overwhelming majority would repeal the death tax. If you want to kill the estate tax, call it a death tax. 5. NEVER SAY A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy More Americans are afraid of the principle of globalization than even privatization. The reason? Globalization represents something big, something distant and something foreign. It's the same reason why Americans like their local government but dislike Washington-the closer you are, the more control you have. So instead of talking about the principles of globalization, instead emphasize "the value and benefits of a free market economy." Similarly, capitalism reminds people of harsh economic competition that yields losers as well as winners. Conversely, the free market economy provides opportunity to all and allows everyone to succeed. 6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation Innovation, Education When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we should talk about the "root cause" why any company would not want to hire "the best workers in the world." And the answer: "over-taxation, over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality education." Because it rhymes, it will be remembered. 7. NEVER SAY Undocumented Workers INSTEAD SAY: Illegal Aliens The Dems have adopted the phrase "undocumented worker" but you shouldn't. Call them exactly what they are. In fact, instead of addressing "immigration reform," which polarizes Americans, you should be talking about "border security" issues. Securing our borders and our people has universal support. 8. NEVER SAY Foreign Trade INSTEAD SAY: International Trade For many reasons unrelated to this issue, the word "foreign" conjures up negative images. Americans simply don't like "foreign oil," or "foreign products" or "foreign nationals." International is a more positive concept than either foreign or global. 9. NEVER SAY Drilling for oil INSTEAD SAY: Exploring for energy It's the picture people paint in their minds, the difference between an old-fashioned oil rig that gushes up black goop vs. 21st century technology and innovation that provides us the ability to heat our homes and drive our cars. When you talk about energy, use words like "responsible" and "balanced" and always address your concern for the environment. 10. NEVER SAY Tort Reform INSTEAD SAY: Lawsuit Abuse Reform The term "tort" has very little meaning to the average American, and at best reminds one of a French pastry. "Lawsuit Abuse" is something most Americans understand and resent. If you really want to make your case, add the word "frivolous." 11. NEVER SAY Trial Lawyer INSTEAD SAY: Personal Injury Lawyer It is hard to distrust a trial lawyer because we see them portrayed so favorably on L.A. Law and Law & Order. But personal injury lawyers, also known as ambulance chasers, remind people of those annoying, harassing commercials we see at 1:00 a.m. cajoling us to sue someone. If you want to get the full bang for the buck, call them "predatory personal injury lawyers." 12. NEVER SAY Corporate Transparency INSTEAD SAY: Corporate Accountability I constantly hear the need for "transparency" coming from members of the financial services industry as well as members of Congress. But if you asked the American people, corporate accountability is a much higher priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can't even explain what transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands accountability from all sectors of the economy ? and the government. 13. NEVER SAY School Choice INSTEAD SAY: Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education Americans are still evenly split over whether they support "school choice" in America's schools. But they are heavily in favor of "giving parents the right to choose the schools that are right for their children," an there is almost universal support for "equal opportunity in education." So frame the issue right and you get the support you need. 14. NEVER SAY Health care "Choice" INSTEAD SAY: "The Right to Choose" This is an important nuance so often lost on political officials. Almost all Americans want "the right to choose the health care plan, hospital, doctor and prescription drug plan that is best for them," but far fewer Americans actually want to make that choice. In fact, the older you get, the less eager you are to have a wide range of choices. One reason why the prescription drug card earned only qualified public support was that it offered too many choices and therefore created too much confusion for too many senior citizens. From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 03:17:37 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:17:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and marketing In-Reply-To: <200503012349.j21NnPh31691@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050302031737.77026.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>NEVER SAY Government INSTEAD SAY: Washington<< --This goes to why the Democrats did so badly. Republicans stayed on message, had catch-phrases that were clearly focus-tested by competent marketing teams, and "branded" everything in sight in a way that would make Nike proud. Think tanks, church activists, talk radio and internet email trees were coordinated, all using the same press releases, the same language, the same lockstep labeling and negative branding of anything "liberal" as weak, wimpy and vacillating. Anyone who studies marketing will recognize all the techniques, and will be amazed that Democrats were so slow to respond with appropriate counter-moves and pre-empt branding with branding. If the GOP campaign had been framed as a marketing-based campaign, which it very much was, its moves would have appeared manipulative and underhanded, as they did in the primary campaign where McCain was so unfairly trashed. Instead, Democrats were cornered at every turn, branded vacillating, and their squirming to catch up confirmed the dominant theme, which was "Republicans are decisive, Democrats weak. Republicans stand firm. Democrats are lukewarm. Republicans have the endorsement of God. Democrats believe in relative values and are therefore anti-God." Enough repetition and any binary labeling will seem true. I'm hoping Democrats don't end up using the same techniques, at least not as well as Republicans have used them. Stirring up resentment against conservatives the way it's been stirred up against liberals, deliberately and with strategy, is not something I'd want to be associated with. Some anger is inevitable when people feel wronged, but playing on the victim mentality, whether it's Christian resentment against secular humanism, or race/class alienation against the system, is not something that should be done, in my opinion. If either party wants to have the moral high ground, it's going to have to stop using character assassination as part of its toolkit, and it's going to have to use marketing that holds up as well when it's exposed as when it's covert. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 2 05:12:18 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:12:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Message-ID: <01C51EA3.5AA2D310.shovland@mindspring.com> I heard about this on Air America about 3 am and jumped out of bed to find this. So as far as I know this is real. There is also a pdf of a 160 page briefing book supposedly from Luntz. This is the page: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/3244/72156 The link to the briefing book download is the word "Republicans" in orange. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:23 PM To: Steve Hovland Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Source??? Steve Hovland wrote: >Sometimes it is not what you say that matters but what you don't say. Other >times a single word or phrase can undermine or destroy the credibility of a >paragraph or entire presentation. This memo was originally prepared >exclusively for Congressional spouses because they are your eyes and ears, >a one-person reality check and truth squad combined. However, by popular >demand, I have included and expanded that document because effectively >communicating the New American Lexicon requires you to STOP saying words >and phrases that undermine your ability to educate the American people. >So from today forward, YOU are the language police. From today forward, >these are the words never to say again. >1. NEVER SAY Government >INSTEAD SAY: Washington >The fact is, most Americans appreciate their local government that picks up >their trash, cleans their streets, and provides police and transportation >services. Washington is the problem. Remind voters again and again about >Washington spending, Washington waste, Washington taxation, Washington >bureaucracy, Washington rules and Washington regulations. Then remind >voters that if Washington created this mess, it is Washington's >responsibility to fix it. "If we expect to succeed, we must look to >ourselves and not to Washington to raise our kids, start our businesses and >improve our day-to-day lives." If you must talk about government, use the >context defined by President Bush: "Government should help people improve >their lives, not try to run their lives." >2. NEVER SAY Privatization/Private Accounts >INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts >Many more Americans would "personalize" Social Security than "privatize" >it. In fact, two-thirds of America wants to personalize Social Security >while only one-third should privatize it. Why? Personalizing Social >Security suggests ownership and control over your retirement savings, while >privatizing it suggests a profit motive and winners and losers. BANISH >PRIVATIZATION FROM YOUR LEXICON.(Emphasis mine, caps lock theirs) >3. NEVER SAY Tax Reform >INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification >While a majority of Americans are generally in favor of tax reform, >one-third of the population fears that they would end up paying more in >taxes if the tax code was in fact reformed. However, almost all Americans >believe they would personally benefit from a tax code that was >simplified-in terms of money they owe, time they spend and anxiety about >the IRS. When more Americans fear the IRS than root- canal surgery, >something should be done to simplify the tax code. >4. NEVER SAY Inheritance/Estate Tax >INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax >While a sizable 68% of America thinks the Inheritance/Estate Tax is unfair, >fully 78%think that the Death Tax is unfair. And while a narrow majority >would repeal the inheritance/estate tax, an overwhelming majority would >repeal the death tax. If you want to kill the estate tax, call it a death >tax. >5. NEVER SAY A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism >INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy >More Americans are afraid of the principle of globalization than even >privatization. The reason? Globalization represents something big, >something distant and something foreign. It's the same reason why Americans >like their local government but dislike Washington-the closer you are, the >more control you have. So instead of talking about the principles of >globalization, instead emphasize "the value and benefits of a free market >economy." Similarly, capitalism reminds people of harsh economic >competition that yields losers as well as winners. Conversely, the free >market economy provides opportunity to all and allows everyone to succeed. >6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing >INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation Innovation, Education >When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting >their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the >word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the >practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we >should talk about the "root cause" why any company would not want to hire >"the best workers in the world." And the answer: "over-taxation, >over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality >education." Because it rhymes, it will be remembered. >7. NEVER SAY Undocumented Workers >INSTEAD SAY: Illegal Aliens >The Dems have adopted the phrase "undocumented worker" but you shouldn't. >Call them exactly what they are. In fact, instead of addressing >"immigration reform," which polarizes Americans, you should be talking >about "border security" issues. Securing our borders and our people has >universal support. >8. NEVER SAY Foreign Trade >INSTEAD SAY: International Trade >For many reasons unrelated to this issue, the word "foreign" conjures up >negative images. Americans simply don't like "foreign oil," or "foreign >products" or "foreign nationals." International is a more positive concept >than either foreign or global. >9. NEVER SAY Drilling for oil >INSTEAD SAY: Exploring for energy >It's the picture people paint in their minds, the difference between an >old-fashioned oil rig that gushes up black goop vs. 21st century technology >and innovation that provides us the ability to heat our homes and drive our >cars. When you talk about energy, use words like "responsible" and >"balanced" and always address your concern for the environment. >10. NEVER SAY Tort Reform >INSTEAD SAY: Lawsuit Abuse Reform >The term "tort" has very little meaning to the average American, and at >best reminds one of a French pastry. "Lawsuit Abuse" is something most >Americans understand and resent. If you really want to make your case, add >the word "frivolous." >11. NEVER SAY Trial Lawyer >INSTEAD SAY: Personal Injury Lawyer >It is hard to distrust a trial lawyer because we see them portrayed so >favorably on L.A. Law and Law & Order. But personal injury lawyers, also >known as ambulance chasers, remind people of those annoying, harassing >commercials we see at 1:00 a.m. cajoling us to sue someone. If you want to >get the full bang for the buck, call them "predatory personal injury >lawyers." >12. NEVER SAY Corporate Transparency >INSTEAD SAY: Corporate Accountability >I constantly hear the need for "transparency" coming from members of the >financial services industry as well as members of Congress. But if you >asked the American people, corporate accountability is a much higher >priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can't even explain what >transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands >accountability from all sectors of the economy ? and the government. >13. NEVER SAY School Choice >INSTEAD SAY: Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education >Americans are still evenly split over whether they support "school choice" >in America's schools. But they are heavily in favor of "giving parents the >right to choose the schools that are right for their children," an there is >almost universal support for "equal opportunity in education." So frame the >issue right and you get the support you need. >14. NEVER SAY Health care "Choice" >INSTEAD SAY: "The Right to Choose" >This is an important nuance so often lost on political officials. Almost >all Americans want "the right to choose the health care plan, hospital, >doctor and prescription drug plan that is best for them," but far fewer >Americans actually want to make that choice. In fact, the older you get, >the less eager you are to have a wide range of choices. One reason why the >prescription drug card earned only qualified public support was that it >offered too many choices and therefore created too much confusion for too >many senior citizens. > > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 2 14:29:24 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 06:29:24 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Message-ID: <01C51EF1.2E273440.shovland@mindspring.com> If it's real it's a significant security breach- like getting the other side's playbook. As a left-wing propagandist I do know that propaganda needs an element of truth. I think this is one reason why Bush's effort to "reform" Social Security is failing- he started out with a big lie and has no fall-back. Although I agree that the current leadership of the Democrats has been totally corrupted by campaign money, I think that the right has now been saying the same things for so long that they have become mindless and reactive. When I assert my positions in ThePoliticalSpinRoom I do not get any orderly arguments in return- just a lot of name calling. It remains to see if the Democrats will pick up the opportunities. Nancy Pelosi has such a low leadership profile that she is almost invisible. Harry looks frail. I hear that the Governor of Iowa has a lot of charisma. Here's my take on applying the 14 words from the leftwing perspective. Warning, it may be upsetting. Privatizing Our Retirement Outsourcing Our Future Tax Simplification for the Rich Estate Tax Haven Global Oppression Economy Aliens Hold Down Wages Foreign Trade 'til It Hurts Tort Reform Pays For Campaigns No Defense For The People Corporations First Privileged Education Health Care For Some Washington Looters Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 5:34 AM To: Steve Hovland Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say Ah, so you are one of the twenty-three people who listen to Air America! What a pleasure it is to know you! I thought it was a pretty good example of branding and positioning. What the Left fails to see is that there needs to be some value and truth underlying the branding or the effort will fail. The Right currently argues that the Left has lost its way and is mindless and reactive. The energy from the Right comes from the huge turnaround, in terms of articles, think tanks, and books. Actually, Harry Reid did some interesting positioning when he said that a baby born today is born with a $35k (or whatever number) "birth tax." That is memorable. The notion that the Left is now concerned about deficit and Right isn't, is a delicious irony, since it was traditionally the Left that was into deficits. But it does represent a visionary position. Reid may be more of an asset than meets the eye. Steve Hovland wrote: >I heard about this on Air America about 3 am and >jumped out of bed to find this. So as far as I know >this is real. There is also a pdf of a 160 page >briefing book supposedly from Luntz. > >This is the page: > >http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/3244/72156 > >The link to the briefing book download is the word >"Republicans" in orange. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:23 PM >To: Steve Hovland >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: 14 words Republicans should not say > >Source??? > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>Sometimes it is not what you say that matters but what you don't say. Other >>times a single word or phrase can undermine or destroy the credibility of a >>paragraph or entire presentation. This memo was originally prepared >>exclusively for Congressional spouses because they are your eyes and ears, >>a one-person reality check and truth squad combined. However, by popular >>demand, I have included and expanded that document because effectively >>communicating the New American Lexicon requires you to STOP saying words >>and phrases that undermine your ability to educate the American people. >>So from today forward, YOU are the language police. From today forward, >>these are the words never to say again. >>1. NEVER SAY Government >>INSTEAD SAY: Washington >>The fact is, most Americans appreciate their local government that picks up >>their trash, cleans their streets, and provides police and transportation >>services. Washington is the problem. Remind voters again and again about >>Washington spending, Washington waste, Washington taxation, Washington >>bureaucracy, Washington rules and Washington regulations. Then remind >>voters that if Washington created this mess, it is Washington's >>responsibility to fix it. "If we expect to succeed, we must look to >>ourselves and not to Washington to raise our kids, start our businesses and >>improve our day-to-day lives." If you must talk about government, use the >>context defined by President Bush: "Government should help people improve >>their lives, not try to run their lives." >>2. NEVER SAY Privatization/Private Accounts >>INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts >>Many more Americans would "personalize" Social Security than "privatize" >>it. In fact, two-thirds of America wants to personalize Social Security >>while only one-third should privatize it. Why? Personalizing Social >>Security suggests ownership and control over your retirement savings, while >>privatizing it suggests a profit motive and winners and losers. BANISH >>PRIVATIZATION FROM YOUR LEXICON.(Emphasis mine, caps lock theirs) >>3. NEVER SAY Tax Reform >>INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification >>While a majority of Americans are generally in favor of tax reform, >>one-third of the population fears that they would end up paying more in >>taxes if the tax code was in fact reformed. However, almost all Americans >>believe they would personally benefit from a tax code that was >>simplified-in terms of money they owe, time they spend and anxiety about >>the IRS. When more Americans fear the IRS than root- canal surgery, >>something should be done to simplify the tax code. >>4. NEVER SAY Inheritance/Estate Tax >>INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax >>While a sizable 68% of America thinks the Inheritance/Estate Tax is unfair, >>fully 78%think that the Death Tax is unfair. And while a narrow majority >>would repeal the inheritance/estate tax, an overwhelming majority would >>repeal the death tax. If you want to kill the estate tax, call it a death >>tax. >>5. NEVER SAY A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism >>INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy >>More Americans are afraid of the principle of globalization than even >>privatization. The reason? Globalization represents something big, >>something distant and something foreign. It's the same reason why Americans >>like their local government but dislike Washington-the closer you are, the >>more control you have. So instead of talking about the principles of >>globalization, instead emphasize "the value and benefits of a free market >>economy." Similarly, capitalism reminds people of harsh economic >>competition that yields losers as well as winners. Conversely, the free >>market economy provides opportunity to all and allows everyone to succeed. >>6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing >>INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation Innovation, Education >>When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting >>their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the >>word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the >>practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we >>should talk about the "root cause" why any company would not want to hire >>"the best workers in the world." And the answer: "over-taxation, >>over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality >>education." Because it rhymes, it will be remembered. >>7. NEVER SAY Undocumented Workers >>INSTEAD SAY: Illegal Aliens >>The Dems have adopted the phrase "undocumented worker" but you shouldn't. >>Call them exactly what they are. In fact, instead of addressing >>"immigration reform," which polarizes Americans, you should be talking >>about "border security" issues. Securing our borders and our people has >>universal support. >>8. NEVER SAY Foreign Trade >>INSTEAD SAY: International Trade >>For many reasons unrelated to this issue, the word "foreign" conjures up >>negative images. Americans simply don't like "foreign oil," or "foreign >>products" or "foreign nationals." International is a more positive concept >>than either foreign or global. >>9. NEVER SAY Drilling for oil >>INSTEAD SAY: Exploring for energy >>It's the picture people paint in their minds, the difference between an >>old-fashioned oil rig that gushes up black goop vs. 21st century technology >>and innovation that provides us the ability to heat our homes and drive our >>cars. When you talk about energy, use words like "responsible" and >>"balanced" and always address your concern for the environment. >>10. NEVER SAY Tort Reform >>INSTEAD SAY: Lawsuit Abuse Reform >>The term "tort" has very little meaning to the average American, and at >>best reminds one of a French pastry. "Lawsuit Abuse" is something most >>Americans understand and resent. If you really want to make your case, add >>the word "frivolous." >>11. NEVER SAY Trial Lawyer >>INSTEAD SAY: Personal Injury Lawyer >>It is hard to distrust a trial lawyer because we see them portrayed so >>favorably on L.A. Law and Law & Order. But personal injury lawyers, also >>known as ambulance chasers, remind people of those annoying, harassing >>commercials we see at 1:00 a.m. cajoling us to sue someone. If you want to >>get the full bang for the buck, call them "predatory personal injury >>lawyers." >>12. NEVER SAY Corporate Transparency >>INSTEAD SAY: Corporate Accountability >>I constantly hear the need for "transparency" coming from members of the >>financial services industry as well as members of Congress. But if you >>asked the American people, corporate accountability is a much higher >>priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can't even explain what >>transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands >>accountability from all sectors of the economy ? and the government. >>13. NEVER SAY School Choice >>INSTEAD SAY: Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education >>Americans are still evenly split over whether they support "school choice" >>in America's schools. But they are heavily in favor of "giving parents the >>right to choose the schools that are right for their children," an there is >>almost universal support for "equal opportunity in education." So frame the >>issue right and you get the support you need. >>14. NEVER SAY Health care "Choice" >>INSTEAD SAY: "The Right to Choose" >>This is an important nuance so often lost on political officials. Almost >>all Americans want "the right to choose the health care plan, hospital, >>doctor and prescription drug plan that is best for them," but far fewer >>Americans actually want to make that choice. In fact, the older you get, >>the less eager you are to have a wide range of choices. One reason why the >>prescription drug card earned only qualified public support was that it >>offered too many choices and therefore created too much confusion for too >>many senior citizens. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > << File: ATT00008.html >> From Thrst4knw at aol.com Wed Mar 2 16:48:35 2005 From: Thrst4knw at aol.com (Thrst4knw at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:48:35 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Message-ID: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 2 17:50:57 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:50:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: [Fwd: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005] Message-ID: <01C51F0D.5619BB50.shovland@mindspring.com> The idea that the left is aligned with radical islam is an example of a big lie. The frame is that since we don't support the imperialist ambitions of the Neo Cons, we must be supporting the bad guys. Supporting the Baathists was the official policy of the US for most of the years that Saddam was in power. It is a right-wing President who has done more than anyone before him to create a theocratic state in America, making us more like Iran. I think the real purpose of the war was to install a new puppet regime and retain control of the oil, which is perfectly easy to understand on a practical basis, even if it is morally decrepit. My "Democratic Family Values" piece was an attempt to formulate a vision. I send faxes to Congress almost every day in order to shift their conscious toward my positions. I recently heard that circa 1974 the Republican party was in such bad shape that they weren't making the mortgage payments on their headquarters. A similar renaissance is starting on the left, but don't expect to hear about it on CNN, Fox, or MSNBC or any of the corporate media. It's at the level of the committee's of correspondence and the pamphleteers of the American revolution. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:58 AM To: Steve Hovland Subject: [Fwd: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005] Here is a thought provoking piece. Steve, you have some real talents, and I wonder if you could help the Left formulate real programs instead of, as Soderberg does, just hoping Bush will fail. This is NOT the party of FDR, of Harry Truman, and clearly is not the party of JFK. They had a foreign policy vision. There is nothing on the left that is equivalent to the American Century project. Three years ago I was saying that the real reason to invade Iraq is to create a foothold for democracy in the middle east, and now it is happening. The Left needs a global vision that is not based on supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com and look at the discussions about the alliance between the left and radical islam). You could play a key role in helping your fellow leftists formulate some transcendent vision. The Right will need a stronger Left if America is to flourish, since power corrupts and it is vital to have dialog. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:11:06 -0500 From: OpinionJournal Reply-To: OpinionJournal To: botw at djoj.opinionjournal.com OpinionJournal Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005 By JAMES TARANTO 'But as an American . . .' We hardly ever watch Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," but our TV happened to be tuned to it last night when erstwhile Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg, author of " The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471656836.html " (foreword by Bill Clinton, blurb by Madeleine Albright) came on. We're not sure what possessed us to turn on the sound and watch, but we're glad we did, for it was a fascinating interview. Here's a TiVo-assisted transcript of most of it: *** QUOTE *** Stewart: This book--it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power--have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that-- Soderberg: That's right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we're the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they're finding in the second term is, it's a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding. Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily. Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something. Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them. Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings. Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole-- Stewart: This could be unbelievable! Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's-- Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's-- Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say. Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it. Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region. Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had-- Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow! Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is-- Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs? Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah. Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive? Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see. Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes. *** END QUOTE *** We've long been skeptical of Jon Stewart, but color us impressed. He managed to ambush this poor woman brutally, in a friendly interview. She was supposed to be promoting her book, and instead he got her to spend the entire interview debunking it (at least if we understood the book's thesis correctly from the very brief discussion of it up top). She also admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East. To be sure, this is not true of all Democrats, Soderberg speaks only for herself, and she says she is ambivalent ("But as an American . . ."). But we do not question her expertise in assessing the prevailing mentality of her own party. No wonder Dems get so defensive about their patriotism http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005545 . Interesting too is Stewart's acknowledgment of his own "cognitive dissonance" and "mixed feelings" over the Iraq liberation. It's a version of an argument we've been hearing a lot lately: As our Brendan Miniter http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110006355 puts it, "The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation." Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype. Bush, it turns out, is a supple-minded empiricist, while his opponents are rigid ideologues. Revolution Watch Two mostly Muslim ex-Soviet states may be joining the democratic revolution, reports the Times of London: "Western observers denounced Sunday's polls in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, although monitors from former Soviet states said that they were fair." In consonant-deprived Kyrgyzstan, opposition candidates allegedly won only three seats in the parliamentary vote. "Opposition supporters have begun protests to disrupt the second round of voting--to be held on March 13 in more than half of the constituencies. Many are calling for a 'tulip' or 'lemon' revolution comparable to Ukraine's Orange Revolution and the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003." In Tajikstan, where the ruling party supposedly won 80% of Sunday's vote, "a coalition of opposition parties is threatening to boycott the Government and parliament unless new elections are held, but is thought to be too weak to overturn the results." Hearts and Minds *** QUOTE *** "Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing--the hearts and minds of the people--and that is a battle we are not winning."-- Ted Kennedy http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=kennedy.senate.gov/ %7Ekennedy/statements/05/1/2005127703.html&d=7108E33F86&icp=1&.intl=us , Jan. 27 "Thousands of mostly black-clad Iraqis protested Tuesday outside a medical clinic where a suicide car bomber killed 125 people a day earlier, braving the threat of another attack as they waved clenched fists, condemned foreign fighters and chanted 'No to terrorism!' "-- Associated Press http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_re_mi_ ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480 , March 1 *** END QUOTE *** Interestingly, the text of Kennedy's infamous speech seems to have disappeared from his Web site; the above link is to the Yahoo cache. We guess it's a good sign that he no longer stands by the speech, but we'd think more highly of him if he actually owned up to his mistake. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment. Mike Godwin, Meet Robert Byrd http://www.senate.gov/%7Ebyrd/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2005_march/by rd_speeches_03012005.html Despite their diminishing numbers, Senate Democrats still seem determined to use a procedure called "cloture," whereby 41 senators can filibuster and prevent a vote, to prevent the Senate from acting on numerous judicial nominees who have the support of a Senate majority. Republicans are considering a change in the Senate rules to do away with the requirement for cloture in judicial nominations, a change Trent Lott infelicitously dubbed the "nuclear option." Yesterday Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, former Ku Klux Klansman and the Senate's longest-serving member, took to the floor to denounce the idea, in terms that were overheated to say the least: *** QUOTE *** We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men. But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that "Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact." And he succeeded. Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the state: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. . . . For the temporary gain of a handful of "out of the mainstream" judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each senator's right of extended debate. *** END QUOTE *** Byrd went on to extol the filibuster as a way in which "the minority can challenge, agitate, and question," and a measure that vindicates "the power of even a single individual through the device of extended debate." Of course, this is no longer true. Although once a single senator could block action through extended debate, today 60 can cut off debate and force a vote. It used to take a two-thirds vote, as Byrd should know from his own experience. Byrd's characterization of "extended debate" as a way to preserve minority rights is curious in light of his own history, which the Senate Web site http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibus ter_Ended.htm details: *** QUOTE *** At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate. . . . Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure. *** END QUOTE *** The final vote to end debate was 71-29, just four more than necessary to cut off debate. Nine days later the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act. So the device of extended debate--used by Byrd among others--was an important reason it took nearly a century after the ratification of the 14th Amendment for Congress to make good on the amendment's promise of equal protection for minorities. To say the least, Byrd would not seem the best spokesman for the filibuster as a means of vindicating minority rights. And what about this Hitler stuff? Is this another example of the paranoid style of politics? We suppose we could argue this either way. Certainly we've heard folks on the Angry Left invoke Nazi Germany in a paranoid vein, and it does fit with Richard Hofstadter http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/t he_paranoid_style.html 's characterization of the paranoid's mentality: "What is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil." On the other hand, sometimes the invocation of Hitler reflects mere intellectual laziness, not paranoia. And perhaps Byrd doesn't understand why comparing his domestic foes to Hitler is inappropriate. After all, the man is 87. Maybe he's just too old to remember the horrors of Nazi Germany. Fool and the Gang America-hating "ethnic studies" professor Ward Churchill finally managed to dodge disinvitation and give a speech on a college campus last night. The venue was the University of Wisconsin's Whitewater campus, and Churchill's hometown paper, the Rocky Mountain News, carried a prespeech report yesterday. Noteworthy are the contrasting responses of the College Republicans and the College Democrats: *** QUOTE *** The school's College Republicans are hosting a vigil this afternoon in honor of Sept. 11 victims outside the hall where Churchill will speak. "He's engaging in hate speech," said freshman Greg Torres. "If you want to stand and yell that stuff on a street corner, that's one thing. But this is no different than bringing in the Ku Klux Klan." . . . Also, just prior to Churchill's address, a student rally celebrating free speech--and Churchill's appearance--will take place on campus, sponsored by the College Democrats, the campus Green Party and the Whitewater United for Peace Party. *** END QUOTE *** Last month, as we noted http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006306#dean , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean demanded the resignation of a local Republican official who had called the Democrats the party of Lynne Stewart. Will he make a similar demand of the Whitewater College Democrats for calling them the party of Ward Churchill? Same Reporter, Different Kerfuffle A clarification is in order of a point in our Monday item http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006354 about the Valerie Plame kerfuffle and the New York Times. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is demanding the phone records of two Times reporters not in the Plame case but in a different investigation. Not Even Brian May? "Queen Doesn't Recognize Famous Guitarists"--headline, Associated Press, March 2 Spot the Idiot Yes, it's the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Daily Collegian again. Fish in a barrel, we know, but they keep writing 'em. This one is from Amelia Sabadini: *** QUOTE *** Is doing something like forcing a 42-year-old waitress who just accidentally got pregnant and already has two teenage kids, no husband, no health care and osteo-arthritis to carry to term worth sacrificing the safety and freedom of yourself and everyone you know? Do you really have such a need to stop two consenting adults from getting married just because you don't consider their relationship to be legitimate, proper or anything other than something you watch on cable after dark, that you're willing to risk a biblical execution (stoning, burning or hanging) over it? There's just no way to oppress someone without ultimately oppressing yourself as well. You can't have your self-righteous cake and the freedom to eat it in a relatively safe, sane democratic society too. *** END QUOTE *** An Automotive Fetality "A San Jose man may face manslaughter or murder charges after a hit-and-run crash involving a pregnant 15-year-old girl," reports the San Jose Mercury News; *** QUOTE *** The girl, who was a passenger in the car allegedly driven by Louis Vincent Brackett, 19, Friday evening, delivered a stillborn 31-week-old fetus Monday. . . . On Friday, Brackett was arrested and booked into Santa Clara County Jail on suspicion of felony drunken driving and felony hit-and-run. The district attorney's office is reviewing the case to determine whether Brackett should be charged with manslaughter or murder in the death of the fetus. *** END QUOTE *** We are getting very close now to pinpointing the exact moment when a fetus turns into a child. In last week's article about the karlrovian conspiracy http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006336#fetuses against Australian women, Greg Barns http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/213105_abortion23.html put it at somewhere between 22 and 32 weeks after conception: *** QUOTE *** Other groups, to support their case for a ban on late-term abortion, have taken to highlighting two rare and extreme cases in which a 32-week-old child with suspected dwarfism was aborted at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne and a 22-week-old fetus was aborted in the Northern Territory and lived for 80 minutes. *** END QUOTE *** Thanks to the San Jose Mercury News, we now know that a fetus is still just a fetus at 31 weeks, so the transformation into a baby occurs sometime in the 32nd week of pregnancy. Yet note that whereas according to Barns an Australian child can be "aborted," in California Brackett may be charged with "manslaughter" or "murder" for "killing" a mere fetus. We guess Australia just has a more enlightened attitude about reproductive rights. (Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to J.T. Kurth, Drew Anderson, Stephen Henry, Barak Moore, Betty Bliss, Samuel Walker, Ron Ackert, Tom Jackson, Tom Maguire, Jonathan Hutchinson, Thomas Dillon and Teresa Hanson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal at wsj.com , and please include the URL.) ~~~~~~~ Today on OpinionJournal: - Review & Outlook http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006361 : The Supreme Court continues its liberal social activism. - Gabriel Schoenfeld http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006359 : How is it that America's intelligence analysts don't recognize ham and think bin Laden is "gentle"? - Barrymore Laurence Scherer http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006360 : The West Point band plays more than Sousa marches. _____ ADVERTISEMENT Whether you're moving up, relocating, seeking a new neighborhood or merely curious about your current home's market value, you'll find answers at RealEstateJournal.com, a free site from The Wall Street Journal. It offers a complete online guide to buying, selling and maintaining a residential property, and includes 1.5 million active home listings, as well as content from many top real-estate information providers. Please take a minute to visit RealEstateJournal.com today. http://RealEstateJournal.com http://RealEstateJournal.com _____ >From time to time Dow Jones may send you e-mails with information about new features and special offers for selected Dow Jones products. If you do not wish to receive these emails in the future, you may visit http://opinionjournal.com/forms/email_acct.html. You can also unsubscribe at the same link. You can also review OpinionJournal's privacy policy at http://opinionjournal.com/about/privacy.html If you have been forwarded this email and wish to subscribe visit http://opinionjournal.com/forms/get_email_page.html. Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Published by Dow Jones & Co., Inc., U.S. Route 1 at Ridge Rd., South Brunswick, N.J. 08852 << File: ATT00011.html >> From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 2 19:00:19 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:00:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: [Fwd: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005] Message-ID: <01C51F17.06C0BA90.shovland@mindspring.com> I was amused to see the left described as "redistributionist." The right is also redistributionist. Only the direction is different. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:58 AM To: Steve Hovland Subject: [Fwd: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005] Here is a thought provoking piece. Steve, you have some real talents, and I wonder if you could help the Left formulate real programs instead of, as Soderberg does, just hoping Bush will fail. This is NOT the party of FDR, of Harry Truman, and clearly is not the party of JFK. They had a foreign policy vision. There is nothing on the left that is equivalent to the American Century project. Three years ago I was saying that the real reason to invade Iraq is to create a foothold for democracy in the middle east, and now it is happening. The Left needs a global vision that is not based on supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com and look at the discussions about the alliance between the left and radical islam). You could play a key role in helping your fellow leftists formulate some transcendent vision. The Right will need a stronger Left if America is to flourish, since power corrupts and it is vital to have dialog. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:11:06 -0500 From: OpinionJournal Reply-To: OpinionJournal To: botw at djoj.opinionjournal.com OpinionJournal Best of the Web Today - March 2, 2005 By JAMES TARANTO 'But as an American . . .' We hardly ever watch Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," but our TV happened to be tuned to it last night when erstwhile Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg, author of " The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-04 71656836.html " (foreword by Bill Clinton, blurb by Madeleine Albright) came on. We're not sure what possessed us to turn on the sound and watch, but we're glad we did, for it was a fascinating interview. Here's a TiVo-assisted transcript of most of it: *** QUOTE *** Stewart: This book--it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power--have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that-- Soderberg: That's right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we're the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they're finding in the second term is, it's a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding. Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily. Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something. Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them. Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings. Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole-- Stewart: This could be unbelievable! Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's-- Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's-- Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say. Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it. Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region. Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had-- Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow! Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is-- Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs? Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah. Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive? Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see. Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes. *** END QUOTE *** We've long been skeptical of Jon Stewart, but color us impressed. He managed to ambush this poor woman brutally, in a friendly interview. She was supposed to be promoting her book, and instead he got her to spend the entire interview debunking it (at least if we understood the book's thesis correctly from the very brief discussion of it up top). She also admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East. To be sure, this is not true of all Democrats, Soderberg speaks only for herself, and she says she is ambivalent ("But as an American . . ."). But we do not question her expertise in assessing the prevailing mentality of her own party. No wonder Dems get so defensive about their patriotism http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005545 . Interesting too is Stewart's acknowledgment of his own "cognitive dissonance" and "mixed feelings" over the Iraq liberation. It's a version of an argument we've been hearing a lot lately: As our Brendan Miniter http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110006355 puts it, "The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation." Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype. Bush, it turns out, is a supple-minded empiricist, while his opponents are rigid ideologues. Revolution Watch Two mostly Muslim ex-Soviet states may be joining the democratic revolution, reports the Times of London: "Western observers denounced Sunday's polls in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, although monitors from former Soviet states said that they were fair." In consonant-deprived Kyrgyzstan, opposition candidates allegedly won only three seats in the parliamentary vote. "Opposition supporters have begun protests to disrupt the second round of voting--to be held on March 13 in more than half of the constituencies. Many are calling for a 'tulip' or 'lemon' revolution comparable to Ukraine's Orange Revolution and the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003." In Tajikstan, where the ruling party supposedly won 80% of Sunday's vote, "a coalition of opposition parties is threatening to boycott the Government and parliament unless new elections are held, but is thought to be too weak to overturn the results." Hearts and Minds *** QUOTE *** "Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing--the hearts and minds of the people--and that is a battle we are not winning."-- Ted Kennedy http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=kennedy.senate.gov/ %7Ekennedy/statements/05/1/2005127703.html&d=7108E33F86&icp=1&.intl=us , Jan. 27 "Thousands of mostly black-clad Iraqis protested Tuesday outside a medical clinic where a suicide car bomber killed 125 people a day earlier, braving the threat of another attack as they waved clenched fists, condemned foreign fighters and chanted 'No to terrorism!' "-- Associated Press http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_re_mi_ ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480 , March 1 *** END QUOTE *** Interestingly, the text of Kennedy's infamous speech seems to have disappeared from his Web site; the above link is to the Yahoo cache. We guess it's a good sign that he no longer stands by the speech, but we'd think more highly of him if he actually owned up to his mistake. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment. Mike Godwin, Meet Robert Byrd http://www.senate.gov/%7Ebyrd/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2005_march/by rd_speeches_03012005.html Despite their diminishing numbers, Senate Democrats still seem determined to use a procedure called "cloture," whereby 41 senators can filibuster and prevent a vote, to prevent the Senate from acting on numerous judicial nominees who have the support of a Senate majority. Republicans are considering a change in the Senate rules to do away with the requirement for cloture in judicial nominations, a change Trent Lott infelicitously dubbed the "nuclear option." Yesterday Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, former Ku Klux Klansman and the Senate's longest-serving member, took to the floor to denounce the idea, in terms that were overheated to say the least: *** QUOTE *** We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men. But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that "Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact." And he succeeded. Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the state: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. . . . For the temporary gain of a handful of "out of the mainstream" judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each senator's right of extended debate. *** END QUOTE *** Byrd went on to extol the filibuster as a way in which "the minority can challenge, agitate, and question," and a measure that vindicates "the power of even a single individual through the device of extended debate." Of course, this is no longer true. Although once a single senator could block action through extended debate, today 60 can cut off debate and force a vote. It used to take a two-thirds vote, as Byrd should know from his own experience. Byrd's characterization of "extended debate" as a way to preserve minority rights is curious in light of his own history, which the Senate Web site http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibus ter_Ended.htm details: *** QUOTE *** At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate. . . . Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure. *** END QUOTE *** The final vote to end debate was 71-29, just four more than necessary to cut off debate. Nine days later the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act. So the device of extended debate--used by Byrd among others--was an important reason it took nearly a century after the ratification of the 14th Amendment for Congress to make good on the amendment's promise of equal protection for minorities. To say the least, Byrd would not seem the best spokesman for the filibuster as a means of vindicating minority rights. And what about this Hitler stuff? Is this another example of the paranoid style of politics? We suppose we could argue this either way. Certainly we've heard folks on the Angry Left invoke Nazi Germany in a paranoid vein, and it does fit with Richard Hofstadter http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/t he_paranoid_style.html 's characterization of the paranoid's mentality: "What is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil." On the other hand, sometimes the invocation of Hitler reflects mere intellectual laziness, not paranoia. And perhaps Byrd doesn't understand why comparing his domestic foes to Hitler is inappropriate. After all, the man is 87. Maybe he's just too old to remember the horrors of Nazi Germany. Fool and the Gang America-hating "ethnic studies" professor Ward Churchill finally managed to dodge disinvitation and give a speech on a college campus last night. The venue was the University of Wisconsin's Whitewater campus, and Churchill's hometown paper, the Rocky Mountain News, carried a prespeech report yesterday. Noteworthy are the contrasting responses of the College Republicans and the College Democrats: *** QUOTE *** The school's College Republicans are hosting a vigil this afternoon in honor of Sept. 11 victims outside the hall where Churchill will speak. "He's engaging in hate speech," said freshman Greg Torres. "If you want to stand and yell that stuff on a street corner, that's one thing. But this is no different than bringing in the Ku Klux Klan." . . . Also, just prior to Churchill's address, a student rally celebrating free speech--and Churchill's appearance--will take place on campus, sponsored by the College Democrats, the campus Green Party and the Whitewater United for Peace Party. *** END QUOTE *** Last month, as we noted http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006306#dean , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean demanded the resignation of a local Republican official who had called the Democrats the party of Lynne Stewart. Will he make a similar demand of the Whitewater College Democrats for calling them the party of Ward Churchill? Same Reporter, Different Kerfuffle A clarification is in order of a point in our Monday item http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006354 about the Valerie Plame kerfuffle and the New York Times. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is demanding the phone records of two Times reporters not in the Plame case but in a different investigation. Not Even Brian May? "Queen Doesn't Recognize Famous Guitarists"--headline, Associated Press, March 2 Spot the Idiot Yes, it's the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Daily Collegian again. Fish in a barrel, we know, but they keep writing 'em. This one is from Amelia Sabadini: *** QUOTE *** Is doing something like forcing a 42-year-old waitress who just accidentally got pregnant and already has two teenage kids, no husband, no health care and osteo-arthritis to carry to term worth sacrificing the safety and freedom of yourself and everyone you know? Do you really have such a need to stop two consenting adults from getting married just because you don't consider their relationship to be legitimate, proper or anything other than something you watch on cable after dark, that you're willing to risk a biblical execution (stoning, burning or hanging) over it? There's just no way to oppress someone without ultimately oppressing yourself as well. You can't have your self-righteous cake and the freedom to eat it in a relatively safe, sane democratic society too. *** END QUOTE *** An Automotive Fetality "A San Jose man may face manslaughter or murder charges after a hit-and-run crash involving a pregnant 15-year-old girl," reports the San Jose Mercury News; *** QUOTE *** The girl, who was a passenger in the car allegedly driven by Louis Vincent Brackett, 19, Friday evening, delivered a stillborn 31-week-old fetus Monday. . . . On Friday, Brackett was arrested and booked into Santa Clara County Jail on suspicion of felony drunken driving and felony hit-and-run. The district attorney's office is reviewing the case to determine whether Brackett should be charged with manslaughter or murder in the death of the fetus. *** END QUOTE *** We are getting very close now to pinpointing the exact moment when a fetus turns into a child. In last week's article about the karlrovian conspiracy http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006336#fetuses against Australian women, Greg Barns http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/213105_abortion23.html put it at somewhere between 22 and 32 weeks after conception: *** QUOTE *** Other groups, to support their case for a ban on late-term abortion, have taken to highlighting two rare and extreme cases in which a 32-week-old child with suspected dwarfism was aborted at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne and a 22-week-old fetus was aborted in the Northern Territory and lived for 80 minutes. *** END QUOTE *** Thanks to the San Jose Mercury News, we now know that a fetus is still just a fetus at 31 weeks, so the transformation into a baby occurs sometime in the 32nd week of pregnancy. Yet note that whereas according to Barns an Australian child can be "aborted," in California Brackett may be charged with "manslaughter" or "murder" for "killing" a mere fetus. We guess Australia just has a more enlightened attitude about reproductive rights. (Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to J.T. Kurth, Drew Anderson, Stephen Henry, Barak Moore, Betty Bliss, Samuel Walker, Ron Ackert, Tom Jackson, Tom Maguire, Jonathan Hutchinson, Thomas Dillon and Teresa Hanson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal at wsj.com , and please include the URL.) ~~~~~~~ Today on OpinionJournal: - Review & Outlook http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006361 : The Supreme Court continues its liberal social activism. - Gabriel Schoenfeld http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006359 : How is it that America's intelligence analysts don't recognize ham and think bin Laden is "gentle"? - Barrymore Laurence Scherer http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006360 : The West Point band plays more than Sousa marches. _____ ADVERTISEMENT Whether you're moving up, relocating, seeking a new neighborhood or merely curious about your current home's market value, you'll find answers at RealEstateJournal.com, a free site from The Wall Street Journal. It offers a complete online guide to buying, selling and maintaining a residential property, and includes 1.5 million active home listings, as well as content from many top real-estate information providers. Please take a minute to visit RealEstateJournal.com today. http://RealEstateJournal.com http://RealEstateJournal.com _____ >From time to time Dow Jones may send you e-mails with information about new features and special offers for selected Dow Jones products. If you do not wish to receive these emails in the future, you may visit http://opinionjournal.com/forms/email_acct.html. You can also unsubscribe at the same link. You can also review OpinionJournal's privacy policy at http://opinionjournal.com/about/privacy.html If you have been forwarded this email and wish to subscribe visit http://opinionjournal.com/forms/get_email_page.html. Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Published by Dow Jones & Co., Inc., U.S. Route 1 at Ridge Rd., South Brunswick, N.J. 08852 << File: ATT00011.html >> From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Mar 2 19:28:45 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> Message-ID: <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrewsa at newpaltz.edu Wed Mar 2 20:41:58 2005 From: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu (Alice Andrews) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:41:58 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <02dc01c51f68$48385b80$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> Hi. I have no idea what this means: I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. I have never and would never call for such a thing. It's ludicrous. I generally don't use these words on this list: 'liberal' etc, and rarely get political here. In fact, I'm not sure if i have ever used these terms on Paleo, though maybe. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? My only contribution to this discussion was to mention that Randy Nesse's book seemed an appropriate book for understanding why some people fear people who sit on fence, etc. I think Todd's comments re all this, btw, were right on. -Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Thrst4knw at aol.com ; andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com ; waluk at earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 20:43:38 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:43:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] framing In-Reply-To: <200503021919.j22JJYh00314@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>What the Left fails to see is that there needs to be some value and truth underlying the branding or the effort will fail. The Right currently argues that the Left has lost its way and is mindless and reactive.<< --Right. You have to hijack REAL values in order to make all that branding and framing seem moral and honest. Then you can say out of one side of your mouth "I have Christian values" and out of the other side of your mouth call your opponent names and trash their reputation. A real Christian would put an end to such tactics before they started. A phony one would use them covertly while appearing untainted in public. I.E. never call anyone a four letter word when you know the mic is on. As long as you have a golden tongue, nobody bothers to look at what your priorities actually are. Rhetoric becomes reality, while reality becomes a distraction. In the case of really good bipolar framing, any truth that makes you look bad is dismissed as propaganda by the other side. Ideally, your opponent will sink to your level and get caught calling you names and using fuzzy logic with polished rhetorical ornamentation. If Democrats use the techniques used in this cycle by Republicans, I truly hope they show genuinely Christlike behavior, and take the moral high ground. If they engage in the same machine-like lockstep namecalling and distortion, I'll feel even more alienated from the two party system. What I really want is something other than liberals and conservatives. People who have some values on each side of the fence and are willing to hammer out agreements so that everyone's core concerns are met. It would help a great deal if people had more direct input as to where their tax money goes, since the bipolar cycle is fuelled by resentment against taxation and government intrusion. Whichever side is angry, it's angry because it feels forced to contribute its money to a system which they feel doesn't have their interests at heart. And it becomes dangerous when that resentment against taxation bleeds over into other issues and colors them, prevents them from being made clear in discussion. When someone resents paying taxes, their views on social security might be just a little bit biased in the direction of ending rather than reforming it, and then rhetoric has to be "cleaned up" so it sounds like reform. Views on military strategy might be biased by an unacknowledged resentment over paying taxes to support military contractors. The issue of resentment over taxation should be illuminated and not used to fuel bias in other contexts, so that other issues can be dealt with on a more honest plane. Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 20:56:01 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization In-Reply-To: <200503021919.j22JJYh00314@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050302205601.11199.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth on cable news programming and the Internet is enough to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an independent economics expert, a civic-minded individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded front group? If you're having trouble keeping track of all the players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, among other pro-business groups. It shares its executive director Derrick Max and a number of its members with the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded lobbying group that recently changed its name to USANext. The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private investment accounts." To oversee the operation, USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the "spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been following. Progress for America, after raising $38 million last year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable television, including a spot that invokes the legacy of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed the legislation creating the retirement system," the Houston Chronicle reported. PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed $50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is also lobbying for Social Security privatization and expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's Social Security Project. "The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the Social Security proposal is a major victory for the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the existing Social Security system, a politically sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling for privatization of the system. The article argued that companies that stand to profit from privatization - 'the banks, insurance companies and other institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of 'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average workers and their families are not left penniless, out in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or edit any article in our collaborative database of people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of online citizen journalists, using their web research skills to expose the fake reporter and the White House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to ask the President a question. We do the same thing at SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections between corporate trade associations, astroturf groups, and the White House. Want to cover the newly minted website Generations Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles and for research using the Web, plus advise from experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front group. http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Mar 2 20:56:10 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:56:10 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> <02dc01c51f68$48385b80$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> Message-ID: <02b501c51f6a$44861700$9603f604@S0027397558> Alice, >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Since Todd included this in his email (below) I assumed you were author of the first paragraph, especially since you were also posted on this. If you weren't the speaker, any idea who was? And....if you clearly understand what Todd has to say, then could you kindly enlighten me why he mentions "moderates" and their refusal to commit? Regards, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: G. Reinhart-Waller Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Hi. I have no idea what this means: I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. I have never and would never call for such a thing. It's ludicrous. I generally don't use these words on this list: 'liberal' etc, and rarely get political here. In fact, I'm not sure if i have ever used these terms on Paleo, though maybe. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? My only contribution to this discussion was to mention that Randy Nesse's book seemed an appropriate book for understanding why some people fear people who sit on fence, etc. I think Todd's comments re all this, btw, were right on. -Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Thrst4knw at aol.com ; andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com ; waluk at earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrewsa at newpaltz.edu Thu Mar 3 00:07:47 2005 From: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu (Alice Andrews) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:07:47 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> <02dc01c51f68$48385b80$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> <02b501c51f6a$44861700$9603f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <088d01c51f85$23a9a900$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> Gerry, It appears from my search (though I could be wrong) that Michael is the author of the first paragraph and you are the author of the second paragraph. As for enlightening you about what Todd has to say, I'd rather leave that up to him. Though I am confused as to what you are not seeing here. It is a social psychological phenomenon which evolutionary theory helps to explain a bit better. One of the problems may be linguistic.When I wrote earlier that I thought your question to Michael's point might be found in evolutionary theories of commitment, I never invoked terms such as 'moderate'. I was merely answering why I thought some people might "reject people who cannot plop into either the liberal camp or the conservative camp." Moderates could be included in this group, perhaps, but they could also not be included in this group. I was referring to the class of people who were 'beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy'. And, in fact, I had in mind people who transcend and defy labels...who are sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, sometimes socialist, sometimes moderate, etc., depending on specifics/contexts, etc. I think people who are admixtures of political ideologies do tend to be viewed as threatening, as per Michael's and Todd's and my points. But okay...a moderate could also be viewed as 'a problem' for those who tend to be more black-and white in their thinking and more politically polarized, because in some ways it signals a lack of major commitment and passion and conviction of principle...(perhaps). I could get into it more, but this isn't a big interest of mine, so I think I'll leave it at that. Cheers, Alice ps These are just views of how others might view things and do not reflect how I personally view things. ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Alice Andrews Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Alice, >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Since Todd included this in his email (below) I assumed you were author of the first paragraph, especially since you were also posted on this. If you weren't the speaker, any idea who was? And....if you clearly understand what Todd has to say, then could you kindly enlighten me why he mentions "moderates" and their refusal to commit? Regards, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: G. Reinhart-Waller Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Hi. I have no idea what this means: I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. I have never and would never call for such a thing. It's ludicrous. I generally don't use these words on this list: 'liberal' etc, and rarely get political here. In fact, I'm not sure if i have ever used these terms on Paleo, though maybe. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? My only contribution to this discussion was to mention that Randy Nesse's book seemed an appropriate book for understanding why some people fear people who sit on fence, etc. I think Todd's comments re all this, btw, were right on. -Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Thrst4knw at aol.com ; andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com ; waluk at earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 3 00:57:12 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:57:12 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment References: <30.6d741d31.2f574863@aol.com> <01ec01c51f5e$0e82fee0$9603f604@S0027397558> <02dc01c51f68$48385b80$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> <02b501c51f6a$44861700$9603f604@S0027397558> <088d01c51f85$23a9a900$1af9ae44@CallaStudios> Message-ID: <046401c51f8b$f0cc8e60$9603f604@S0027397558> Alice, Yes, you are absolutely correct: Michael Christopher anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 16:19:00 MST 2005 is author of the post and the title is: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 It would be nice if Todd tries to explain what he means. As far as evolutionary-theory being able to explain a social psychological phenomenon, possibly the culprit is the theory itself. In common sense terminology, I can't understand what is being proposed. It would appear that the entire theoretical foundation has been turned upside down. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: G. Reinhart-Waller Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, It appears from my search (though I could be wrong) that Michael is the author of the first paragraph and you are the author of the second paragraph. As for enlightening you about what Todd has to say, I'd rather leave that up to him. Though I am confused as to what you are not seeing here. It is a social psychological phenomenon which evolutionary theory helps to explain a bit better. One of the problems may be linguistic.When I wrote earlier that I thought your question to Michael's point might be found in evolutionary theories of commitment, I never invoked terms such as 'moderate'. I was merely answering why I thought some people might "reject people who cannot plop into either the liberal camp or the conservative camp." Moderates could be included in this group, perhaps, but they could also not be included in this group. I was referring to the class of people who were 'beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy'. And, in fact, I had in mind people who transcend and defy labels...who are sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, sometimes socialist, sometimes moderate, etc., depending on specifics/contexts, etc. I think people who are admixtures of political ideologies do tend to be viewed as threatening, as per Michael's and Todd's and my points. But okay...a moderate could also be viewed as 'a problem' for those who tend to be more black-and white in their thinking and more politically polarized, because in some ways it signals a lack of major commitment and passion and conviction of principle...(perhaps). I could get into it more, but this isn't a big interest of mine, so I think I'll leave it at that. Cheers, Alice ps These are just views of how others might view things and do not reflect how I personally view things. ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Alice Andrews Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Alice, >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Since Todd included this in his email (below) I assumed you were author of the first paragraph, especially since you were also posted on this. If you weren't the speaker, any idea who was? And....if you clearly understand what Todd has to say, then could you kindly enlighten me why he mentions "moderates" and their refusal to commit? Regards, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: G. Reinhart-Waller Cc: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Hi. I have no idea what this means: I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. I have never and would never call for such a thing. It's ludicrous. I generally don't use these words on this list: 'liberal' etc, and rarely get political here. In fact, I'm not sure if i have ever used these terms on Paleo, though maybe. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? My only contribution to this discussion was to mention that Randy Nesse's book seemed an appropriate book for understanding why some people fear people who sit on fence, etc. I think Todd's comments re all this, btw, were right on. -Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: Thrst4knw at aol.com ; andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com ; waluk at earthlink.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Gerry, of the Alice & Gerry team, speaks. I still do not understand Alice's call for all to select either a liberal or conservative focus. The last time I checked was pre 2004 election and from what the officers at my polling place told me, I continued having the option to sign my voting preference as Independent. It's possible that in less than 3 or so months, policies have changed but I would find this fairly unusual since I've heard nothing nor have I been notified by mail. My reason for signing up as an Independent is because I saw very little difference in the platforms of Kerry vs. Bush, although I cast my ballot, as always, for the Democrats. By demanding that everyone takes an either, or position is a sure fire way of again CRACKING our nation into two warring factions. Commitment to marriage, especially when children are involved, is different from commitment to a particular political party. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Thrst4knw at aol.com To: andrewsa at newpaltz.edu ; waluk at earthlink.net ; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: ToddStark at aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] threat and signals of commitment Some thoughts about Alice and Gerry's email. I'm in agreement with Alice's thought, though I think the situation is greatly exacerbated by fear. Threat shuts down higher planning functions and the facilties that make measured evaluation possible, and leans us toward more hard-wired action schema. The need for action draws on our capacity to find salient patterns in massive amounts of noise very rapidly. Most of us have a deep revulsion to behavior in people around us who seem to be vacilating or entering reflective thought when action seems to be called for. We recognize that we can respond to threat with action or succomb. Under conditions of fear, it is very difficult to persuade anyone that what is needed is calm reflection. We pick up mostly on signals that show people are willing to commit to decisive action. Witness the sudden popularity of firemen and policemen following 9/11. The whole point of much political propaganda is to create this sense of threat so that people will pull toward these quick impressions, with the assumption that they are then more easily persuaded because this simplifies the decision process. If you instill fear, some people will become paralyzed, but many will fall back on instinctive moral realism and their decisions become much more predictable. This greatly facilitates group coordination. It happens naturally, but obviously can be exploited readily. Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed. Our idealized belief that wisdom lies somewhere in measured reflection and balancing different viewpoints quickly dissolves under conditions of perceived threat. We recognize the need for commitment to action (or signals of the capacity for commitment) in each other. This is often exploited in politics by confusing the capacity for commitment with commitment to particular causes. Does that make sense? It seems to me to explain a lot of our social behavior. kind regards, Todd In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, andrewsa at newpaltz.edu writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: paleopsych Digest, Vol 9, Issue 20 >> Someone beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomy may be rejected by both sides as a nuisance, a threat to shared assumptions that define a group against another. This is absolutely amazing! Why would any audience reject someone who cannot plop into either the liberal or conservative camp? Please explain the threat you feel is apparent. This I need to hear! Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 02:58:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:58:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: my day off Message-ID: <01C51F59.DF6E5EF0.shovland@mindspring.com> What is the Islamic radical position on National Health Care in the US? What do they think about our trade deficit? If the left is aligned with the jihadists then obviously Rumsfeld is aligned with the Baathists because we have a photograph of him with Hussein. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:39 PM To: Steve Hovland Subject: my day off Hey, steve, brush up on your definitions. Hee hee hee De facto: adjective: existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not (Example: "De facto segregation is as real as segration imposed by law") Anyway, I looked at your daily kos website. Pretty hateful stuff. I don't know a right wing site with quite so much hate speech, I was appalled. Bad form and all of that. I have been looking for a left wing equivalent to www.townhall.com or www.opinionjournal.com. I keep finding hate speech (which I view as mindless and therefore boring). What would you recommend? Opposite of fantasy. Steve Hovland wrote: >de facto = inferred = not factual = fantasy > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM >To: Steve Hovland >Subject: left/islam? > >Well, I need to read Horowitz' book myself. I read the Radical Son book, >and the man is meticulous about his citations. If he says there is an >alliance, particularly a de facto one, I would be inclined to give that >considerable weight. If you can read the book, I would be interested in >trading impressions with you. >Lynn > << File: ATT00002.html >> > > > > << File: ATT00004.html >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 3 03:25:33 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:25:33 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization In-Reply-To: <20050302205601.11199.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050302205601.11199.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <422683AD.3060203@solution-consulting.com> Michael, This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no light. What is your intention in publishing it? I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). Usual alternatives: 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke (hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume almost all of the federal budget. 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the 50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. 5. Michael's solution???? Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late 1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at any time, in any way. Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my children, can we get out of the corner we are in. I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any other solution. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >Privatization > >The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >independent economics expert, a civic-minded >individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >front group? > >If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >among other pro-business groups. It shares its >executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >lobbying group that recently changed its name to >USANext. > >The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >following. > >Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >the legislation creating the retirement system," the >Houston Chronicle reported. > >PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >Social Security Project. > >"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >existing Social Security system, a politically >sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >for privatization of the system. The article argued >that companies that stand to profit from privatization >- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" > >Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >workers and their families are not left penniless, out >in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >edit any article in our collaborative database of >people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. > >The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >online citizen journalists, using their web research >skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >between corporate trade associations, astroturf >groups, and the White House. > >Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? > >So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >and for research using the Web, plus advise from >experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >group. > >http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 3 04:19:48 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:19:48 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] framing In-Reply-To: <20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050302204338.58542.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42269064.1010406@solution-consulting.com> Michael, This was quite interesting, and I enjoyed trying to respond. I hope I don't further agitate you. I actually am seeking a real dialog. A few comments follow: Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>What the Left fails to see is that there needs to be >>> >>> >some value and truth underlying the branding or the >effort will fail. The Right currently argues that the >Left has lost its way and is mindless and reactive.<< > >--Right. You have to hijack REAL values in order to >make all that branding and framing seem moral and >honest. > This sentence doesn't make sense. The word "hijack" seems out of place in a discussion about branding and positioning. Perhaps I stirred up some anger in you, but I am reporting a very serious perception. The right now sees the left as idiots who don't know history. There is a good deal of discussion on the right about how the left has become a reactionary force, against all change. I actually am quite sympathetic about that view, as you see below. >Then you can say out of one side of your mouth >"I have Christian values" and out of the other side of >your mouth call your opponent names and trash their >reputation. A real Christian would put an end to such >tactics before they started. > I didn't see anyone saying "I have Christian values." I didn't see where anyone was trashing reputations. The idea about branding is to associate a service or product with an easy-to-remember word or image. It has to be positive, not negative. Paul the Apostle said, "I become all things to all people so that I may by some means bring some to Christ." The story in Acts about Mars Hill is a classic. You may already know that the KJV translation is completely wrong. "Ye men of Athens, I see that ye are too superstitious" Wrong. The Greek word for superstition and religion are the same. The context shows what Paul meant; he was complimenting the Greeks on their devotions. "Ye are very religious" is the right translation, and modern translations and foreign language translations I have read have that meaning. So Paul was positioning himself so that he'd be listened to. >A phony one would use >them covertly while appearing untainted in public. >I.E. never call anyone a four letter word when you >know the mic is on. > > Again, I don't understand the anger here. Christians are "men of passions" which again is an allusion to the book of Acts. As Paul says, we wish to do good and we do evil; we wish to avoid evil and we do good (Romans, around chapter 8). So a Christian might call someone a name, like Bush did during the first campaign about the NYT reporter. It is not right, and he should repent, and probably did. Christianity is for flawed people; perfect people don't need it. What is your point? >As long as you have a golden tongue, > who? Bush? Ha! >nobody bothers to >look at what your priorities actually are. Rhetoric >becomes reality, while reality becomes a distraction. > Actually I have thought this is exactly what is lacking in the Left. I read DailyKos today and was repelled by the reliance on rhetoric and the flimsy data. Perhaps I am wrong, but when I try to read Left sites, it seems they are full of heat, not light. I actually would like to see some good ideas from the Left, as I believe in dialog, but instead I see a lot of ad hominum and guilt-by-association stuff. I see some on the right, but when I read townhall.com, I see more reasoned arguments. >In the case of really good bipolar framing, any truth >that makes you look bad is dismissed as propaganda by >the other side. Ideally, your opponent will sink to >your level and get caught calling you names and using >fuzzy logic with polished rhetorical ornamentation. If >Democrats use the techniques used in this cycle by >Republicans, I truly hope they show genuinely >Christlike behavior, and take the moral high ground. >If they engage in the same machine-like lockstep >namecalling and distortion, I'll feel even more >alienated from the two party system. > > Again, I am not seeing the problem here. The Right has some ideas that they genuinely believe will help society, reduce unemployment, reduce poverty, empower individuals, and raise the standard of living. They try to make those ideas sound as appealing and positive as possible. The Democrats see Bush as a bad president, and hope for his failure. Check out today's opinion journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362 Rather good dialog on this. Please read Horowitz' Radical Son, where he talks toward the end of the book about how tolerant the right turned out to be of diversity, dissent, and dialog. He was astonished, since as a leftist he had always thought the opposite was true. Who specifically called whom a name? Who specifically is using fuzzy logic (which I thought was a type of artifical intelligence used in computers)? Please give me an example. >What I really want is something other than liberals >and conservatives. People who have some values on each >side of the fence and are willing to hammer out >agreements so that everyone's core concerns are met. > Many Republicans are moderates. I would suggest that the Democrats have driven many moderates out of their party, which I think has been a huge mistake. Zell Miller. Sam Nunn. JFK and Truman wouldn't fit in today's Democratic Party. I don't see how Harry Reid can be a Democrat, but he is at least trying to reduce the Democrat=Abortion linkage. >It would help a great deal if people had more direct >input as to where their tax money goes, since the >bipolar cycle is fuelled by resentment against >taxation and government intrusion. Whichever side is >angry, it's angry because it feels forced to >contribute its money to a system which they feel >doesn't have their interests at heart. > I actually just finished a book on anger - I mean, I wrote it - and I would differ here. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own emotional state. To blame it on outside forces is unreasonable and disempowering. Anger reduces one's ability to think - see Barbara Fredrickson's work at the U. Michigan. "If you can keep your head when all about you . . . " >And it becomes >dangerous when that resentment against taxation bleeds >over into other issues and colors them, prevents them >from being made clear in discussion. When someone >resents paying taxes, their views on social security >might be just a little bit biased in the direction of >ending rather than reforming it, and then rhetoric has >to be "cleaned up" so it sounds like reform. > Again, I don't follow. There is a serious demographic problem with social security. I don't hear anyone wanting to end it. >Views on >military strategy might be biased by an unacknowledged >resentment over paying taxes to support military >contractors. > Are you referring to the anti-war left? >The issue of resentment over taxation >should be illuminated and not used to fuel bias in >other contexts, so that other issues can be dealt with >on a more honest plane. > >Michael > > > > > >__________________________________ >Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! >Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web >http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 05:05:00 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 21:05:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C51F6B.7FADDE70.shovland@mindspring.com> You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are saying that. The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus increasing the size of the economy by increasing the velocity of money. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization Michael, This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no light. What is your intention in publishing it? I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). Usual alternatives: 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke (hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume almost all of the federal budget. 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the 50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. 5. Michael's solution???? Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late 1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at any time, in any way. Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my children, can we get out of the corner we are in. I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any other solution. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >Privatization > >The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >independent economics expert, a civic-minded >individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >front group? > >If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >among other pro-business groups. It shares its >executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >lobbying group that recently changed its name to >USANext. > >The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >following. > >Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >the legislation creating the retirement system," the >Houston Chronicle reported. > >PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >Social Security Project. > >"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >existing Social Security system, a politically >sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >for privatization of the system. The article argued >that companies that stand to profit from privatization >- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" > >Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >workers and their families are not left penniless, out >in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >edit any article in our collaborative database of >people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. > >The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >online citizen journalists, using their web research >skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >between corporate trade associations, astroturf >groups, and the White House. > >Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? > >So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >and for research using the Web, plus advise from >experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >group. > >http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 06:15:19 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:15:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> I looked up the definition of hate speech, and yes, many of us on the left do practice hate speech against him. Unapologetically. We hate him from the very core of our DNA, and I think it is because we sense that he is harming our collective interests. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Thu Mar 3 10:29:56 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:29:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush In-Reply-To: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: This is further evidence that politics has become part of the entertainment industry. There is no more difference among politicians and football teams than between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. On 2005-03-02, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]: > Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:15:19 -0800 > From: Steve Hovland > Reply-To: The new improved paleopsych list > To: "paleopsych at paleopsych. org (E-mail)" > Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush > > I looked up the definition of hate speech, > and yes, many of us on the left do practice > hate speech against him. > > Unapologetically. > > We hate him from the very core of our DNA, > and I think it is because we sense that he > is harming our collective interests. From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 3 11:42:13 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 03:42:13 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] New Poll Finds Bush Priorities Are Out of Step With Americans Message-ID: <01C51FA2.FD8768C0.shovland@mindspring.com> By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER Published: March 3, 2005 Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. rest of article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/politics/03poll.html?th Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 3 14:58:14 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 07:58:14 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush In-Reply-To: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42272606.90305@solution-consulting.com> You know, some hated Clinton also, and some hated Reagan, and lots of people still hate Carter. It is silly. Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at Barbara Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the treatment. Perhaps there is a better way. Steve Hovland wrote: >I looked up the definition of hate speech, >and yes, many of us on the left do practice >hate speech against him. > >Unapologetically. > >We hate him from the very core of our DNA, >and I think it is because we sense that he >is harming our collective interests. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 3 21:00:45 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:00:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> <42272606.90305@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <014301c52034$12eedf40$6e00f604@S0027397558> Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. writes: > Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at Barbara > Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, > mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the > treatment. Not only does hate speech reduce your IQ it turns you into a bumbling idiot. Politically the extreme Left and extreme Right meld on the other side of the circle with their bigotry and irrational banter. They hate with equal intensity....the only difference being the object of their wrath. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 22:39:03 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:39:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] slandering the Left In-Reply-To: <200503031915.j23JFPB27818@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303223903.42161.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>The Left needs a global vision that is not based on supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com and look at the discussions about the alliance between the left and radical islam).<< --Whoa... what percentage of the Left (does that include prominent Democrats?) supports radical Islam or Baathists?? Sounds like an ad hominem, strawman and outright slander to me. Unless by "The Left" you mean some fringe leftist group not affiliated with the Democrats or Greens. If so, you should clarify that. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 22:43:15 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:43:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity In-Reply-To: <200503031915.j23JFPB27818@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303224315.92496.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Todd says: >>Under these conditions, "moderates" are viewed with particularly deep suspicion by everyone else, because they don't seem to be willing or able to commit to action when needed.<< --It's because they don't position themselves squarely within the group, and may therefore expose things the group doesn't want exposed, such as the common rift between rhetoric and behavior. Only those who are bonded to the group will overlook cognitive dissonance between what the group stands for and what it actually does. In intense polar conflicts, both sides will usually develop a significant amount of dissonance between ideals and actions. Us/Them games typically punish people who are too honest. In any polar system, there will be guilt on both sides because both will cut corners in order to win. "Fence-sitters" are traitors by default, including women or gays who penetrate all-male groups and don't bond over shared mischief. They are always viewed with suspicion. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 22:45:00 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:45:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] guilt by association In-Reply-To: <200503031915.j23JFPB27818@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303224501.10860.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis.<< --I find that statement rather astonishing, given you also posted something linking the Left (very non-specific, implies anyone left of center) with Baathists and radical Islam. Pot, meet kettle? Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 23:11:08 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:11:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] bias In-Reply-To: <200503031915.j23JFPB27818@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050303231108.2197.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>The right now sees the left as idiots who don't know history.<< --I hope you don't think in such shallow, simplistic and venomous terms. >>I didn't see anyone saying "I have Christian values." I didn't see where anyone was trashing reputations. The idea about branding is to associate a service or product with an easy-to-remember word or image. It has to be positive, not negative.<< --You didn't see anyone trashing Kerry, or liberals in general? Perhaps you have one of those filters that allows you to notice only when your guy is being trashed? Do you really think there was no effort made to associate Bush with Christianity? I find that hard to believe. It's like saying Democrats make no effort to appeal to labor, that they just naturally speak the language. Branding can indeed be negative. Some advertisements use that technique, specifically "un-branding" a rival product. Politicians use it very deliberately and systematically, as do propagandists on either side, from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore. >>Paul the Apostle said, "I become all things to all people so that I may by some means bring some to Christ."<< --Yes, he was what is now described as a "social chameleon". Similar to corporate PR people who learn all they can about various subcultures (hiphop, for example) and then use the language of the group to associate their product to the values and ideals of the group. Not to suggest Paul was "selling" Christianity in a cynical way. I'm sure he believed in his product. >>So a Christian might call someone a name, like Bush did during the first campaign about the NYT reporter. It is not right, and he should repent, and probably did.<< --How do you know he probably did? I'm certain he repented of saying it on mic. I have no idea whether he repented of the actual sentiment. Should it be assumed that outspoken Christians have "repented" of their sins, while non-Christians have not? Seems like a bit of an unlevel playing field if that's the case. Bill Clinton is a Christian, and a lot of Conservatives seem convinced he never sincerely repented. I'd hate to think that kind of judgment is political and not spiritually motivated. >>Perhaps I am wrong, but when I try to read Left sites, it seems they are full of heat, not light.<< --Which sites, specifically? I could easily find Right-leaning sites to match the tone of any Left-leaning site you can find. There are passionate but ignorant people on both sides, for example the astonishingly large number of Republican voters who still think Saddam was involved in 911 or that the 911 hijackers were Iraqis. I don't like misinformation, regardless of who spreads it. I've seen both sides use email rumors to slander the other side. Fact-checkers are always needed. >>Please read Horowitz' Radical Son, where he talks toward the end of the book about how tolerant the right turned out to be of diversity, dissent, and dialog. He was astonished, since as a leftist he had always thought the opposite was true.<< --If you walk into ANY group and treat them in a decent way, they will usually treat you just as decently, even if your politics differ. Conversely, it's easy to get people to associate bad personal behavior with political or religious beliefs, as when a Christian, Muslim, environmentalist, feminist (etc) gets judgmental and soap-boxy and is rejected by a group which then goes on to say "Environmentalists/feminists/Christians/whatever are always acting like that, they have no manners". Those who agree with the group politically but act just as obnoxiously are categorized differently. In that case, the political belief does not get associated with the behavior. So you end up with Muslims thinking all Christians are hypocrites, Christians thinking all environmentalists are hypocrites, etc. Each group is associating bad behavior with the opposite political belief, and the fallacy is rarely noticed by the group. >>Many Republicans are moderates. I would suggest that the Democrats have driven many moderates out of their party, which I think has been a huge mistake. Zell Miller. Sam Nunn. JFK and Truman wouldn't fit in today's Democratic Party.<< --I'd say a number of Republican moderates are being alienated by their party. Are you REALLY calling Zell Miller a moderate?? >>Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own emotional state.<< --I agree. Blaming video games, music, movies, porn or drugs for people's emotional state erodes personal responsibility. I've seen members of both parties blame one or more of the above for various social ills. >>Views on military strategy might be biased by an unacknowledged resentment over paying taxes to support military contractors. Are you referring to the anti-war left?<< --Either the anti-war Left, or the part of the Left that is not anti-war but believes war is being waged in a sloppy, amoral or unintelligent way. Or moderates who worry about military contractors becoming part of the policy loop, leading to conflicts of interest. It would, of course, be a fallacy to portray everyone who feels a particular war is being waged wrongly as "anti-war". A number of Republicans were skeptical of Clinton's use of troops, for example. They were not anti-war, just not happy with Clinton's particular actions. Of course, it makes political sense for each party to lump the other party in with its most extreme element, so Republicans will be portrayed as religious zealots who want to dismantle government programs for the poor and set off Armageddon, and Democrats will be portrayed as socialists who are naive about war and want to burn Bibles. Neither perception is correct, but they're both pretty common. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Fri Mar 4 02:11:02 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:11:02 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hoist the left on its own petard In-Reply-To: <20050303223903.42161.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050303223903.42161.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4227C3B6.1090801@solution-consulting.com> Michael, This is a strong point you make, but irrelevant to my question. I do want to understand how the left justifies ignoring the Social Security issue. But to your point: There appears to be a de facto alliance formed between the radical left - read, anti-capitalist "progressives"- and radical Islam. Here is Horowitz' column on it last September, meticulously documented, as is his wont. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15221 this is not a comprehensive piece, but it hits some of the points. The book details it comprehensively. It suggests the alliance is fairly widespread, not limited to extremists. I would like to have a liberal view of the specific points in the book. If Horowitz is onto something, it bodes ill for the left, something I do not want. Another less serious example is from Best of the Web (Wall Street Journal) yesterday: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362 Read the transcription of Jon Stewart's interview of Nancy Soderberg. Taranto's editorial comments are funny, but read carefully the angst in Soderberg's view of democracy in the middle east. My point, which is probably poorly made or else you wouldn't misunderstand it, is that there is a developing tragedy here. The left seems stale, irrelevant, and preaching to its own choir. Nationally people do not apply the label "liberal" to themselves. Notice that Hillary Clinton has been consistently supportive of the war. She is no fool. She wants a presidential race and she knows that she can't play the defense dove like Kerry and still win. But too many Democrats fail to see what she sees, the nation has moved to the right and she has to position herself in the center to have a chance to lead. Where are the exciting new ideas of how to improve lives at home and abroad? In the past, there were some strong defense hawks - such as John F. Kennedy - who were quite at home in the Democratic party. There were interesting ideas. The domestic agenda of LBJ turned out to be a waste, I suppose, but in some ways it fueled a good development, namely the 1996 alliance between the Republican legislature and Bill Clinton which reformed welfare and improved the lives of so many. But now I don't hear anything but obstructionism. Hence my puzzle: Why the reliance on raw emotion instead of a reasoned approach to social security? Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>The Left needs a global vision that is not based on >>> >>> >supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com >and look at the discussions about the alliance between >the left and radical islam).<< > >--Whoa... what percentage of the Left (does that >include prominent Democrats?) supports radical Islam >or Baathists?? > >Sounds like an ad hominem, strawman and outright >slander to me. Unless by "The Left" you mean some >fringe leftist group not affiliated with the Democrats >or Greens. If so, you should clarify that. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 4 02:29:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:29:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C5201E.FC42C870.shovland@mindspring.com> During the first Bush term I ultimately found that he raised my satire IQ. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 6:58 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush You know, some hated Clinton also, and some hated Reagan, and lots of people still hate Carter. It is silly. Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at Barbara Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the treatment. Perhaps there is a better way. Steve Hovland wrote: >I looked up the definition of hate speech, >and yes, many of us on the left do practice >hate speech against him. > >Unapologetically. > >We hate him from the very core of our DNA, >and I think it is because we sense that he >is harming our collective interests. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 4 02:31:27 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:31:27 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C5201F.3706BA70.shovland@mindspring.com> Unconscious emotions of any kind can reduce your operational intelligence. When you know what you feel you can tap any emotion as a source of power. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:01 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. writes: > Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at Barbara > Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, > mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the > treatment. Not only does hate speech reduce your IQ it turns you into a bumbling idiot. Politically the extreme Left and extreme Right meld on the other side of the circle with their bigotry and irrational banter. They hate with equal intensity....the only difference being the object of their wrath. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 4 02:40:14 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:40:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hoist the left on its own petard Message-ID: <01C52020.710A4D30.shovland@mindspring.com> The left is justified in minimizing the Social Security issue because the Congressional Budget Office says the system can continue to pay the current level of benefits until 2052. Rumsfeld had a relationship with Hussein. Now he is a Neo-Con. Therefore the Neo-Cons are allied with the Baathists. There are an increasing number of people who proudly identify themselves as liberals. You may not see us on the news, but we are here, we are speaking up, and we on the attack. Hillary is irrelevant. She was sucked in by Bush and now, like every other Democrat who voted to abdicate the Congressional power to declare war, she has no future beyond her current position. She will be lucky if she doesn't lose to an anti-war candidate. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 6:11 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Hoist the left on its own petard Michael, This is a strong point you make, but irrelevant to my question. I do want to understand how the left justifies ignoring the Social Security issue. But to your point: There appears to be a de facto alliance formed between the radical left - read, anti-capitalist "progressives"- and radical Islam. Here is Horowitz' column on it last September, meticulously documented, as is his wont. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15221 this is not a comprehensive piece, but it hits some of the points. The book details it comprehensively. It suggests the alliance is fairly widespread, not limited to extremists. I would like to have a liberal view of the specific points in the book. If Horowitz is onto something, it bodes ill for the left, something I do not want. Another less serious example is from Best of the Web (Wall Street Journal) yesterday: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362 Read the transcription of Jon Stewart's interview of Nancy Soderberg. Taranto's editorial comments are funny, but read carefully the angst in Soderberg's view of democracy in the middle east. My point, which is probably poorly made or else you wouldn't misunderstand it, is that there is a developing tragedy here. The left seems stale, irrelevant, and preaching to its own choir. Nationally people do not apply the label "liberal" to themselves. Notice that Hillary Clinton has been consistently supportive of the war. She is no fool. She wants a presidential race and she knows that she can't play the defense dove like Kerry and still win. But too many Democrats fail to see what she sees, the nation has moved to the right and she has to position herself in the center to have a chance to lead. Where are the exciting new ideas of how to improve lives at home and abroad? In the past, there were some strong defense hawks - such as John F. Kennedy - who were quite at home in the Democratic party. There were interesting ideas. The domestic agenda of LBJ turned out to be a waste, I suppose, but in some ways it fueled a good development, namely the 1996 alliance between the Republican legislature and Bill Clinton which reformed welfare and improved the lives of so many. But now I don't hear anything but obstructionism. Hence my puzzle: Why the reliance on raw emotion instead of a reasoned approach to social security? Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>The Left needs a global vision that is not based on >>> >>> >supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com >and look at the discussions about the alliance between >the left and radical islam).<< > >--Whoa... what percentage of the Left (does that >include prominent Democrats?) supports radical Islam >or Baathists?? > >Sounds like an ad hominem, strawman and outright >slander to me. Unless by "The Left" you mean some >fringe leftist group not affiliated with the Democrats >or Greens. If so, you should clarify that. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00035.html >> << File: ATT00036.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Fri Mar 4 02:43:42 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:43:42 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] and now for something completely different Message-ID: <4227CB5E.3000809@solution-consulting.com> Have you all seen this: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ fabulous! From paul.werbos at verizon.net Fri Mar 4 12:42:59 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 07:42:59 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] and now for something completely different In-Reply-To: <4227CB5E.3000809@solution-consulting.com> References: <4227CB5E.3000809@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050304073728.01dec118@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:43 PM 3/3/2005, Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: >Have you all seen this: >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ > >fabulous! Hi, Lynn! I just scanned it, since there is an important area of mathematics I needed to become more updated with -- the qualitative theory of partial differential equation systems. This is a well-recognized area in math; Walter A. Strauss of Brown University, one of its most important players, is editor-in-chief of one of the journals, and so on. But the entire area does not show up at all on the Mathematica site. All I found was a listing of a few methods for analytical solution. (When I searched under partial differential equations.) A bit odd, since the Mathematica people really should be aware of the basics of the new world we live in (where analytical solutions have value, but a combination of qualitative proofs and numerical methods are what the world really depends upon, in everything from engineering to quantum foundations). Have a few related thoughts, but this is enough for now. Back to the job. Best, Paul >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 4 18:53:35 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:53:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C5201F.3706BA70.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <010c01c520eb$79bc3cb0$2303f604@S0027397558> Which IQ better registers on SAT or ACT.....Satire IQ or general IQ? Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 6:31 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush > Unconscious emotions of any kind can > reduce your operational intelligence. > > When you know what you feel you can > tap any emotion as a source of power. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:01 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed > against Bush > > Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. writes: > >> Hate and anger reduce your IQ. Again, look at >> Barbara >> Fredrickson's research. If you want to be narrow, >> mindless, and irrational, hate will be just the >> treatment. > > Not only does hate speech reduce your IQ it turns you > into a bumbling idiot. Politically the extreme Left > and extreme Right meld on the other side of the > circle > with their bigotry and irrational banter. They hate > with equal intensity....the only difference being the > object of their wrath. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 4 18:57:34 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:57:34 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C51F75.527C9C20.shovland@mindspring.com> <42272606.90305@solution-consulting.com> <014301c52034$12eedf40$6e00f604@S0027397558> <4227CA78.3020707@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <011c01c520ec$07d64220$2303f604@S0027397558> Lynn writes: > Gerry's comment (thanks!) reminds me of an old > political science prof who saw political ideologies > as a circle. At the top, are authoritarian > governments, with communism on the left side of the > vertical axis, and fascism on the right. They are > mirror images, isomorphic. The closer we are, the > more we hate. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that old polysci prof was likely talking about a pyramid (top with vertical axis) rather than a circle. Gerry Reinhart-Waller From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 19:50:06 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:50:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and bias In-Reply-To: <200503041918.j24JIkB23839@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050304195006.54678.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Gerry says: >>Not only does hate speech reduce your IQ it turns you into a bumbling idiot.<< --Indeed it does. Not because it alters intellect, but because it limits the ability to apply intellect to polarized contexts. So a person who is perfectly capable of playing a good chess game may become, as you say, a bumbling idiot in a context where people are flinging stereotypes, strawman and other ad hominem attacks. Herd magnetism is strong, whichever side of the fence you're on, and few can resist the political correctness that says "all the extremists are on THEIR side, while we are reasonable and sane." The idea that PC exists in liberal academia and Hollywood alone is nonsense. It's universal, and nobody can see it on their side because the brain categorizes ideas along with people, compartmentalizing ideas and issues artificially to match social divisions. So it's no longer "I support issue X" but "I have values". Attaching a party to abstract virtues (the capital letter ones like Freedom, Justice, Patriotism, Faith) is insane. It's a confusion between the map (language) and the territory (complex social, political and economic realities). Instead of saying "I believe policy X will have a beneficial effect on the system" people can say "I support values and freedom, therefore you must agree with policy X or you're against cherished ideals". They don't say it that openly, of course. I wish they would. >>Politically the extreme Left and extreme Right meld on the other side of the circle with their bigotry and irrational banter. They hate with equal intensity....the only difference being the object of their wrath.<< --Well said. And it's easy for any party to portray the other by association with their extremists, while discounting extremists on its own side. Examples: "Christians who are pushy, bullying or violent aren't REAL Christians. It's the environmentalists and academics who are extreme." "Real liberals don't bully people into conforming. It's religion that does that." "The real terrorists are the US and Israel. Palestinians who resort to suicide bombings are only reacting to the occupation." "Islam is oppressive and violent. Just look at its history. Empires under Chrsitianity weren't really Christian, so it's unfair to saddle Christianity with a violent history." "Environmentalists manipulate science to fit their bias. Corporate-funded scientists may show bias once in a while, but not like environmentalists." Such statements, either expressed or implied, are painfully common. It's a manipulation of the brain's filtering mechanisms which categorize exceptions to rules differently depending on whether the exception sides with one's own group or belief, or an alien group or belief. Because of that schism in the brain, we are somewhat schizophrenic as a culture in how we organize and respond to issues (legal and illegal drugs being classified according to social acceptability rather than their health effects is one example). We can say with a straight face, "Marijuana should be banned, it causes disease. But anti-tobacco laws are unfair and hurt restaurant and bar owners." Or "Gay marriage would erode the foundation of civilization, the family. Global warming is mere hysteria, based on inaccurate modeling of events." Different standards are applied in different categories, and the distinguishing factor is not reason but affiliation and loyalty to a group perception. So logic can be skewed beyond recognition in order to fit the prevailing political reality. The only way to be beyond all that is to not take money or gifts from any group or industry you're supposed to be regulating or balancing with other interests, and not to have exclusive affiliation (friendships, business partnerships etc) with one group over another. Few people have an equal number of liberal and conservative friends, few people are powerful in politics without being indebted to special interest groups (executives and labor unions being one fixture in the 2-party system). Cialdini mentions reciprocity as one of the "click-whirr" responses, and says it's unreasonable to think people in power can receive gifts from groups affected by policy shifts and not be influenced. Yet it's common for people to say "Sure, I worked for X, or took money from Y, but that's not going to change how I make policy decisions". As the President once said, you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps, and in my opinion, leaders should be people with no prior affiliation or loyalty to interest groups in a polarized system. We need people who can stand on their own feet, and who have nothing to gain by favoring one interest group above others. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 4 20:20:40 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:20:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] party bias In-Reply-To: <200503041918.j24JIkB23839@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050304202040.85419.qmail@web30809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>This is a strong point you make, but irrelevant to my question. I do want to understand how the left justifies ignoring the Social Security issue.<< --I'm not sure the Left does ignore Social Security. They seem to just believe that there are better ways to save it than privatization. Some would argue that conservatives ignore the trade deficit or national debt. Similar argument. >>But to your point: There appears to be a de facto alliance formed between the radical left - read, anti-capitalist "progressives"- and radical Islam.<< --Progressives aren't anti-capitalist, by definition. I don't think I've ever met a socialist who was happy with the Democratic party, and I don't think I've met anyone who supported radical Islam among the American Left. Granted, I'm just one person and can only speak from a limited number of contacts, but I think you were unfairly broad in your characterization of the Left. You just modified it to "radical left" which is more specific and less inaccurate. But I still haven't met a single radical Leftist, and I've known a few, who supported radical Islam. At worst they ignored the issue of fascism within the radical Islamic world, or portrayed the US as a terrorist nation. The latter is a rare view among Democrats, regardless of the Right's tendency to resort to such an ad hominem stereotype. It's unfair, "bearing false witness against your neighbor" to use the Biblical phrase. The association between non-profit organizations (a pretty broad category) and groups which siphon money to terrorists is incredibly shallow on Horowitz's part. To imply that groups which oppose aspects of the Patriot act are somehow in bed with terrorists is wrong, logically and morally. At worst, accuse them of being naive about the need to circumvent due process in times of emergency. That point is debatable, but less extreme as an ad hominem argument. It is, of course, reasonable to debate whether our society's freedoms make us vulnerable. That is not the same as arguing that people who side with freedom over security (or who believe that compromise is a false dichotomy) are in alliance with terrorists. You may accuse liberals of allowing freedom to take precedence, and in some cases you'll be right. But don't accuse them of things they're not actually doing. >>It suggests the alliance is fairly widespread, not limited to extremists.<< --That's like associating conservatives with radical Reconstructionist Christians who want the death penalty for gays. It's a few steps beyond reason, into deliberate smearing. >>I would like to have a liberal view of the specific points in the book. If Horowitz is onto something, it bodes ill for the left, something I do not want.<< --I'm not about to pay money for it, and I'm not sure I can categorize myself as a "liberal". My views are a mixture of pragmatism (including pragmatic use of military force) and social liberalism (I have no problem with gay marriage or marijuana decriminalization, and oppose strict anti-tobacco laws when they interfere with the rights of restaurant owners). So I probably can't help you with a "liberal's view". I'm pretty progressive, and I don't mind that label. >>The left seems stale, irrelevant, and preaching to its own choir.<< --That I agree with. I am not a traditional Leftist, by any means. But most of the people I meet on the Left aren't either. The marketing strategy of the Left, and that of Democrats, has been pretty lame, no argument there. >>Notice that Hillary Clinton has been consistently supportive of the war. She is no fool.<< --Yes, she is quite conservative at times. Hardly a liberal pacifist. >>She wants a presidential race and she knows that she can't play the defense dove like Kerry and still win.<< --Did Kerry say something "dovish" that I missed? I thought he supported the war too, and only disagreed with the way it was carried out, with holes in diplomacy, and with the lack of accountability over bad use of intelligence. None of those are "dove" issues, there are plenty of hard-headed military pragmatists who think Bush has made serious errors, and that in no way puts them in the pacifist category. I believe Dean was anti-war, if I remember properly (I wasn't paying that much attention to the primaries). Kerry was not. But if Kerry said something reminiscent of Gandhian nonviolence, let me know. >>But too many Democrats fail to see what she sees, the nation has moved to the right and she has to position herself in the center to have a chance to lead.<< --I think the anti-liberal phase is a pendulum shift, and that it has already peaked. We'll see in the next few elections and in the national debate over social, economic and military progress. Democrats did indeed fail to see what the Right saw. I think the Right is missing a few things as well. >>Where are the exciting new ideas of how to improve lives at home and abroad?<< --Amen to that. Neither party has impressed me. >>In the past, there were some strong defense hawks - such as John F. Kennedy - who were quite at home in the Democratic party.<< --Still are. Hillary hasn't been hurt by her hawkish stance. Clinton was accused by some Republicans of "wagging the dog", i.e. being too quick to go to war to distract the public. Dean lost the primaries. I don't see Kucinich being hailed as the voice of the Democratic party. As far as I can tell, the doves are marginalized. >>But now I don't hear anything but obstructionism. Hence my puzzle: Why the reliance on raw emotion instead of a reasoned approach to social security?<< --I'm not sure you can fairly accuse the Democratic party of being the only party to appeal to raw emotion. I'm also not sure you can call it "obstructionism" to be opposed to policies you feel would harm the country. There is room for debate on whether privatization would be beneficial, and if so, beneficial to whom. But accusing Democrats of appealing to fear makes no sense when the GOP is using a catastrophic argument to support its position. I don't know if social security is doomed or not as it stands, but it does seem a bit skewed to say Democrats are the ones appealing to raw emotion. A few Democratic wonks might play on the idea that greedy Wall Street bankers will benefit while playing up the risk of investing in private accounts. But I could point to several equally emotional arguments on the Right, and the idea that Democrats rely more on emotional appeals doesn't hold up for me, being neither a Republican nor a Democrat. michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 5 01:40:01 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:40:01 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C520E1.32267A00.shovland@mindspring.com> I would certainly agree that the Bushies have more in common with Bin Laden than they do with me :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:58 AM To: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Lynn writes: > Gerry's comment (thanks!) reminds me of an old > political science prof who saw political ideologies > as a circle. At the top, are authoritarian > governments, with communism on the left side of the > vertical axis, and fascism on the right. They are > mirror images, isomorphic. The closer we are, the > more we hate. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that old polysci prof was likely talking about a pyramid (top with vertical axis) rather than a circle. Gerry Reinhart-Waller _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 5 03:57:53 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:57:53 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C520E1.32267A00.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <049b01c52137$a8b5ece0$2303f604@S0027397558> Sorry to have to say this Steve but what you are presenting is absolutely absurd. I can also agree that the Bushies are linked arm in arm with Mephistopheles. Just because I make the statement doesn't mean it is true. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:40 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush >I would certainly agree that the Bushies > have more in common with Bin Laden > than they do with me :-) > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:58 AM > To: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. > Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed > against Bush > > > Lynn writes: > >> Gerry's comment (thanks!) reminds me of an old >> political science prof who saw political ideologies >> as a circle. At the top, are authoritarian >> governments, with communism on the left side of the >> vertical axis, and fascism on the right. They are >> mirror images, isomorphic. The closer we are, the >> more we hate. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong but that old polysci > prof was likely talking about a pyramid (top with > vertical axis) rather than a circle. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 5 05:30:30 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:30:30 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C52101.64CEDE50.shovland@mindspring.com> They are both world class power and money players. The Bush's have a documented business relationship with the Bin Ladens going back decades. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:58 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Sorry to have to say this Steve but what you are presenting is absolutely absurd. I can also agree that the Bushies are linked arm in arm with Mephistopheles. Just because I make the statement doesn't mean it is true. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:40 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush >I would certainly agree that the Bushies > have more in common with Bin Laden > than they do with me :-) > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:58 AM > To: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. > Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed > against Bush > > > Lynn writes: > >> Gerry's comment (thanks!) reminds me of an old >> political science prof who saw political ideologies >> as a circle. At the top, are authoritarian >> governments, with communism on the left side of the >> vertical axis, and fascism on the right. They are >> mirror images, isomorphic. The closer we are, the >> more we hate. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong but that old polysci > prof was likely talking about a pyramid (top with > vertical axis) rather than a circle. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 5 16:49:21 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:49:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush References: <01C52101.64CEDE50.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <007f01c521a3$496a0d40$3503f604@S0027397558> The bin Ladens are a huge family. It is my understanding that the Bushes involvement is not with Osama bin Laden but with other members of his Saudi family. Simply because Osama bin Laden is a villain doesn't make all members of his family evil. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:30 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush > They are both world class power and money players. > > The Bush's have a documented business relationship > with the Bin Ladens going back decades. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 5 17:47:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:47:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The Birth Debt Message-ID: <01C52168.654A4A10.shovland@mindspring.com> Every baby born in America is deeply in debt at the moment of birth. The Republicans want to increase this by borrowing trillions of dollars to finance their plan to privatize our retirement. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Mar 5 21:23:05 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:23:05 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush In-Reply-To: <01C52101.64CEDE50.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52101.64CEDE50.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <422A2339.6060503@solution-consulting.com> Daniel Shorr says: >The movements for democratic change in Egypt and Lebanon have happened since the successful Iraqi election on Jan. 30. And one can speculate on whether Iraq has served as a beacon for democratic change in the Middle East. >During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that "a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region." >He may have had it right. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 5 22:52:37 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:52:37 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Message-ID: <01C52192.F99B6620.shovland@mindspring.com> I think the "liberation" of Iraq shows how easy it is to turn a disaster into a slaughterhouse. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 1:23 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Hate speech directed against Bush Daniel Shorr says: >The movements for democratic change in Egypt and Lebanon have happened since the successful Iraqi election on Jan. 30. And one can speculate on whether Iraq has served as a beacon for democratic change in the Middle East. >During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that "a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region." >He may have had it right. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 6 01:13:45 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:13:45 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization In-Reply-To: <01C51F6B.7FADDE70.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C51F6B.7FADDE70.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <422A5949.9080606@solution-consulting.com> Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose IQ points. Steve Hovland wrote: >You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. > Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been re-evaluating my views on him lately.) Quote: http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to manage, we are going to need an alternative." "I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do believe that relatively small increases are not something that would concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, there are other alternatives. For example: * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security. * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. End Quote > >What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >saying that. > > Senator Rick Santorum: When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In 1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional $600 billion. Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current and previous generations. http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard choices. Each year the problems get worse. >The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >increasing the size of the economy by increasing >the velocity of money. > > "I don't think that word means what you think it means." -- The Princess Bride You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by 2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan view, see http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the citations. That is vital. I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want to know about it. At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't happen. I was wrong. His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We will see. Lynn >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization > >Michael, >This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >light. What is your intention in publishing it? > >I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). > >Usual alternatives: > 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >almost all of the federal budget. > 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. > 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. > 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. > 5. Michael's solution???? > >Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. > The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. > The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. > Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >any time, in any way. > Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >children, can we get out of the corner we are in. > I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >other solution. >Lynn >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>Privatization >> >>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>front group? >> >>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>USANext. >> >>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>following. >> >>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>Houston Chronicle reported. >> >>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>Social Security Project. >> >>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>existing Social Security system, a politically >>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >> >>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >> >>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>groups, and the White House. >> >>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >> >>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>group. >> >>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 6 01:25:56 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:25:56 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Positive emotions Message-ID: <422A5C24.7070007@solution-consulting.com> Lately we have had some discussion about positive emotions (left frontal lobe activity) vs. negative emotions (limbic system activity). Fredrickson argues here (and elsewhere) that the positive spectrum of emotions is related to broader intellect, and the negative ones with a constricted intellect. Here is a very important article on this topic, or at least the abstract. If anyone wants a PDF of this, I can provide it. American Psychologist ? 2001 by the American Psychological Association March 2001 Vol. 56, No. 3, 218-226 For personal use only--not for distribution. The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions Barbara L. Fredrickson Department of Psychology, University of Michigan Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan ABSTRACT In this article, the author describes a new theoretical perspective on positive emotions and situates this new perspective within the emerging field of positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory posits that experiences of positive emotions broaden people's momentary thought-action repertoires, which in turn serves to build their enduring personal resources, ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources. Preliminary empirical evidence supporting the broaden-and-build theory is reviewed, and open empirical questions that remain to be tested are identified. The theory and findings suggest that the capacity to experience positive emotions may be a fundamental human strength central to the study of human flourishing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 02:03:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:03:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C521AD.B03688F0.shovland@mindspring.com> If you're going to rely on authority, why not listen to the people who are really knowledgeable about this: Social Security Trustees: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/index.html CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/SocialSecurity.cfm Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose IQ points. Steve Hovland wrote: >You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. > Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been re-evaluating my views on him lately.) Quote: http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to manage, we are going to need an alternative." "I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do believe that relatively small increases are not something that would concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, there are other alternatives. For example: * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security. * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. End Quote > >What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >saying that. > > Senator Rick Santorum: When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In 1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional $600 billion. Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current and previous generations. http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard choices. Each year the problems get worse. >The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >increasing the size of the economy by increasing >the velocity of money. > > "I don't think that word means what you think it means." -- The Princess Bride You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by 2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan view, see http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the citations. That is vital. I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want to know about it. At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't happen. I was wrong. His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We will see. Lynn >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization > >Michael, >This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >light. What is your intention in publishing it? > >I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). > >Usual alternatives: > 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >almost all of the federal budget. > 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. > 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. > 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. > 5. Michael's solution???? > >Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. > The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. > The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. > Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >any time, in any way. > Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >children, can we get out of the corner we are in. > I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >other solution. >Lynn >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>Privatization >> >>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>front group? >> >>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>USANext. >> >>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>following. >> >>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>Houston Chronicle reported. >> >>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>Social Security Project. >> >>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>existing Social Security system, a politically >>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >> >>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >> >>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>groups, and the White House. >> >>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >> >>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>group. >> >>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 6 03:03:50 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:03:50 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization In-Reply-To: <01C521AD.B03688F0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C521AD.B03688F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <422A7316.7020600@solution-consulting.com> good research, Steve. Thanks. Did you read those reports, or just paste the links? I can't make heads or tails of the SSA stuff. CBO was much clearer. I read: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6068&sequence=0 CBO testimony: Quote: If current spending and tax policies do not change, the aging of the baby-boom generation, combined with rising health care costs, will cause a historic shift in the United States' fiscal situation. Consistently large annual budget deficits would probably lead to an ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public. As the government claimed an increasing share of national savings, the private sector would have less to invest in creating new business equipment, factories, technology, and other capital. That "crowding out" would have a corrosive and potentially contractionary effect on the economy. Although placing federal fiscal policy on a sustainable path will not be easy, the sooner that policymakers act to do so, the less difficult it will be to make economic and budgetary adjustments. End quote Well, sounds like a problem to me! Shows in Figure 1 the shift into the red around 2018. They say 2020. Quote:To pay full benefits, the Social Security system will rely on interest on, and ultimately the redemption of, government bonds held in its trust funds. At that point, the Treasury will have to find the money to cover those obligations. Policymakers can provide that money in three ways: by cutting back other spending in the budget, by raising taxes, or by increasing government borrowing. End quote You see, Steve, CBO says we have to redeem the IOUs. Where do we get the money? (Republcans and Democrats greedily spent the surplus money. Left and Right are equally short-sighted.) By 2050 we HAVE to cut benefits severely. What do we say to our children? (See Figure 1 and testimony) Quote: In the absence of other changes, the redemption of bonds can continue until the trust funds are exhausted. In the Social Security trustees' projections, that happens in 2042; in CBO's projections, it occurs about a decade later, largely because CBO projects higher real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates and slightly lower benefits for men than the trustees do. Once the trust funds are exhausted, the program will no longer have the legal authority to pay full benefits. As a result, it will have to reduce payments to beneficiaries to match the amount of revenue coming into the system each year. Although there is some uncertainty about the size of that reduction, benefits would probably have to be cut by 20 percent to 30 percent to match the system's available revenue. The key message is that some form of the program is, in fact, sustainable indefinitely. With benefits reduced annually to match available revenue (as they will be under current law when the trust funds run out), the program can be continued forever. Of course, many people may not consider a sudden cut in benefits of 20 percent to 30 percent to be a desirable policy. In addition, the budgetary demands of filling the gap between benefits and dedicated revenues in the years before the cut may prove onerous. But the program is sustainable from a financing perspective. What is not sustainable is continuing to provide the present level of scheduled benefits (those based on the benefit formulas that exist today) given the present financing. Under current formulas, outlays for scheduled benefits are projected to exceed available revenues indefinitely after about 2020 (see Figure 2 ). That gap cannot be sustained without continual--and substantial--injections of funds from the rest of the budget. End quote We have a serious problem. Where is the solution? One is private accounts. What other model will actually work? Steve Hovland wrote: >If you're going to rely on authority, why >not listen to the people who are really >knowledgeable about this: > >Social Security Trustees: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/index.html > >CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/SocialSecurity.cfm > > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization > >Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose >IQ points. > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >>proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. >> >> >> >Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a >conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" >but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself >says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot >from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more >apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been >re-evaluating my views on him lately.) > >Quote: >http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm > >Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I >approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in >all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're >going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good >thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the >pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to >manage, we are going to need an alternative." > >"I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do >believe that relatively small increases are not something that would >concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." > >First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 >trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front >expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at >about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the >transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. >While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase >in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, >there are other alternatives. For example: > > * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the > payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially > financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. > * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an > extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help > finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce > the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the > financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 > Commission to Strengthen Social Security. > * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other > government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. > >End Quote > > > >>What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >>goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >>saying that. >> >> >> >> >Senator Rick Santorum: >When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's >demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much >shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would >begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security >recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In >1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's >workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social >Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the >system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional >$600 billion. > >Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further >highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security >program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen >years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is >taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to >provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current >and previous generations. > >http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 > >Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is >NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the >IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, >and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard >choices. Each year the problems get worse. > > > >>The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >>in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >>increasing the size of the economy by increasing >>the velocity of money. >> >> >> >> >"I don't think that word means what you think it means." > -- The Princess Bride > >You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer >curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase >prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources >of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - >always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the >activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. >See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html > >Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and >study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie >Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by >2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where >government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good >counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current >unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. > >For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan >view, see >http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm >Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can >look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the >citations. That is vital. > >I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and >less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there >needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want >to know about it. > >At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is >working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I >said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't >happen. I was wrong. > >His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to >leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus >groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We >will see. >Lynn > > > >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization >> >>Michael, >>This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >>animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >>no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >>guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >>There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >>Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >>light. What is your intention in publishing it? >> >>I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >>privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >>By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >>supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). >> >>Usual alternatives: >> 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >>(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >>someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >>almost all of the federal budget. >> 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >>least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >>50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >>such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. >> 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. >> 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >>plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >>above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >>we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. >> 5. Michael's solution???? >> >>Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >>so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >>raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >>1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >>and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >>suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >>have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >>spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. >> The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. >> The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >>at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >>point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >>anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. >> Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >>the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >>any time, in any way. >> Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >>ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >>children, can we get out of the corner we are in. >> I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >>other solution. >>Lynn >>Michael Christopher wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>>Privatization >>> >>>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>>front group? >>> >>>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>>USANext. >>> >>>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>>following. >>> >>>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>>Houston Chronicle reported. >>> >>>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>>Social Security Project. >>> >>>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>>existing Social Security system, a politically >>>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >>> >>>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >>> >>>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>>groups, and the White House. >>> >>>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >>> >>>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>>group. >>> >>>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>>http://mail.yahoo.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 03:09:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 19:09:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C521B6.E842E5F0.shovland@mindspring.com> The Government is a drain on the economy. The Defense Department is part of the Government. Therefore the Defense Department is a drain on the economy and should be replaced by a faith-based initiative. Engaging in a discussion of what to do about Social Security involves accepting the notion that there is a crisis that needs to be dealt with. I do not accept the notion that there is a crisis. If there are problems with Social Security, they can be dealt with by minor adjustments in the base and in the retirement age. If private accounts are such a wonderful thing then we should just increase the amount that people can put into their IRA's. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose IQ points. Steve Hovland wrote: >You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. > Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been re-evaluating my views on him lately.) Quote: http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to manage, we are going to need an alternative." "I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do believe that relatively small increases are not something that would concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, there are other alternatives. For example: * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security. * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. End Quote > >What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >saying that. > > Senator Rick Santorum: When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In 1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional $600 billion. Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current and previous generations. http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard choices. Each year the problems get worse. >The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >increasing the size of the economy by increasing >the velocity of money. > > "I don't think that word means what you think it means." -- The Princess Bride You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by 2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan view, see http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the citations. That is vital. I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want to know about it. At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't happen. I was wrong. His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We will see. Lynn >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization > >Michael, >This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >light. What is your intention in publishing it? > >I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). > >Usual alternatives: > 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >almost all of the federal budget. > 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. > 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. > 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. > 5. Michael's solution???? > >Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. > The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. > The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. > Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >any time, in any way. > Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >children, can we get out of the corner we are in. > I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >other solution. >Lynn >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>Privatization >> >>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>front group? >> >>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>USANext. >> >>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>following. >> >>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>Houston Chronicle reported. >> >>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>Social Security Project. >> >>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>existing Social Security system, a politically >>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >> >>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >> >>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>groups, and the White House. >> >>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >> >>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>group. >> >>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Mar 6 06:19:08 2005 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:19:08 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] Fwd: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Message-ID: <7e.64c489b2.2f5bfadc@aol.com> In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: Mark: This is amazing! And hilarious, when it gets to the bit about writers. I'm going to send this to my friend Howard Blooom, because it fits in with his theory. An average of almost 4 years of life added to life expectancy awarded to winners among 762 individuals I'd say is statistically significant. Of course we run into that same old correlation-is-not-causation problem: How do we know people who are naturally "vivacious" aren't more likely to win Oscars and live longer? Maybe vivacious people tend to exercise more, live longer, and win more Oscars. Judith Rich Harris, who wrote "The Nurture Assumption", talks about this in terms of broccoli. She says an article will come out: "Broccoli eaters live 7 years longer!" So reader assumes: "Broccoli can extend my life." She points out that this is faulty logic. Maybe people who eat broccoli also tend to be people who jog and don't smoke, and broccoli has nothing to do with extending life. She says that when these kind of correlations confirm existing biases, they are published as if they prove something. But when a correleation is demonstrated that contradicts existing biases, like, say, "Prayed for outlive other cancer patients" or "Adopted kids more violent if biological parent was violent," then we all say, "Well, that doesn't mean... " Still, a great little study report. Thanks for sending it. The question is, if I stop writing now, will it extend my life? See what I mean? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark L." To: joe at quirk.net Subject: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:17:57 -0800 I read the following article... and nearly pee'd myself laughing at the middle when I got to the part about the cruel but predictably cosmically ironic fate of Oscar winning writers. You know, I would never want to be an Oscar winning actor - I value my sanity, privacy and introversion too much... but it thought it might be nice to win an Oscar in writing... till I read below...;) -mark. ______________ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/26/international/i 174807S72.DTL&type=printable www.sfgate.com ____________________________________ _Study: Oscar Winners Outlive Other Actors_ (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/26/international/i174807S72.DTL) - By ROB GILLIES, Associated Press Writer Saturday, February 26, 2005 (02-26) 17:48 PST TORONTO, Canada (AP) -- A Canadian professor of medicine argues that actors who win Academy Awards on Sunday night won't only boost their chances of other box-office hits, but will likely live longer than their fellow nominees. Dr. Donald Redelmeier, a professor at the University of Toronto, says his research shows that Oscar winners live nearly four years longer than other actors. And multiple winners, he says, live an average of six years longer. Want proof? Katharine Hepburn, who won a record four acting prizes, lived to the ripe old age of 96. Redelmeier says the study proves that Oscar success has a powerful influence on a person's health and longevity. "Once you've got that statuette on your mantelplace, it's an uncontested sign of peer approval that nobody can take away from you, so that any subsequent harsh reviews, it leaves you more resilient," Redelmeier said. "It doesn't quite get under your skin. The normal stresses and strains of everyday life do not drag you down." The study, funded by the Canadian Institute of Health and Ontario Ministry of Health, included all 762 actors and actresses ever nominated for an Academy Award in a leading or supporting role. For each nominee, researchers also identified an actor of the same gender and roughly the same age who appeared in the same film as the nominee. On average, award winners lived to the age of 79.7, while non-winners lived to be 75.8. "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." An extra average of 3.9 years of life is significant, says Redelmeier, adding that if all cancer patients in North America were cured, life expectancy would grow by only 3.5 years. The ongoing study, which was initially published four years ago in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also found that the effect of winning an Academy award is about the same for men and women, comedies and dramas, and leading and supporting role winners. The only Oscar winners that don't get the benefit of longevity are screenwriters. In fact, the reverse is true. The tortured souls live on average 3.6 years fewer than those who don't win. "We find a survival gain for the actors, the directors but we find a survival loss for the writers," said Redelmeier, who suggests that writers aren't coddled and are prone to bad habits, such as smoking and drinking. "Writers do not lead such exemplary lives. They don't have to eat properly, sleep properly or exercise at all so, as a consequence of that they don't receive any of the monitoring that other notable individuals do." Redelmeier said he was inspired to study the movie industry after watching the Oscars on television. He noticed the people on stage looked nothing like his patients. "It's not just the wardrobe and the plastic surgery and makeup, it's the way they walk and speak, they seem so much more vivacious, much more than just skin deep," he said. "So I thought, this is really an amazing way to look at social gradations at the upper echelons of society." URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/26/international/i174807S72.DTL ____________________________________ ?2005 Associated Press ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Joe Quirk" Subject: Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:08:22 -0800 Size: 8948 URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Mar 6 06:20:57 2005 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:20:57 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] Fwd: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Message-ID: <198.3a12ed58.2f5bfb49@aol.com> In a message dated 3/6/2005 1:17:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Howl Bloom writes: In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: HowlBloom at aol.com Subject: Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:17:56 EST Size: 10098 URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Mar 6 06:30:52 2005 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:30:52 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more Message-ID: <74.4ee116c6.2f5bfd9c@aol.com> In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day This statement, as you've pointed out, Joe, is riddled with not-so-hidden assumptions. Getting a reputation to live up to would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly. Some folks feel utterly isolated and unwanted even when they're surrounded by an entourage. Some wonder if the entourage is simply there for the glory of association with a big name or is really there for THEM, for the inner human stripped of his or her fame and accomplishments. And some folks feel utterly bereft when the reach a pinnacle. They feel they have nothing new to strive for, and the goal-lessness leaves them drowning in the acid of depression. I've seen all these things happen to the stars I've worked with. Which means that how you take winning an Oscar is a matter of perception. Some folks can see new horizons beckoning from even the worst of things. Others can see new hells in even the greatest glories. My guess, a hypothesis to consider, is that those who see the best in what's around them, those who see opportunities even in catastrophe, are most likely to attract the kind of popularity among Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members that makes an Oscar possible. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 15:31:40 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:31:40 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C5221E.8A304670.shovland@mindspring.com> Taxing and spending policies can change. We can get the money by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich and by shrinking the Empire. We can require the DOD to account for the money they get, which could result in more bang for the buck. You may recall the during the campaign we were told that they can't account for about $1 trillion. There was also a recent estimate that many of the dollars spent on "health care" are wasted. If we shift back to the policies that produced a budget surplus during the Clinton years, we could begin to retire the public debt including those bonds held by the SS trust fund. Some of this discussion seems to forget that the Boomers will be dying off over this time. My older brother, on the leading edge of the Boomer Generation (1944), will be eligible to retire in 2-3 years. With an average life expectancy of 77 years in the us, he is likely to be gone by 2020, and most Boomers will be gone by 2040, with large number dying in the 2030's. I don't think it's correct to say it will shift into the red in 2018 or 2020. That may be the year when money from the trust fund will be needed, but it's different than a business "going into the red." That's why the trust was created years ago- they could see the problem coming. I do not see how private accounts by themselves solve this problem. I would classify that as magical thinking. The real solution will be the hard one- adjusting tax and spending policies to redeem the bonds. Probably increasing the retirement age. Bush said he was willing to spend the political capital to get the job done right. So far he hasn't delivered. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:04 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization good research, Steve. Thanks. Did you read those reports, or just paste the links? I can't make heads or tails of the SSA stuff. CBO was much clearer. I read: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6068&sequence=0 CBO testimony: Quote: If current spending and tax policies do not change, the aging of the baby-boom generation, combined with rising health care costs, will cause a historic shift in the United States' fiscal situation. Consistently large annual budget deficits would probably lead to an ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public. As the government claimed an increasing share of national savings, the private sector would have less to invest in creating new business equipment, factories, technology, and other capital. That "crowding out" would have a corrosive and potentially contractionary effect on the economy. Although placing federal fiscal policy on a sustainable path will not be easy, the sooner that policymakers act to do so, the less difficult it will be to make economic and budgetary adjustments. End quote Well, sounds like a problem to me! Shows in Figure 1 the shift into the red around 2018. They say 2020. Quote:To pay full benefits, the Social Security system will rely on interest on, and ultimately the redemption of, government bonds held in its trust funds. At that point, the Treasury will have to find the money to cover those obligations. Policymakers can provide that money in three ways: by cutting back other spending in the budget, by raising taxes, or by increasing government borrowing. End quote You see, Steve, CBO says we have to redeem the IOUs. Where do we get the money? (Republcans and Democrats greedily spent the surplus money. Left and Right are equally short-sighted.) By 2050 we HAVE to cut benefits severely. What do we say to our children? (See Figure 1 and testimony) Quote: In the absence of other changes, the redemption of bonds can continue until the trust funds are exhausted. In the Social Security trustees' projections, that happens in 2042; in CBO's projections, it occurs about a decade later, largely because CBO projects higher real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates and slightly lower benefits for men than the trustees do. Once the trust funds are exhausted, the program will no longer have the legal authority to pay full benefits. As a result, it will have to reduce payments to beneficiaries to match the amount of revenue coming into the system each year. Although there is some uncertainty about the size of that reduction, benefits would probably have to be cut by 20 percent to 30 percent to match the system's available revenue. The key message is that some form of the program is, in fact, sustainable indefinitely. With benefits reduced annually to match available revenue (as they will be under current law when the trust funds run out), the program can be continued forever. Of course, many people may not consider a sudden cut in benefits of 20 percent to 30 percent to be a desirable policy. In addition, the budgetary demands of filling the gap between benefits and dedicated revenues in the years before the cut may prove onerous. But the program is sustainable from a financing perspective. What is not sustainable is continuing to provide the present level of scheduled benefits (those based on the benefit formulas that exist today) given the present financing. Under current formulas, outlays for scheduled benefits are projected to exceed available revenues indefinitely after about 2020 (see Figure 2 ). That gap cannot be sustained without continual--and substantial--injections of funds from the rest of the budget. End quote We have a serious problem. Where is the solution? One is private accounts. What other model will actually work? Steve Hovland wrote: >If you're going to rely on authority, why >not listen to the people who are really >knowledgeable about this: > >Social Security Trustees: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/index.html > >CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/SocialSecurity.cfm > > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization > >Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose >IQ points. > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >>proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. >> >> >> >Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a >conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" >but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself >says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot >from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more >apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been >re-evaluating my views on him lately.) > >Quote: >http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm > >Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I >approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in >all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're >going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good >thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the >pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to >manage, we are going to need an alternative." > >"I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do >believe that relatively small increases are not something that would >concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." > >First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 >trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front >expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at >about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the >transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. >While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase >in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, >there are other alternatives. For example: > > * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the > payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially > financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. > * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an > extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help > finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce > the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the > financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 > Commission to Strengthen Social Security. > * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other > government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. > >End Quote > > > >>What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >>goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >>saying that. >> >> >> >> >Senator Rick Santorum: >When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's >demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much >shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would >begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security >recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In >1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's >workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social >Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the >system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional >$600 billion. > >Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further >highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security >program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen >years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is >taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to >provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current >and previous generations. > >http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 > >Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is >NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the >IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, >and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard >choices. Each year the problems get worse. > > > >>The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >>in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >>increasing the size of the economy by increasing >>the velocity of money. >> >> >> >> >"I don't think that word means what you think it means." > -- The Princess Bride > >You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer >curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase >prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources >of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - >always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the >activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. >See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html > >Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and >study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie >Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by >2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where >government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good >counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current >unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. > >For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan >view, see >http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm >Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can >look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the >citations. That is vital. > >I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and >less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there >needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want >to know about it. > >At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is >working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I >said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't >happen. I was wrong. > >His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to >leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus >groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We >will see. >Lynn > > > >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization >> >>Michael, >>This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >>animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >>no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >>guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >>There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >>Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >>light. What is your intention in publishing it? >> >>I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >>privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >>By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >>supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). >> >>Usual alternatives: >> 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >>(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >>someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >>almost all of the federal budget. >> 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >>least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >>50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >>such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. >> 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. >> 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >>plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >>above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >>we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. >> 5. Michael's solution???? >> >>Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >>so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >>raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >>1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >>and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >>suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >>have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >>spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. >> The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. >> The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >>at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >>point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >>anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. >> Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >>the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >>any time, in any way. >> Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >>ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >>children, can we get out of the corner we are in. >> I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >>other solution. >>Lynn >>Michael Christopher wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>>Privatization >>> >>>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>>front group? >>> >>>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>>USANext. >>> >>>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>>following. >>> >>>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>>Houston Chronicle reported. >>> >>>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>>Social Security Project. >>> >>>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>>existing Social Security system, a politically >>>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >>> >>>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >>> >>>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>>groups, and the White House. >>> >>>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >>> >>>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>>group. >>> >>>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>>http://mail.yahoo.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 15:38:00 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:38:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization Message-ID: <01C5221F.6CFD0920.shovland@mindspring.com> I don't think reducing our military costs to a lower level will result in conquest by Islam. Most Moslems, like most Christians, are moderates, and have more interest in raising their families than they do in converting us. Our army isn't actually that big, and Rumsfeld is the main proponent of using smaller forces. Iraq is an operation designed according to his model. These days my personal definition for how big the military needs to be is "big enough to do our share." I don't think we need to be #1. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:40 PM To: Steve Hovland Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization I am off list now because I think this discussion will be boring to the rest of the list. I am enjoying it, though. I do hope you will read the CBO link I sent back. There is clearly a large and perplexing crisis. Just asserting there is not a crisis is not intellectually honest. The CBO testimony made that very clear. I do agree that Defense is a drain. For years Costa Rica was epynomously the richest place in Central America. While other countries created large armies, CR didn't and prospered. Europe is maintaining what prosperity it has by essentially giving up any real Army. Canada also. But traditionally and constitutionally defense is a legitimite aim of the Federal Government. So we are in a bind. I don't think we can get out of having a large army unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend compulsory services in the Mosque. Steve Hovland wrote: >The Government is a drain on the economy. >The Defense Department is part of the Government. >Therefore the Defense Department is a drain on the economy >and should be replaced by a faith-based initiative. > >Engaging in a discussion of what to do about >Social Security involves accepting the notion >that there is a crisis that needs to be dealt >with. I do not accept the notion that there is a >crisis. > >If there are problems with Social Security, >they can be dealt with by minor adjustments >in the base and in the retirement age. > >If private accounts are such a wonderful thing then >we should just increase the amount that people >can put into their IRA's. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:14 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] Exposing Steve's rhetoric re: Social Security Privatization > >Steve, I will try to address your points. Let's not get angry and lose >IQ points. > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>You are forgetting that the Bushies concede that their >>proposal does not solve the actuarial problem. >> >> >> >Cite a source, please. "Bushies" suggests a unified effort, smacks of a >conspiracy. There are many POVs on the SS issue. There is NO "Proposal" >but rather a variety of ideas being floated and debated. Bush himself >says he welcomes proposals. Bush never lies. (I know blood will shoot >from your eyes when you read that, but it seems to be more and more >apparent. He says what he means and he means what he says. I have been >re-evaluating my views on him lately.) > >Quote: >http://www.teamncpa.org/fastfacts/20050217ff2.htm > >Alan Greenspan: If you're going to move to private accounts, which I >approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. All in >all, I'm glad that if we are going to move in that direction, we're >going to move slowly and test the waters because I think it's a good >thing to do over the longer run. And eventually because the >pay-as-you-go system in my judgment is going to be very difficult to >manage, we are going to need an alternative." > >"I would be very careful about very large increases in debt. But I do >believe that relatively small increases are not something that would >concern me. ... I would say over a trillion is large." > >First it is important to remember that Social Security faces an $11 >trillion debt if reforms are not made. However, the up-front >expenditures required to start personal accounts has been estimated at >about $2 trillion over the next several decades. How to fund the >transition is a central area of debate that has yet to be determined. >While borrowing the full amount would constitute a "very large" increase >in the debt and would be a concern, as Chairman Greenspan has noted, >there are other alternatives. For example: > > * Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the > payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially > financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. > * The NCPA has suggested asking participating workers to invest an > extra percent to a percent-and-a-half of their income to help > finance the personal accounts. This approach, which would reduce > the amount diverted from the payroll tax, is similar to the > financing provisions of "Model 3" of the President's 2001 > Commission to Strengthen Social Security. > * Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others would cut back other > government spending to free-up money to fund the accounts. > >End Quote > > > >>What is your source for saying that in 2018 SS >>goes into the red? I don't think the trustees are >>saying that. >> >> >> >> >Senator Rick Santorum: >When President Roosevelt created Social Security, our nation's >demographics were considerably different. Life expectancy was much >shorter--it was lower than the retirement age at which benefits would >begin to be paid. Thus, workers greatly outnumbered Social Security >recipients. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every one retiree. In >1950, the ratio was 17 to 1, today it is 3 to 1, and when today's >workers retire there will be 2 workers supporting each retiree. Social >Security is heading for insolvency--the longer we wait to fix the >system, the more it will cost. Every year we wait costs an additional >$600 billion. > >Last year's annual, bipartisan Social Security Trustees report further >highlighted the future insolvency of the current Social Security >program: they project that if no changes are made, in just thirteen >years the system will begin paying out more in benefits than it is >taking in as revenue. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to >provide for their retirement security as they have provided for current >and previous generations. > >http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2194 > >Steve, note: 13 years, 5 plus 13 = 2018. In the red. And again, there is >NOTHING in the trust fund except IOUs. Nothing. That means to redeem the >IOUs we have to either raise taxes or cut government spending, both, >and/ or raise the retirement age and cut benefits. All very hard >choices. Each year the problems get worse. > > > >>The Laffer curve is a joke. It acts as if money taken >>in taxes is shipped into space. It is spent, thus >>increasing the size of the economy by increasing >>the velocity of money. >> >> >> >> >"I don't think that word means what you think it means." > -- The Princess Bride > >You might want to investigate this a little more thoroughly. The Laffer >curve is base on the pragmatic fact that government efforts to increase >prosperity are by in large a failure. That is because the real sources >of prosperity is private business, subject to competition. Taxes are - >always - a drain on the economy. The higher they are, the lower the >activity in the private sector. Rhetoric won't change that fact. >See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html > >Huge site, takes a while. You can get the book from your library and >study it out for yourself. Look at where Britain was before Maggie >Thatcher downsized government. Economists predicted at the time that by >2000, Britain's GDP would be lower than Albania's. That is where >government attempts to create prosperity get you. If you have a good >counter example, I am interested to see it. Note also the current >unemployment rates in welfare-state EEU. > >For an overall review of the social secutiry problem from a partisan >view, see >http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm >Please note that all the main points are referenced. That means I can >look up the supporting data and see if the author has been fair in the >citations. That is vital. > >I'd like to see something from you, Steve, in the way of research, and >less in the way of unsupported statements. I enjoy dialog, but there >needs to be some facts behind it. Again, if I am wrong, I certainly want >to know about it. > >At this point, I am more and more impressed with George Bush. The war is >working out much better than I would have thought. Three years ago I >said the war was about spreading democracy. I was fearful it wouldn't >happen. I was wrong. > >His idea about social security shows vision and commitment to >leadership, and that means leading people not following them via focus >groups. I still am very unhappy with his first term domestically. We >will see. >Lynn > > > >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:26 PM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security Privatization >> >>Michael, >>This is kind of an odd piece. I don't really understand the level of >>animus on the topic. It is written in a rather ugly, hateful style, with >>no genuine content and lots of logical falacies. There is lots of >>guilt-by-association stuff, which is irrelevant to any logical analysis. >>There is name-calling and labeling, which are classic cognitive errors. >>Us-versus-them, and we are righteous and they are evil. All heat, no >>light. What is your intention in publishing it? >> >>I actually don't see that there is any reasonable alternative to >>privitizing, if we get beyond the logical errors. The facts are known. >>By 2018 the system goes into the red. There will be three workers >>supporting each retired drone (I being one of them, presumably). >> >>Usual alternatives: >> 1. Raise taxes: bad for the economy; the Laffer curve is not a joke >>(hah! I made that up). Three workers cannot support one drone, even >>someone like me who is so very deserving. Medicare and SS will consume >>almost all of the federal budget. >> 2. Raise the retirement age: the most reasonable alternative, but >>least palatable to the public. In Europe the trend is to retire in the >>50s. That means crushing taxes, which is why the European economy is in >>such trouble. Look at the unemployment figures. >> 3. Inflate the currency - unacceptable. >> 4. Import more and more foreign workers to compensate for the >>plunging population rates. The only countries in the world that are >>above shrinkage are third world. We see what has happened in Europe when >>we import workers who don't have our best interests at heart. >> 5. Michael's solution???? >> >>Facts: There is NO MONEY in the trust account, just IOUs. To pay off the >>so-called trust fund, we must raid other government programs and or >>raise taxes and cripple the economy. This has been known since the late >>1980s and Republicans as well as Democrats conspired to spend the money >>and put IOUs into the treasury. What should have happened? Well, I >>suppose buying commodities like gold, silver, copper, and so on would >>have at least preserved the principal. But instead the money is gone, >>spent on pork in both Red and Blue states. >> The baby boomers hit retirement age in 3 years and following. >> The country cannot support social programs, defense, and drones all >>at the same time. What will be done? Europe cut its defense, and at this >>point, European military is oxymoronic. The taxes are a huge drain, and >>anti-capitalist laws make it suicide to try to start a company. >> Social Security is not an insurance company. That was established at >>the beginning, in a supreme court decision. Congress can change it at >>any time, in any way. >> Only by allowing people to OWN their retirement, only by creating an >>ownership society where if I die at 64, I can pass my money on to my >>children, can we get out of the corner we are in. >> I'd like to see a coherent, data-based analysis that leads to any >>other solution. >>Lynn >>Michael Christopher wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Exposing the Echo Chamber Behind Social Security >>>Privatization >>> >>>The Bush administration ventriloquists are out in full >>>force these days, breathlessly hyping "Personal >>>Retirement Accounts" as a way to save Social Security >>>by destroying it. For the average voter, getting a >>>handle on what the Bush administration is proposing to >>>do to Social Security is quite a challenge. The dozens >>>of bobbing heads and clicking fingers, holding forth >>>on cable news programming and the Internet is enough >>>to make anyone's head spin. Is that spokesman from the >>>Alliance for Worker Retirement Security speaking as an >>>independent economics expert, a civic-minded >>>individual or as a paid shill from a corporate-funded >>>front group? >>> >>>If you're having trouble keeping track of all the >>>players, our very own SourceWatch can help. It will >>>tell you that the Alliance is sponsored by the >>>National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. >>>Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable, >>>among other pro-business groups. It shares its >>>executive director Derrick Max and a number of its >>>members with the Coalition for the Modernization and >>>Protection of America's Social Security (COMPASS). In >>>fact, the Alliance and COMPASS both count as members >>>of the United Seniors Association, a corporate-funded >>>lobbying group that recently changed its name to >>>USANext. >>> >>>The New York Times reported Monday that USANext is >>>launching a campaign "to spend as much as $10 million >>>on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the >>>powerhouse lobby opposing [Social Security] private >>>investment accounts." To oversee the operation, >>>USANext hired Chris LaCivita, recently of the 527 >>>groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Progress for >>>America and an employee of the DCI Group, a firm >>>specializing in astroturf with close ties to the Bush >>>White House. True to its word USANext, ran an ad on >>>the American Spectator that equates the AARP to the >>>"spit-on-the-troops/gay marriage lobby," as >>>TalkingPointsMemo blogger Josh Marshall has been >>>following. >>> >>>Progress for America, after raising $38 million last >>>year to support Bush's reelection, has also jumped in >>>to the Social Security privatization game. PFA "has >>>estimated it will spend $20 million promoting private >>>accounts. It has run a series of ads on cable >>>television, including a spot that invokes the legacy >>>of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed >>>the legislation creating the retirement system," the >>>Houston Chronicle reported. >>> >>>PFA told the Chronicle it will be asking past donors >>>for money to fund their new campaign. The head of the >>>prominent investment firm Charles Schwab contributed >>>$50,000 to the group's political arm in 2004. Schwab >>>gave $75,000 more to the Club for Growth, which is >>>also lobbying for Social Security privatization and >>>expects to spend $10 million lobbying to promote >>>private accounts. Peter J. Ferrara, an alumnus of the >>>Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National >>>Center for Policy Analysis, is heading the Club's >>>Social Security Project. >>> >>>"The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the >>>Social Security proposal is a major victory for the >>>Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group," The >>>Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote recently. "In >>>the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone >>>in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the >>>existing Social Security system, a politically >>>sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the >>>wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social >>>Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling >>>for privatization of the system. The article argued >>>that companies that stand to profit from privatization >>>- 'the banks, insurance companies and other >>>institutions that will gain' - had to be brought into >>>alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of >>>'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social >>>Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" >>> >>>Clearly, the "guerrilla warfare" has begun. And while >>>it may seem like we're playing a GOP version of Six >>>Degrees of Kevin Bacon, the stakes are high. The >>>foundations of the U.S. system to ensure that average >>>workers and their families are not left penniless, out >>>in the cold is under serious attack. At SourceWatch >>>we're tracking these innocent-enough sounding groups >>>and what they are doing. And the best part is, you can >>>help. SourceWatch is open to online citizens to add or >>>edit any article in our collaborative database of >>>people, groups and ideas shaping the public agenda. >>> >>>The uncovering of the GOP plant Jeff Gannon (aka James >>>Guckert) in the White House press room was the work of >>>online citizen journalists, using their web research >>>skills to expose the fake reporter and the White >>>House's failure to explain truthfully how he got to >>>ask the President a question. We do the same thing at >>>SourceWatch, documenting the hidden connections >>>between corporate trade associations, astroturf >>>groups, and the White House. >>> >>>Want to cover the newly minted website Generations >>>Together? Or find out what impact Women for a Social >>>Security Choice is having? How would you like to dig >>>in and discover the common elements shared by Alliance >>>for Retirement Prosperity and FreedomWorks? >>> >>>So far, we've catalogued over two dozen articles on >>>individuals and groups that are promoting Bush's >>>Social Security privatization plan. There's plenty of >>>groups and people to go around. To get involved, visit >>>SourceWatch's "Welcome newcomers" page. On it you'll >>>find tips for using a Wiki (SourceWatch runs on Wiki >>>software), guidelines for writing SourceWatch articles >>>and for research using the Web, plus advise from >>>experienced SourceWatchers on how to research front >>>group. >>> >>>http://www.prwatch.org/node/3310 >>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>>http://mail.yahoo.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00002.html >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 15:56:45 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:56:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more Message-ID: <01C52222.0BB968E0.shovland@mindspring.com> In Clint Eastwood we someone doing well and rising to do better. I found myself wondering what he was doing at midlife. He was making stinkers like "Heartbreak Ridge." Then, with "Unforgiven" something happened. My shrink says he let his shadow material come through. The possible difference between Eastwood and some of the rock stars who because world famous at a young age is that Eastwood has had to work his way up over many years. He is now a master craftsman who can produce good work day in and day out, with some of it being brilliant enough to win an Oscar. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:31 PM To: joe at quirk.net; emdls at pacbell.net Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day This statement, as you've pointed out, Joe, is riddled with not-so-hidden assumptions. Getting a reputation to live up to would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly. Some folks feel utterly isolated and unwanted even when they're surrounded by an entourage. Some wonder if the entourage is simply there for the glory of association with a big name or is really there for THEM, for the inner human stripped of his or her fame and accomplishments. And some folks feel utterly bereft when the reach a pinnacle. They feel they have nothing new to strive for, and the goal-lessness leaves them drowning in the acid of depression. I've seen all these things happen to the stars I've worked with. Which means that how you take winning an Oscar is a matter of perception. Some folks can see new horizons beckoning from even the worst of things. Others can see new hells in even the greatest glories. My guess, a hypothesis to consider, is that those who see the best in what's around them, those who see opportunities even in catastrophe, are most likely to attract the kind of popularity among Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members that makes an Oscar possible. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net << File: ATT00012.html >> << File: ATT00013.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 15:59:32 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:59:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fwd: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... Message-ID: <01C52222.6F2511E0.shovland@mindspring.com> One reason why some kids would be more successful is that they are well-attached and see the world as a safe place. They will try things that fearful children will not do, which inclines them toward success. This has to do with nurture in the early years, and no class has a monopoly on good nurture. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:21 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] Fwd: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... In a message dated 3/6/2005 1:17:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Howl Bloom writes: In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net << File: ATT00009.html >> << Message: Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... >> << File: ATT00011.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 6 16:59:03 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 09:59:03 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] resilience in organizations (was, Eunichs) In-Reply-To: <198.3a12ed58.2f5bfb49@aol.com> References: <198.3a12ed58.2f5bfb49@aol.com> Message-ID: <422B36D7.2090303@solution-consulting.com> Howard, Appros of this, Sal Maddi argues that such resilience can be taught to adults. He postulates three belief structures, committment, control and challenge. I throw in a paragraph from the article below the header. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research ? 1999 by the Educational Publishing Foundation and the Division of Consulting Psychology Spring 1999 Vol. 51, No. 2, 117-124 For personal use only--not for distribution. The Hardy Organization Success by Turning Change to Advantage Salvatore R. Maddi University of California, Irvine Deborah M. Khoshaba The Hardiness Institute Arthur Pammenter Executive Development Group ABSTRACT Our turbulent times require organizations that are hardy in the sense of having cultures, climates, structures, and workforces capable of turning potentially disruptive changes into opportunities. At the individual, or workforce, level, hardiness involves the attitudes of commitment, control, and challenge and the complementary skills of coping and social support. At the organizational level, the isomorphic counterparts of hardy attitudes are the cultural values of cooperation, credibility, and creativity. Furthermore, an organization is hardy if these cultural values are indeed expressed on an everyday basis through its climate and if its structure involves the matrix management scheme of semi-autonomous work teams rather than the more traditional hierarchical arrangement. This article also considers the assessment and consulting functions that can increase the hardiness of organizations. Quote: What is this dispositional hardiness that has such beneficial effects? At the individual level, we have emphasized hardiness as a particular system of attitudes and skills that facilitates managing circumstances that are stressful and potentially debilitating because they constitute disruptive changes or chronic conflicts (e.g., Maddi, 1994 , 1998 ; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989 ; Weibe, 1991 ). The HardiAttitudes are the "3 Cs" of commitment, control, and challenge (e.g., Kobasa, Maddi,&Kahn, 1982 ). To be strong in commitment means believing that being involved with tasks, people, and contexts is the best way to find meaningful purpose in life. You will be infinitely curious about what is going on around you, and this will lead you to find interactions with people and situations stimulating and meaningful. Feeling alienated and isolated will seem like a waste of time. To be strong in control involves believing that, through personal struggle, you can usually influence the directions and outcomes going on around you. Lapsing into powerlessness and passivity will seem like a waste of time. To be strong in challenge means believing that personal improvement and fulfillment come through the continual process of learning from both negative and positive experiences. It will seem not only unrealistic but also stultifying to simply expect comfort and security to be handed to you. End I can send the text of the entire article if you are interested. Maddi applies his ideas to organizations, improving the resilience of groups of people. Lynn HowlBloom at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/6/2005 1:17:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Howl > Bloom writes: > > In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > joe at quirk.net writes: > > "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even > if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an > entourage that's also heavily invested in your > reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping > properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly > every day." > > Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of > resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with > single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very > successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find > mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. > > This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more > successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, > an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most > tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an > attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social > instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that > make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? > > Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the > success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature > or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the > two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? > > Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more > confident kids and others who are born with shyness > and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian > researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb > showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin > managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central > chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a > corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. > > When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside > word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. > When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting > to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an > opportunity. > > The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its > mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its > old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a > stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. > > Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the > benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there > some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? > > Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change > the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small > gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical > kids? Howard > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind > From The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York > University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board > member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The > Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New > York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement > of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political > Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International > Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: > Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from > the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From > The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; > Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: > Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; > founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, > American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human > Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human > Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor > -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the > Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... > From: > HowlBloom at aol.com > Date: > Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:17:56 EST > To: > joe at quirk.net, emdls at pacbell.net > > > In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > joe at quirk.net writes: > > "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if > you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage > that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said > Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, > eating well, exercising regularly every day." > > Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient > kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, > drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What > do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to > whom they bond. > > This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful > because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally > meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this > lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor > because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of > self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find > others they can attach themselves to? > > Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the > success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or > due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the > two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? > > Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more > confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming > insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular > sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a > battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the > living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was > shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of > the womb. > > When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, > the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a > stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the > stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. > > The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its > mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old > uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a > danger, not as a new opening. > > Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the > benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some > gene-tweak that predestined him to win? > > Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change > the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke > exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From > The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; > Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: > Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; > founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, > American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human > Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human > Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor > -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the > Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cite.gif Type: image/gif Size: 117 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 17:49:41 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 09:49:41 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] resilience in organizations (was, Eunichs) Message-ID: <01C52231.D264CB10.shovland@mindspring.com> These days many mature corporation are not hardy, by the definitions given below. Making them hardy will involve large internal changes by the people who run them. As Jesus said, a camel can pass through the eye of a needle much easier. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 8:59 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] resilience in organizations (was, Eunichs) Howard, Appros of this, Sal Maddi argues that such resilience can be taught to adults. He postulates three belief structures, committment, control and challenge. I throw in a paragraph from the article below the header. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research ? 1999 by the Educational Publishing Foundation and the Division of Consulting Psychology Spring 1999 Vol. 51, No. 2, 117-124 For personal use only--not for distribution. The Hardy Organization Success by Turning Change to Advantage Salvatore R. Maddi University of California, Irvine Deborah M. Khoshaba The Hardiness Institute Arthur Pammenter Executive Development Group ABSTRACT Our turbulent times require organizations that are hardy in the sense of having cultures, climates, structures, and workforces capable of turning potentially disruptive changes into opportunities. At the individual, or workforce, level, hardiness involves the attitudes of commitment, control, and challenge and the complementary skills of coping and social support. At the organizational level, the isomorphic counterparts of hardy attitudes are the cultural values of cooperation, credibility, and creativity. Furthermore, an organization is hardy if these cultural values are indeed expressed on an everyday basis through its climate and if its structure involves the matrix management scheme of semi-autonomous work teams rather than the more traditional hierarchical arrangement. This article also considers the assessment and consulting functions that can increase the hardiness of organizations. Quote: What is this dispositional hardiness that has such beneficial effects? At the individual level, we have emphasized hardiness as a particular system of attitudes and skills that facilitates managing circumstances that are stressful and potentially debilitating because they constitute disruptive changes or chronic conflicts (e.g., Maddi, 1994 , 1998 ; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989 ; Weibe, 1991 ). The HardiAttitudes are the "3 Cs" of commitment, control, and challenge (e.g., Kobasa, Maddi,&Kahn, 1982 ). To be strong in commitment means believing that being involved with tasks, people, and contexts is the best way to find meaningful purpose in life. You will be infinitely curious about what is going on around you, and this will lead you to find interactions with people and situations stimulating and meaningful. Feeling alienated and isolated will seem like a waste of time. To be strong in control involves believing that, through personal struggle, you can usually influence the directions and outcomes going on around you. Lapsing into powerlessness and passivity will seem like a waste of time. To be strong in challenge means believing that personal improvement and fulfillment come through the continual process of learning from both negative and positive experiences. It will seem not only unrealistic but also stultifying to simply expect comfort and security to be handed to you. End I can send the text of the entire article if you are interested. Maddi applies his ideas to organizations, improving the resilience of groups of people. Lynn HowlBloom at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/6/2005 1:17:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Howl > Bloom writes: > > In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > joe at quirk.net writes: > > "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even > if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an > entourage that's also heavily invested in your > reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping > properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly > every day." > > Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of > resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with > single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very > successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find > mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. > > This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more > successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, > an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most > tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an > attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social > instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that > make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? > > Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the > success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature > or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the > two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? > > Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more > confident kids and others who are born with shyness > and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian > researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb > showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin > managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central > chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a > corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. > > When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside > word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. > When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting > to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an > opportunity. > > The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its > mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its > old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a > stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. > > Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the > benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there > some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? > > Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change > the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small > gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical > kids? Howard > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind > From The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York > University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board > member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The > Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New > York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement > of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political > Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International > Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: > Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from > the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From > The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; > Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: > Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; > founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, > American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human > Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human > Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor > -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the > Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... > From: > HowlBloom at aol.com > Date: > Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:17:56 EST > To: > joe at quirk.net, emdls at pacbell.net > > > In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > joe at quirk.net writes: > > "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if > you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage > that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said > Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, > eating well, exercising regularly every day." > > Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient > kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, > drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What > do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to > whom they bond. > > This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful > because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally > meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this > lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor > because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of > self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find > others they can attach themselves to? > > Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the > success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or > due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the > two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? > > Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more > confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming > insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular > sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a > battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the > living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was > shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of > the womb. > > When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, > the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a > stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the > stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. > > The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its > mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old > uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a > danger, not as a new opening. > > Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the > benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some > gene-tweak that predestined him to win? > > Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change > the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke > exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard > > ---------- > Howard Bloom > Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From > The Big Bang to the 21st Century > Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; > Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute > www.howardbloom.net > www.bigbangtango.net > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: > Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; > founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, > American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human > Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human > Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor > -- New Paradigm book series. > For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: > www.paleopsych.org > for two chapters from > The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of > History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer > For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the > Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > << File: ATT00001.html >> << File: cite.gif >> << File: ATT00002.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 18:12:44 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 10:12:44 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] China Pledges to Increase Use Of Alternative Energy Sources Message-ID: <01C52235.0A6724B0.shovland@mindspring.com> Mark Landler. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 5, 2004. p. C.3 China, which has rattled energy markets with its ravenous appetite for oil, declared on Friday that it would generate 10 percent of its power through renewable sources by 2010. The pledge, made at a conference on renewable energy held here, surprised experts with its ambition. If China achieves its goal, they said, it will become a world leader in developing alternatives to fossil fuels, rather than just a world-class consumer. ''The Chinese want to do this on a massive scale,'' said Christopher Flavin, the president of the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research organization in Washington. ''They're very serious about it.'' China faces an urgent need to diversify beyond oil and coal, he said. There are already sporadic power shortages in its teeming cities. The bill for Chinese oil imports is skyrocketing, as its economy grows at nearly double-digit rates and cars and trucks choke Chinese streets. ''China is saying that it sees the rapid development of renewable energy as being in its strategic interest,'' Mr. Flavin said. China's initiative is part of a draft law on the use of renewable energy. In setting a numeric goal, Beijing has lined up with the European Union, which has pledged to generate 22 percent of its electricity, and 12 percent of all its energy, from renewable sources by 2010. The United States rejects benchmarks for the adoption of renewable energy, and the Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, the environmental treaty that imposes strict reductions on greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. Critics note that these targets are purely voluntary, with no sanctions if they are missed and no well-established review process to determine how well they are being met. The European Union warned recently that its 25 member states might fall short of their target for 2010. Moreover, energy consumption in China is rising so rapidly that even a national campaign to build windmills or solar-powered houses will barely reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels. The Chinese government said it planned to generate 60 gigawatts of energy from renewable sources by 2010 -- most from small-scale hydroelectric projects -- and 121 gigawatts by 2020. But the share of total electricity from renewable sources will rise to only 12 percent, from 10 percent. ''This is a problem in all industrializing countries,'' said Janet L. Sawin, a research associate at Worldwatch. ''We haven't been doing as much with energy efficiency as with energy production.'' Still, China's announcement allowed the German officials who played host at the conference to claim a victory. ''This commitment was amazing,'' said the minister for economic cooperation and development, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul. The timing of the conference could not have been more propitious. Crude oil prices surged to highs this week after a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, while ministers from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries held an emergency meeting to lift production quotas. But amid a recognition that renewable energy ought to be a priority again, there were troubling signs. The International Energy Agency released a study that showed renewable energy actually lost ground, as a percentage of the total supply of power, from 1970 to 2001. And while some countries, notably Denmark and Germany, have made big strides in wind energy, the progress has not spread widely. In 2001, about 86 percent of the world's capacity for wind generation was in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States, the report said. The German chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, announced 500 million euros ($610 million) in low-interest loans to support renewable-energy projects and energy efficiency in developing countries. The World Bank said it would increase lending for projects by 20 percent a year over the next five ye ars. The United States kept a low profile, sending an assistant energy secretary, while most countries sent ministers. It promised research money to make solar and geothermal energy more cost-efficient. If the United States is not a favored guest at such gatherings, however, it is also no longer a pariah. Most delegates avoided criticizing the Bush administration -- at least outside of hallway chatter -- and German officials said the American delegation played a ''constructive role.'' "We heard many pieces of advice, 'leave them out of it, and we'll go our own way,'" said Jurgen Trittin, the environment minister. "Germany should play a pioneering role, but it should take hesitant players along with it." From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sun Mar 6 19:30:08 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:30:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] middle east In-Reply-To: <200503051937.j25Jb8B15302@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050306193008.69690.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>The Bush's have a documented business relationship with the Bin Ladens going back decades.<< --I'm not sure it works to associate Bush with Bin Laden. Obviously the Bushes have been connected to the Bin Ladens through business, but there's no solid evidence that the Bin Ladens are deeply involved with Osama. There IS, however, the issue of reliance on Saudi oil, and the connections between US policitians and the Saudis in general. The Royal Family is widely seen as corrupt, and there is likely some connection between *some* Saudi officials and terrorism, through the madrasas and hidden agreements with anti-American groups. We aren't likely to call for Democracy in Saudi, given the likelihood of an anti-American elected government using oil to punish the US. So we have to do two things: pressure the Saudis to eliminate any links between Saudi officials and anti-US groups (Al Qaeda attacks within the country will probably do more for that than we could), and explain the reason we pragmatically support an authoritarian government while calling for Democracy elsewhere. Supporting the Saudi Royals makes sense given the alternatives, and it is also an ethical compromise. It might be difficult for Bush to be honest with the public on the issue, but if he has integrity he should make the effort. More likely he will ignore the Saudis, take credit for Syria leaving Lebanon (the assassination might have more to do with it, but pressure from the US and other countries helps) and work on Iran. But at some point, Saudi is going to go through some bumpy changes, and we don't seem to have much of a plan for dealing with it because it's such a hard sell, opposing a democratic movement against a corruption-plagued authoritarian government. The attitude of many Conservatives seems to be "the public doesn't understand these things. You can't explain all the complexities," which I think is rather belittling. The public should know as much as possible about its foreign policy and should not have to rely on simplistic talk of "eliminating evil". Many people still believe there was a link between Saddam and 911, and use the fallacious "prove there ISN'T a link" argument to avoid dealing with the misinformation. That's not encouraging, given the complexity of the long-term war on terrorism. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sun Mar 6 19:43:59 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:43:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <200503061918.j26JHxB05772@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>I don't think we can get out of having a large army unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend compulsory services in the Mosque.<< --Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have the power to force Americans into mosques? They want to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care less if we go to mosque or not. If we rely on military power without looking at our economic situation, their strategy may in fact work. The Soviets could not maintain a presence in Afghanistan for economic reasons, despite the advantage of a modernized military. Bin Laden knows what he's doing, and it doesn't depend on military victory but on systematically draining the US of resources, keeping it bogged down on as many fronts as possible while the dollar declines. If we are overstretched militarily, the draft isn't a good option (it would weaken support for the war considerably, and require the jailing of a huge number of resistors) and one can only rely so much on superior technology before the human element and economics become more relevant in success or failure. Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 21:38:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:38:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] middle east Message-ID: <01C52251.D59DA160.shovland@mindspring.com> Can we cherry pick who gets democracy and who doesn't when we are spending blood in Iraq? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 11:30 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] middle east >>The Bush's have a documented business relationship with the Bin Ladens going back decades.<< --I'm not sure it works to associate Bush with Bin Laden. Obviously the Bushes have been connected to the Bin Ladens through business, but there's no solid evidence that the Bin Ladens are deeply involved with Osama. There IS, however, the issue of reliance on Saudi oil, and the connections between US policitians and the Saudis in general. The Royal Family is widely seen as corrupt, and there is likely some connection between *some* Saudi officials and terrorism, through the madrasas and hidden agreements with anti-American groups. We aren't likely to call for Democracy in Saudi, given the likelihood of an anti-American elected government using oil to punish the US. So we have to do two things: pressure the Saudis to eliminate any links between Saudi officials and anti-US groups (Al Qaeda attacks within the country will probably do more for that than we could), and explain the reason we pragmatically support an authoritarian government while calling for Democracy elsewhere. Supporting the Saudi Royals makes sense given the alternatives, and it is also an ethical compromise. It might be difficult for Bush to be honest with the public on the issue, but if he has integrity he should make the effort. More likely he will ignore the Saudis, take credit for Syria leaving Lebanon (the assassination might have more to do with it, but pressure from the US and other countries helps) and work on Iran. But at some point, Saudi is going to go through some bumpy changes, and we don't seem to have much of a plan for dealing with it because it's such a hard sell, opposing a democratic movement against a corruption-plagued authoritarian government. The attitude of many Conservatives seems to be "the public doesn't understand these things. You can't explain all the complexities," which I think is rather belittling. The public should know as much as possible about its foreign policy and should not have to rely on simplistic talk of "eliminating evil". Many people still believe there was a link between Saddam and 911, and use the fallacious "prove there ISN'T a link" argument to avoid dealing with the misinformation. That's not encouraging, given the complexity of the long-term war on terrorism. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 6 21:40:50 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:40:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Message-ID: <01C52252.1D10A560.shovland@mindspring.com> In spite of all the propaganda about al Qaeda leadership in Iraq, the truth is that the insurgency is being led by the professionals of Iraq's old army. They are fighting a war of attrition and they have the British cemetary in Baghdad as proof that they did it once and can do it again. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 11:44 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >>I don't think we can get out of having a large army unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend compulsory services in the Mosque.<< --Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have the power to force Americans into mosques? They want to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care less if we go to mosque or not. If we rely on military power without looking at our economic situation, their strategy may in fact work. The Soviets could not maintain a presence in Afghanistan for economic reasons, despite the advantage of a modernized military. Bin Laden knows what he's doing, and it doesn't depend on military victory but on systematically draining the US of resources, keeping it bogged down on as many fronts as possible while the dollar declines. If we are overstretched militarily, the draft isn't a good option (it would weaken support for the war considerably, and require the jailing of a huge number of resistors) and one can only rely so much on superior technology before the human element and economics become more relevant in success or failure. Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 6 23:34:05 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:34:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more References: <74.4ee116c6.2f5bfd9c@aol.com> Message-ID: <024301c522a4$fd9860d0$d106f604@S0027397558> Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: joe at quirk.net ; emdls at pacbell.net Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day This statement, as you've pointed out, Joe, is riddled with not-so-hidden assumptions. Getting a reputation to live up to would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly. Some folks feel utterly isolated and unwanted even when they're surrounded by an entourage. Some wonder if the entourage is simply there for the glory of association with a big name or is really there for THEM, for the inner human stripped of his or her fame and accomplishments. And some folks feel utterly bereft when the reach a pinnacle. They feel they have nothing new to strive for, and the goal-lessness leaves them drowning in the acid of depression. I've seen all these things happen to the stars I've worked with. Which means that how you take winning an Oscar is a matter of perception. Some folks can see new horizons beckoning from even the worst of things. Others can see new hells in even the greatest glories. My guess, a hypothesis to consider, is that those who see the best in what's around them, those who see opportunities even in catastrophe, are most likely to attract the kind of popularity among Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members that makes an Oscar possible. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Mar 7 01:00:19 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:00:19 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <01C52252.1D10A560.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52252.1D10A560.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050306195208.01df4ae8@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:40 PM 3/6/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >In spite of all the propaganda about al Qaeda >leadership in Iraq, the truth is that the insurgency >is being led by the professionals of Iraq's >old army. > >They are fighting a war of attrition and they have >the British cemetary in Baghdad as proof that they >did it once and can do it again. We have occasionally commented on the way in which wishful thinking and narcissism have caused less than optimal policies by the current Administration -- and on pobbilities to be more effective. But Bush is certainly not the only human being in this situation. As I understand it, the Baathist leadership and Al Queida are engaged in a very ancient kind of "dance," in the spirit of old Fu Manchu movies. Each thinks it has the longest knife ready to strike into the back of the other, unseen and unprepared for. In my view, the Al Quieda and its allies have the longer knives, in places where the Baathists would never see them until too late. It is a shame, in a way, because the original premises of the baathists seemed a lot more progressive that a lot of what we see now in the area, in certain key respects. They might have a lot to contribute as a PART of a democratic state, if some of the corruption of recent decades could be cleansed/reduced. But corruption is hard to recover from quickly after many, many years. My suggestion of an "Iraqi Sovereignty Recognition Act," as a way of ADDRESSING the Sunni request for a definite withdrawal timetable, might have helped in the recovery. Whatever. Best of luck to us all... Paul >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 11:44 AM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > > >>I don't think we can get out of having a large army >unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend >compulsory services in the Mosque.<< > >--Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have >the power to force Americans into mosques? They want >to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from >the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care >less if we go to mosque or not. > >If we rely on military power without looking at our >economic situation, their strategy may in fact work. >The Soviets could not maintain a presence in >Afghanistan for economic reasons, despite the >advantage of a modernized military. Bin Laden knows >what he's doing, and it doesn't depend on military >victory but on systematically draining the US of >resources, keeping it bogged down on as many fronts as >possible while the dollar declines. If we are >overstretched militarily, the draft isn't a good >option (it would weaken support for the war >considerably, and require the jailing of a huge number >of resistors) and one can only rely so much on >superior technology before the human element and >economics become more relevant in success or failure. > >Michael > > > > > >__________________________________ >Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! >Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web >http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 01:44:58 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 17:44:58 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more Message-ID: <02c201c522b7$46aed670$d106f604@S0027397558> I have taken the liberty of posting below both of Howard's replies to Joe Quirk's commentary: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." In the first is presented a scenario in which 90% of kids who grow up with single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up unsuccessful yet the remaining 10% are able to attain success due to their bonding with suitable mentors. Howard then offers some examples including one twin attaining BigMan status in womb while the other is relegated to the closet with his title: Loser in Womb Wars. I doubt if these studies by an Italian researcher have followed the nurturing process throughout adolescence and into middle age. Nature allowed, possibly by chance, prime real estate for one twin but whether that twin is able to maintain the family farm is another question. In his second reply Howard has offered all of us the fear of success scenario whereby someone who attains early acolades "would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly." Take your pick....but I'll guess that receiving an Oscar for best director at a ripe old age of 75 was an honor much appreciated by Clint Eastwood. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ***************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: joe at quirk.net ; emdls at pacbell.net Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies... "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day." Your points are good ones, Joe. It's like the problem of resilient kids. Roughly one out of ten kids who grow up with single, abusive, drug or drink-addled mothers end up as very successful adults. What do these kids have in common? The find mentors, substitute parents to whom they bond. This leaves us with a puzzle. Do these kids become more successful because they have an attachment to a significat other, an emotionally meaningful, nurturing other, something most tormented kids like this lack? Or do these resilient kids have an attachment to a mentor because the are born with better social instincts, the instincts of self-confidence and extroversion that make them bold enough to find others they can attach themselves to? Which came first, the confidence or the social connection? Is the success these kids have later in life due to their outgoing nature or due to the mentors that outgoing nature brings? Or are the two--confidence and social connection--inseparable? Is there a gene-tweak or a womb-experience that makes for more confident kids and others who are born with shyness and overwhelming insecurities? In twin studies by an Italian researcher, regular sonographic scans of the two kids in the womb showed that there was a battle taking place in utero. One twin managed to take over the living room of the womb--the central chamber, The other kid was shoved aside and had to gestate in a corner, in a sort-of closet of the womb. When the two finally made it from the uterus into the outside word, the winner of the womb war was outgoing and self-confident. When a stranger showed up, the winner ran over clearly expecting to win the stranger over. It saw this new social contact as an opportunity. The loser in the womb wars saw the same stranger and hugged its mother's legs in panic, then ran off to something eerily like its old uterine closet--it hid in a side room. ThIs kid saw a stranger as a danger, not as a new opening. Did the winner of the womb wars win by chance and then gain the benefits of his land grab for intra-uterine space? Or was there some gene-tweak that predestined him to win? Does womb-real estate change the nature of the kid--does it change the way that genes express themselves? Or does some small gene-fluke exist even in what we think of as genetically identical kids? Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ***************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: joe at quirk.net ; emdls at pacbell.net Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Tortured Souls & Eunuchs at Orgies...yet more In a message dated 3/3/2005 8:08:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joe at quirk.net writes: "Once you win, you've got a reputation to live up to, even if you weren't so inclined, you get surrounded by an entourage that's also heavily invested in your reputation," said Redelmeier. "So you end up sleeping properly every night, eating well, exercising regularly every day This statement, as you've pointed out, Joe, is riddled with not-so-hidden assumptions. Getting a reputation to live up to would make some folks edgy as hell--and nearly suicidal if they couldn't live up to their previous achievements and seemed to be slipping badly. Some folks feel utterly isolated and unwanted even when they're surrounded by an entourage. Some wonder if the entourage is simply there for the glory of association with a big name or is really there for THEM, for the inner human stripped of his or her fame and accomplishments. And some folks feel utterly bereft when the reach a pinnacle. They feel they have nothing new to strive for, and the goal-lessness leaves them drowning in the acid of depression. I've seen all these things happen to the stars I've worked with. Which means that how you take winning an Oscar is a matter of perception. Some folks can see new horizons beckoning from even the worst of things. Others can see new hells in even the greatest glories. My guess, a hypothesis to consider, is that those who see the best in what's around them, those who see opportunities even in catastrophe, are most likely to attract the kind of popularity among Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members that makes an Oscar possible. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Mon Mar 7 15:10:05 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:10:05 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> Michael Christopher wrote: >>>I don't think we can get out of having a large army > > unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend > compulsory services in the Mosque.<< > > --Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have > the power to force Americans into mosques? They want > to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from > the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care > less if we go to mosque or not. I have been forced to learn English. Christian From guavaberry at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 15:47:42 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:47:42 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] fish feel pain in a similar way to humans and other mammals Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307104731.036feea0@mail.earthlink.net> Does she have feelings, too? (Filed: 02/03/2005) the idea that fish feel pain in a similar way to humans and other mammals has split scientists A fierce debate is raging about whether fish are sentient beings that feel pain. Sanjida O'Connell reports The goldfish might have a reputation for having a three-second memory, but scientists are realising that fish are much smarter than most of us give them credit for. Now, at a forthcoming conference on sentience in domesticated animals, an expert is to argue that what really matters is not IQ but emotions, and that fish can suffer as much as birds and many mammals. The claim of Professor Ian Duncan of Guelph University, Canada, will attract praise and condemnation in equal measure. Supporters include the organiser of the conference, the Compassion in World Farming Trust, which is concerned about the welfare of farmed fish, its agenda being to achieve wider recognition of farm animals as sentient beings. Some animal rights groups go further. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, for example, says: "Many people never consider the terror and suffering that fish endure when they're impaled by a hook and pulled out of the water. In fact, if anglers treated cats, dogs, cows or pigs the way they treat fish, they would be thrown in prison on charges of cruelty to animals." The angling community dismisses such claims as "debate driven by prejudice and sentiment". Charles Jardine, director of the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Angling, denies that fish can feel pain, adding: "I have spent my whole life fishing and I wouldn't do it if I thought it was cruel." Although scientists have spent years examining cognition in other animals, fish have been neglected. Now, according to Dr Keven Laland of the University of St Andrews, fish are thought to have long-term memories and some can even be compared to non-human primates in terms of their social skills. What is important, according to Prof Duncan, is how an animal feels. He says: "We assume human beings have a worse time than animals do because we have the cognitive ability to imagine all the different things that can go wrong in our lives. But the converse might be true." Imagine, for instance, a person with a broken arm and a fish with a torn fin. "The pain may be extremely severe in both cases. However, the human being's cognitive ability might help her `think about other things'." But because animals such as fish cannot think like us, their pain might be all-consuming. How do we know fish feel pain? In 2003 Dr Lynne Sneddon of the University of Liverpool published the first evidence that fish have pain receptors like ours. Nociception is the ability to detect painful stimuli. Dr Sneddon showed that fish, like humans and other higher vertebrates, have nociceptors that respond to chemicals, heat and pressure. However, sceptics, such as Dr James Rose of the University of Wyoming, Laramie, author of a scientific paper on fish pain, think this does not show that fish suffer. Dr Rose says: "The presence of nociceptors in fish makes sense, but nociception is not the same thing as pain and can occur without pain. Consequently, the presence of nociceptors is not proof that fish are capable of experiencing pain." In other words, if you touch a hot stove, your nociceptors will fire and trigger a reflex action - you'll snatch your hand away. You will then feel pain; what Dr Rose argues is that fish have reflex actions that prevent them from being injured, but feel nothing. Dr Sneddon has just published some work that many believe refutes the sceptics. She injected rainbow trout either with a salt solution, which was unlikely to cause them any discomfort after the initial injection, or with bee venom. The ones injected with the saline solution continued to feed and behave as normal. The others stopped feeding for almost three hours, rocked from side to side and rubbed their lips against the gravel and sides of their tank. The breathing rate of the venom-injected fish also doubled, like a person in pain might hyperventilate. "These complex behaviours have not been recorded in fish before and may be pain-coping strategies." Dr Rose disagrees. He suggests that her study shows the opposite - that trout have a remarkable tolerance of trauma, since the fish resumed feeding in just less than three hours. "The most impressive thing about the venom injections was the relative absence of behavioural effects, given the magnitude of the toxic injections. How many humans would show little change in behaviour or be ready to eat less than three hours after getting a lemon-sized bolus of bee venom in their lip? Moreover, the behaviour described may have been nociceptive responses, but there is no reason to believe they reflected conscious pain." Dr Sneddon retorts: "Dr Rose doesn't understand how these things work - he doesn't work on pain, he just wrote a review about pain in fish. The bee venom causes an acute short-lasting stimulus that in other animals and humans has an effect that lasts for three hours. So the fish show quite an intense response at the start and then the physiological effect subsides over three hours, the same as it does in humans." The second part of Dr Sneddon's study consisted of giving the trout morphine. Almost immediately, the trout that first had the venom started to feed. She concludes: "The trout's behaviour and responses were affected by the venom. They have the same pain-sensing apparatus that we have. The bee venom would be painful to us, so therefore it's likely that it was painful to the fish." She admits the study is controversial, adding: "We can never tell what an experience is like for another animal. No one has ever been a fish, so we don't know what it is like." Dr Rose remains to be convinced. His argument centres on how the brain processes pain. He argues that in humans pain perception is computed by the neocortex, the outer layer of the brain. "Fish have no brain regions even remotely comparable to these human neocortical regions," he says. "Consequently, this is a simple hardware question - fish don't have the brain hardware necessary for either consciousness or pain." John Webster, an emeritus professor at the University of Bristol, whose book Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden has just been published, says: "A powerful portfolio of physiological and behavioural evidence now exists to support the case that fish feel pain and that this feeling matters. In the face of such evidence, any argument to the contrary based on the claim that fish 'do not have the right sort of brain' can no longer be called scientific. It is just obstinate." It is debatable whether fish can suffer, but if they do feel pain, should that alter how we treat them? Three studies record an 80 per cent mortality rate for fish such as mackerel and sole caught by trawlers and thrown back into the sea. If fishermen hook fish in the skin or the mouth, the majority recover, but if the fish swallows the hook or it catches any other part of its anatomy, it will subsequently bleed to death. Currently, two main types of hooks are used by anglers - octopus hooks and circular hooks. Circular hooks cause less damage: if the hook is easy to remove, 95 per cent of fish survive, whereas 15 per cent more die when an octopus hook is used. Dr Sneddon says: "People should think more clearly about how they handle fish and what they subject them to. It's up to individuals whether they eat fish, but it's an important food so the government should invest money in equipment to make the experience of being caught less invasive for fish. As for fishermen, they should know that what they do causes fish pain and it's up to them to decide whether they want to continue angling." The Compassion in World Farming conference on animal sentience is in London from March 17-18; http://www.animalsentience.com/ 12 October 2004: QED: fishy business [fish are not clever] 6 October 2004: Fast-learning fish have memories that put their owners to shame ---- Karen Ellis <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From guavaberry at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 16:01:41 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:01:41 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Did animals sense Tsunami was coming? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050307105948.03704bf8@mail.earthlink.net> Did animals sense Tsunami was coming? http://www.animalsentience.com/news/2005-01-15.htm From unstasis at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 23:17:39 2005 From: unstasis at gmail.com (Stephen Lee) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:17:39 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Reinventing Capitalism ebay sale and other miscellaneous Howard Bloom news Message-ID: <951ad07050307151723c63f83@mail.gmail.com> Hello All, Just wanted to send out a quick email informing you all that a first draft of Howard Bloom's next book, "Reinventing Capitalism: Putting Soul into the Machine: A Quick Revision of Western Civilization" is now on sale on E-Bay!!! You can get there via this link or just search for Reinventing Capitalism on E-Bay over the next week. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4532507022&fromMakeTrack=true Also just to let you all know that Howard will be at 4 different events in May. Lecture at Yale, Give dates and titles for each of these vents?no need to get into anything beyond that.. A premiere of a short film and talk at the Knitting factory (knittingfactory.com), Also a statue unveiling And finally an award for lifetime achievement All in the week of May 7 to 14th. -- >From all of us at Team Bloom (care of Howard's assistant Stephen Lee) From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 23:53:50 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:53:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> Christian Rauh writes: > I have been forced to learn English. When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American citizen and having to speak English, are you? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 00:08:57 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:08:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] animals and pain In-Reply-To: <200503071937.j27JbXB21282@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050308000857.35397.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>Now, at a forthcoming conference on sentience in domesticated animals, an expert is to argue that what really matters is not IQ but emotions, and that fish can suffer as much as birds and many mammals.<< --I think for the purposes of empathy, that's true. If we go by IQ, then low-IQ humans are somehow less sentient or less human. If we go by the ability to suffer, then we have to include animals. We may eventually be forced to confront our somewhat compartmentalized attitudes toward animals. Most people have no problem eating a cow, but would feel more than a slight twinge of guilt eating a dolphin or chimpanzee. It's similar to our attitudes toward drugs, which are based on unthinking perceptions of risk and social acceptability, rather than solid information. In the case of animals and pain, we have to ask "why are we asking the question?" Why does it matter to us if animals, or other people, for that matter, feel pain? The answer might give us some clues as to where to draw the line. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 8 02:04:42 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:04:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Message-ID: <01C52340.240EDC80.shovland@mindspring.com> I guess he's from someplace in Europe. And yes, English is today's global language and you have to speak it to be in the game. In the time of Christ, it was Aramaic, and Swahili is understood all over Africa. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:54 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Christian Rauh writes: > I have been forced to learn English. When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American citizen and having to speak English, are you? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Mar 8 02:27:07 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:27:07 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <422D0D7B.3090607@solution-consulting.com> Michael, you may want to read Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle, which was published before 9/11, or so I believe. That fact is, if Islam were to conquer the west, there would be intense interest in forcing people here into their image. That is their history, and it is Bin Laden's goal. Islam sees the world as Dar al Islam (land of peace/submission) and Dar al Harb (land of war). Consider that radical Islam may be our enemy. Respect for the enemy means being able to see the world through the enemy's eyes, and not project onto the enemy our own motivations and world-view. Lynn Christian Rauh wrote: >Michael Christopher wrote: > > >>>>I don't think we can get out of having a large army >>>> >>>> >>unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend >>compulsory services in the Mosque.<< >> >>--Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have >>the power to force Americans into mosques? They want >>to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from >>the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care >>less if we go to mosque or not. >> >> > >I have been forced to learn English. > >Christian >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 8 03:52:57 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:52:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Reinventing Capitalism ebay sale and othermiscellaneous Howard Bloom news References: <951ad07050307151723c63f83@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <035f01c52392$51cb1bf0$7f03f604@S0027397558> Hi, I'm just curious why you think Howard's new book will be a hit on e-bay? It certainly should be, but what are reasons you have elected to place it there? I'm thinking that a few readers who liked Howard's other books might wait until his next one is released. Then purchase. That's what I'd do. Always curious, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Lee" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:17 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] Reinventing Capitalism ebay sale and othermiscellaneous Howard Bloom news > Hello All, > > Just wanted to send out a quick email informing you > all that a first draft of Howard Bloom's next book, > "Reinventing Capitalism: Putting Soul into the > Machine: A Quick Revision of Western > Civilization" is now on sale on E-Bay!!! > > You can get there via this link or just search for > Reinventing Capitalism on E-Bay over the next week. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4532507022&fromMakeTrack=true > > Also just to let you all know that Howard will be at > 4 > different events in May. > > Lecture at Yale, Give dates and titles for each of > these vents?no need to get into anything beyond > that.. > > A premiere of a short film and talk at the Knitting > factory > (knittingfactory.com), > > Also a statue unveiling > > And finally an award for lifetime achievement > > All in the week of May 7 to 14th. > > -- >>From all of us at Team Bloom > (care of Howard's assistant Stephen Lee) > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 8 05:11:42 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:11:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Message-ID: <01C5235A.43B9B540.shovland@mindspring.com> They may be our enemy, but that doesn't mean that hordes of sword-waving crazies on horseback will be coming over the border. They are kidding themselves if they think they will conquer us, and we are paranoid if we think that. Bin Laden is mostly motivated by anger about the permanent US bases in Saudi. I have previously advocated using intelligence and police methods to decapitate Islamic radicalism. The sort of mass slaughter we are conducing in Iraq is only making them stronger. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 6:27 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Michael, you may want to read Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle, which was published before 9/11, or so I believe. That fact is, if Islam were to conquer the west, there would be intense interest in forcing people here into their image. That is their history, and it is Bin Laden's goal. Islam sees the world as Dar al Islam (land of peace/submission) and Dar al Harb (land of war). Consider that radical Islam may be our enemy. Respect for the enemy means being able to see the world through the enemy's eyes, and not project onto the enemy our own motivations and world-view. Lynn Christian Rauh wrote: >Michael Christopher wrote: > > >>>>I don't think we can get out of having a large army >>>> >>>> >>unless you want to start speaking Arabic and attend >>compulsory services in the Mosque.<< >> >>--Does anyone really believe the Islamic radicals have >>the power to force Americans into mosques? They want >>to crush us economically, force us to withdraw from >>the Middle East in humiliation. They couldn't care >>less if we go to mosque or not. >> >> > >I have been forced to learn English. > >Christian >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 02:12:17 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:12:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] US and Islam In-Reply-To: <200503081947.j28JllB13797@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050309021217.43784.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>Michael, you may want to read Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle, which was published before 9/11, or so I believe. That fact is, if Islam were to conquer the west, there would be intense interest in forcing people here into their image.<< --If Bin Laden seriously thinks he can force America to accept Islam as its official religion, then he's a lot less intelligent than I give him credit for. Running the US into economic turmoil and stretching its military too thin is within the realm of possibility. Converting the US to Islam is not. Obviously every Muslim and Christian on the planet would rejoice if everyone converted to their belief. Both religions predict the destruction of everyone who doesn't share the faith. But wishful thinking is not the same thing as plausible strategy. I worry a lot more about Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into Al Qaeda's hands in the event of a coup, than about being forced to convert to Islam. Even converting the French to Islam would be impossible, let alone Americans. At mose, radical Muslims may be able to cow a few European countries into advancing the interests of their Islamic minorities. But more likely, they'll just anger mainstream Muslims as they increasingly target Muslims who do not share their politics. It will be that latter fact that turns the tide, and we are already seeing reactions by Muslims against the tactics of Al Qaeda when it targets Muslims along with "infidels". As long as radical Islam targeted Americans and Israelis, it had a media advantage. Now that it's routinely killing Muslims, that is changing, and we should do whatever we can to help moderate Muslims gain a voice, organize through internet and cell phones, and form a street presence to compete with Hezbollah and other radical groups. Michael __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ From guavaberry at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 03:02:37 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:02:37 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] animals and pain In-Reply-To: <20050308000857.35397.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200503071937.j27JbXB21282@tick.javien.com> <20050308000857.35397.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050308215545.038784a8@mail.earthlink.net> Yes Michael, thank you best, karen At 07:08 PM 3/7/2005, you wrote: > >>Now, at a forthcoming conference on sentience in >domesticated animals, an expert is to argue that what >really matters is not IQ but emotions, and that fish >can suffer as much as birds and many mammals.<< > >--I think for the purposes of empathy, that's true. If >we go by IQ, then low-IQ humans are somehow less >sentient or less human. If we go by the ability to >suffer, then we have to include animals. We may >eventually be forced to confront our somewhat >compartmentalized attitudes toward animals. Most >people have no problem eating a cow, but would feel >more than a slight twinge of guilt eating a dolphin or >chimpanzee. It's similar to our attitudes toward >drugs, which are based on unthinking perceptions of >risk and social acceptability, rather than solid >information. In the case of animals and pain, we have >to ask "why are we asking the question?" Why does it >matter to us if animals, or other people, for that >matter, feel pain? The answer might give us some clues >as to where to draw the line. > >Michael From guavaberry at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 03:08:51 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:08:51 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] animals and pain Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050308220505.036dd298@mail.earthlink.net> then on another note: just how stupid are these people? - do we really need to spend money on tests like these ? Is this the fate of all people who have a total disconnect from their oral tradition? Aren't there stories from the ages that tell how smart the monkey is? what the f*-k k From: "Ian Pitchford" Subject: Rhesus monkeys can assess the visual perspective of others when competing for food Public release date: 7-Mar-2005 [ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ] Contact: Heidi Hardman hhardman at cell.com 1-617-397-2879 Cell Press Rhesus monkeys can assess the visual perspective of others when competing for food Researchers Jonathan Flombaum and Dr. Laurie Santos, both from Yale University, have found that rhesus monkeys consider whether a competitor can or cannot see them when trying to steal food. Working with semi-free-ranging rhesus monkeys on the island of Cayo Santiago in Puerto Rico, Flombaum and Santos set up a food competition game: Lone monkeys were approached by two human "competitors." Each competitor had a grape affixed to a platform by his feet. In each experiment, one of the competitors could see the monkey in front of them, but the other could not. For example, in Experiment 1, one of the competitors stood with his back to the monkey subject, while the other stood facing the subject. Monkeys in this experiment spontaneously chose to approach and steal a grape from only the competitor with his back toward the monkey. In five more experiments, the monkeys revealed similar preferences for an experimenter who could not see them, rather than one who could. Most notably, they reliably stole food from a competitor with only his eyes averted, rather than one facing perfectly forward, as well as an experimenter with a piece of cardboard over his eyes rather than one with cardboard over his mouth. Together, these results reveal not only that rhesus monkeys prefer to steal food from a competitor who cannot see them, but also that they know exactly how blocking or averting one's eyes can render one unable to see. Thus, even without any training, these monkeys were able to accurately consider the visual perspective of others when deciding from whom to steal. In previous studies, rhesus monkeys (and other primates) were thought to do no more than merely follow the gaze of others. Primates have typically failed in other, noncompetitive experiments that require surmising what other individuals know or see from where they are looking. In one famous case, for example, rhesus monkeys were unable to find food under a hidden location when the human experimenter who hid the food preferentially looked at the hidden location. These results suggest that competition-like situations may bring out the primates' abilities more than experiments that don't involve competition. These latest results, however, suggest that rhesus monkeys can do much more than just follow the gaze of others; they can also deduce what others see and know, based only on their perception of where others are looking. These data potentially push back the time during which our own abilities to "read the minds of others" must have evolved. Moreover, they suggest strongly a reason why these abilities may have evolved in the first place, namely for competitive interactions with others. Finally, these results lay the groundwork for investigating the neural basis for this kind of social reasoning in a readily available laboratory animal - an urgent endeavor for developing a better neural understanding of diseases such as autism, in which this kind of social reasoning appears impaired. ### Jonathan I. Flombaum and Laurie R. Santos: "Rhesus Monkeys Attribute Perceptions to Others" The other members of the research team include Jonathan I. Flombaum and Laurie R. Santos from Yale University. This research was supported by a National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship to J.I.F. and the Yale University Moore Fund grant to L.R.S. The Cayo Santiago Field Station was supported by the National Institutes of Health (National Center for Research Resources grant CM-5-P40RR003640-13 award to the Caribbean Primate Research Center) and the University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus. Publishing in Current Biology, Volume 15, Number 5, March 8, 2005, pages 447-452. http://www.current-biology.com http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/cp-rmc030305.php From guavaberry at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 03:11:56 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:11:56 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050308221129.038784a8@mail.earthlink.net> Synaesthete makes sweet music News Published online: 2 March 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050228-9 Synaesthete makes sweet music Ruth Francis Professional musician distinguishes intervals with her tongue. A recorder player has fascinated neuroscientists with her ability to taste differences in the intervals between notes. The condition in which the brain links two or more of the senses is known as synaesthesia, and some sense combinations are relatively common. But this is the first time that the ability has been found to help in performing a mental task, such as identifying a major third. Elizabeth Sulston was at school when she first noticed that she saw colours while hearing music. She realized that the same was not true of her peers, although linkage of tone and colour is a known synaesthetic combination. As she began to learn music more formally, she found that when hearing particular tone intervals she experienced a characteristic taste on her tongue. For example, a minor third tasted salty to her, whereas a minor sixth tasted like cream. She started to use the tastes to help her recognize different chords. Talking to news at nature.com, she says: "I always had the synaesthesia, but really became conscious of it at 16. Then I started to use it for the tone-interval identification. I could first check it by counting the space between the notes, and second by 'feeling' my tongue." The taste of music Lutz J?ncke, a neuroscientist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, works with musicians who report unusual qualities or skills. Thanks to a student investigating synaesthesia he was introduced to the recorder-playing Sulston. To test her unique ability, he and his colleagues played tone intervals while delivering different tastes to her tongue. They used either the same taste that Sulston associates with an interval, or a clashing one. They found that she was able to identify the intervals much more quickly when the taste matched the one that she says she normally associates with it. That kind of pattern would be difficult to fake, J?ncke says. He reports the results in Nature1. "With incongruent taste she was sometimes slower than other musicians; she is extraordinarily quick usually," he says. "The synaesthesia is kind of boosting her performance. Her hit rate was perfect, but the difference was in the reaction times." Full Text at Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-9.html Comment: The tongue has taste buds only for sweet, sour, bitter and salt. Most of her taste sensations fall just on these four, but the girl also reports 'mown grass', 'disgust', 'pure water', 'cream' and 'low fat cream'. These could be combinations and relative intensities of the taste bud sensations, or a combination of olfaction and taste, which would be considerably more complex than taste alone. It seems more likely that taste alone is involved, and that interpretations of taste a subconscious associations acting to enhance the raw taste sensation. <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 9 14:41:32 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:41:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] animals and pain Message-ID: <01C52473.089B6D90.shovland@mindspring.com> I have known some humans who would fail these tests :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: K.E. [SMTP:guavaberry at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:09 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] animals and pain then on another note: just how stupid are these people? - do we really need to spend money on tests like these ? Is this the fate of all people who have a total disconnect from their oral tradition? Aren't there stories from the ages that tell how smart the monkey is? what the f*-k k From: "Ian Pitchford" Subject: Rhesus monkeys can assess the visual perspective of others when competing for food Public release date: 7-Mar-2005 [ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ] Contact: Heidi Hardman hhardman at cell.com 1-617-397-2879 Cell Press Rhesus monkeys can assess the visual perspective of others when competing for food Researchers Jonathan Flombaum and Dr. Laurie Santos, both from Yale University, have found that rhesus monkeys consider whether a competitor can or cannot see them when trying to steal food. Working with semi-free-ranging rhesus monkeys on the island of Cayo Santiago in Puerto Rico, Flombaum and Santos set up a food competition game: Lone monkeys were approached by two human "competitors." Each competitor had a grape affixed to a platform by his feet. In each experiment, one of the competitors could see the monkey in front of them, but the other could not. For example, in Experiment 1, one of the competitors stood with his back to the monkey subject, while the other stood facing the subject. Monkeys in this experiment spontaneously chose to approach and steal a grape from only the competitor with his back toward the monkey. In five more experiments, the monkeys revealed similar preferences for an experimenter who could not see them, rather than one who could. Most notably, they reliably stole food from a competitor with only his eyes averted, rather than one facing perfectly forward, as well as an experimenter with a piece of cardboard over his eyes rather than one with cardboard over his mouth. Together, these results reveal not only that rhesus monkeys prefer to steal food from a competitor who cannot see them, but also that they know exactly how blocking or averting one's eyes can render one unable to see. Thus, even without any training, these monkeys were able to accurately consider the visual perspective of others when deciding from whom to steal. In previous studies, rhesus monkeys (and other primates) were thought to do no more than merely follow the gaze of others. Primates have typically failed in other, noncompetitive experiments that require surmising what other individuals know or see from where they are looking. In one famous case, for example, rhesus monkeys were unable to find food under a hidden location when the human experimenter who hid the food preferentially looked at the hidden location. These results suggest that competition-like situations may bring out the primates' abilities more than experiments that don't involve competition. These latest results, however, suggest that rhesus monkeys can do much more than just follow the gaze of others; they can also deduce what others see and know, based only on their perception of where others are looking. These data potentially push back the time during which our own abilities to "read the minds of others" must have evolved. Moreover, they suggest strongly a reason why these abilities may have evolved in the first place, namely for competitive interactions with others. Finally, these results lay the groundwork for investigating the neural basis for this kind of social reasoning in a readily available laboratory animal - an urgent endeavor for developing a better neural understanding of diseases such as autism, in which this kind of social reasoning appears impaired. ### Jonathan I. Flombaum and Laurie R. Santos: "Rhesus Monkeys Attribute Perceptions to Others" The other members of the research team include Jonathan I. Flombaum and Laurie R. Santos from Yale University. This research was supported by a National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship to J.I.F. and the Yale University Moore Fund grant to L.R.S. The Cayo Santiago Field Station was supported by the National Institutes of Health (National Center for Research Resources grant CM-5-P40RR003640-13 award to the Caribbean Primate Research Center) and the University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus. Publishing in Current Biology, Volume 15, Number 5, March 8, 2005, pages 447-452. http://www.current-biology.com http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/cp-rmc030305.php _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 9 14:42:47 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:42:47 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses Message-ID: <01C52473.35755C90.shovland@mindspring.com> Making music must be a totally ecstatic experience for her. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: K.E. [SMTP:guavaberry at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:12 PM To: paleo Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses Synaesthete makes sweet music News Published online: 2 March 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050228-9 Synaesthete makes sweet music Ruth Francis Professional musician distinguishes intervals with her tongue. A recorder player has fascinated neuroscientists with her ability to taste differences in the intervals between notes. The condition in which the brain links two or more of the senses is known as synaesthesia, and some sense combinations are relatively common. But this is the first time that the ability has been found to help in performing a mental task, such as identifying a major third. Elizabeth Sulston was at school when she first noticed that she saw colours while hearing music. She realized that the same was not true of her peers, although linkage of tone and colour is a known synaesthetic combination. As she began to learn music more formally, she found that when hearing particular tone intervals she experienced a characteristic taste on her tongue. For example, a minor third tasted salty to her, whereas a minor sixth tasted like cream. She started to use the tastes to help her recognize different chords. Talking to news at nature.com, she says: "I always had the synaesthesia, but really became conscious of it at 16. Then I started to use it for the tone-interval identification. I could first check it by counting the space between the notes, and second by 'feeling' my tongue." The taste of music Lutz Jancke, a neuroscientist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, works with musicians who report unusual qualities or skills. Thanks to a student investigating synaesthesia he was introduced to the recorder-playing Sulston. To test her unique ability, he and his colleagues played tone intervals while delivering different tastes to her tongue. They used either the same taste that Sulston associates with an interval, or a clashing one. They found that she was able to identify the intervals much more quickly when the taste matched the one that she says she normally associates with it. That kind of pattern would be difficult to fake, Jancke says. He reports the results in Nature1. "With incongruent taste she was sometimes slower than other musicians; she is extraordinarily quick usually," he says. "The synaesthesia is kind of boosting her performance. Her hit rate was perfect, but the difference was in the reaction times." Full Text at Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-9.html Comment: The tongue has taste buds only for sweet, sour, bitter and salt. Most of her taste sensations fall just on these four, but the girl also reports 'mown grass', 'disgust', 'pure water', 'cream' and 'low fat cream'. These could be combinations and relative intensities of the taste bud sensations, or a combination of olfaction and taste, which would be considerably more complex than taste alone. It seems more likely that taste alone is involved, and that interpretations of taste a subconscious associations acting to enhance the raw taste sensation. <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 16:45:35 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:45:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses References: <01C52473.35755C90.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <007401c524c7$6bb78bd0$c503f604@S0027397558> A regular gourmand feast. What a marvelous diet! Gerry Reinhart-Waller http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:42 AM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] the senses > Making music must be a totally ecstatic experience > for her. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: K.E. [SMTP:guavaberry at earthlink.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:12 PM > To: paleo > Subject: [Paleopsych] the senses > > Synaesthete makes sweet music > > News > > > Published online: 2 March 2005; | > doi:10.1038/news050228-9 > Synaesthete makes sweet music > Ruth Francis > Professional musician distinguishes intervals > with her tongue. > > > A recorder player has fascinated neuroscientists with > her ability to taste > differences in the intervals between notes. > > The condition in which the brain links two or more of > the senses is known > as synaesthesia, and some sense combinations are > relatively common. But > this is the first time that the ability has been > found to help in > performing a mental task, such as identifying a major > third. > > Elizabeth Sulston was at school when she first > noticed that she saw colours > while hearing music. She realized that the same was > not true of her peers, > although linkage of tone and colour is a known > synaesthetic combination. > > As she began to learn music more formally, she found > that when hearing > particular tone intervals she experienced a > characteristic taste on her > tongue. For example, a minor third tasted salty to > her, whereas a minor > sixth tasted like cream. She started to use the > tastes to help her > recognize different chords. > > Talking to news at nature.com, she says: "I always had > the synaesthesia, but > really became conscious of it at 16. Then I started > to use it for the > tone-interval identification. I could first check it > by counting the space > between the notes, and second by 'feeling' my > tongue." > > The taste of music > > Lutz Jancke, a neuroscientist at the University of > Zurich, Switzerland, > works with musicians who report unusual qualities or > skills. Thanks to a > student investigating synaesthesia he was introduced > to the > recorder-playing Sulston. > > To test her unique ability, he and his colleagues > played tone intervals > while delivering different tastes to her tongue. They > used either the same > taste that Sulston associates with an interval, or a > clashing one. > > They found that she was able to identify the > intervals much more quickly > when the taste matched the one that she says she > normally associates with > it. That kind of pattern would be difficult to fake, > Jancke says. He > reports the results in Nature1. > > "With incongruent taste she was sometimes slower than > other musicians; she > is extraordinarily quick usually," he says. "The > synaesthesia is kind of > boosting her performance. Her hit rate was perfect, > but the difference was > in the reaction times." > > Full Text at Nature > http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-9.html > > Comment: > The tongue has taste buds only for sweet, sour, > bitter and salt. Most of > her taste sensations fall just on these four, but the > girl also reports > 'mown grass', 'disgust', 'pure water', 'cream' and > 'low fat cream'. These > could be combinations and relative intensities of the > taste bud sensations, > or a combination of olfaction and taste, which would > be considerably more > complex than taste alone. It seems more likely that > taste alone is > involved, and that interpretations of taste a > subconscious associations > acting to enhance the raw taste sensation. > > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > The Educational CyberPlayGround > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ > > National Children's Folksong Repository > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ > > Hot List of Schools Online and > Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ > > 7 Hot Site Awards > New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, > USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Thu Mar 10 19:43:55 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:43:55 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> Gerry, I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the street. That's economic pressure. And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you will have to face the individual consequences. As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards "spreading freedom". G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Christian Rauh writes: > >> I have been forced to learn English. > > > When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? > France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American > citizen and having to speak English, are you? > > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 10 20:24:21 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make is "why is a Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state university in Connecticut?" Are you also a U.S. citizen? They might further comment: "If I learned Portuguese, would I then get a decent academic job in Brazil or are such positions reserved for Brazilian citizens"? People learn English usually because it guarantees them employment. If and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and lifeways become a ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will learn Arabic. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; "Lista Paleopsych" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Gerry, > > I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn > english because > without knowing it I would not be able to get a > decent job in this world. > > My point was to show the irony of people fearing > having to learn arabic > or going to mosques when other people are having to > learn english. What > they fear is to be influenced to do things they > otherwise would not. > > The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other > places, people have > to learn English. One can argue that it is not a > deliberate and > conscious pressure, however, to the person learning > the language, the > prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as > troops on the > street. That's economic pressure. > > And to the counter-argument that you always have the > individual choice > of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you > always have the > individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to > mosques. But you > will have to face the individual consequences. > > As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, > American citizens > are aware of the amount of influence and pressure > that the US exerts in > the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in > general, most > Americans can't understand the cynicism that > foreigners have towards > "spreading freedom". > > > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> Christian Rauh writes: >> >>> I have been forced to learn English. >> >> >> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a >> heinous thing? >> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about >> being an American >> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >> >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> > > -- > > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ > _____________________________________________________________________ > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > From ross.buck at uconn.edu Thu Mar 10 20:29:20 2005 From: ross.buck at uconn.edu (Ross Buck) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:29:20 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> Christian: Right on! You have a refreshing point of view that needs to be better appreciated in the U.S. if we are ever to understand why we are the object of so much bitterness and resentment in the world. Ross Ross Buck, Ph. D. Professor of Communication Sciences and Psychology Communication Sciences U-1085 University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-1085 860-486-4494 fax 860-486-5422 Ross.buck at uconn.edu http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Christian Rauh Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:44 PM To: G. Reinhart-Waller; Lista Paleopsych Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism Gerry, I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the street. That's economic pressure. And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you will have to face the individual consequences. As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards "spreading freedom". G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Christian Rauh writes: > >> I have been forced to learn English. > > > When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? > France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American > citizen and having to speak English, are you? > > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From kendulf at shaw.ca Thu Mar 10 22:41:14 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:41:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <000c01c525c2$44278150$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Friends, When I learned Russian everyone about me spoke it, and my aunt praised me for speaking with the accent of a Muscovite. When I learned German I was discouraged from speaking Russian, as it was not safe and even a six-year old can sense it among red and black banners and arms raised in "Heil Hitler". When I learned English and French, it was because my class learned it as it was part of the curriculum - full stop! When I lost my French it was because my high school French teacher in Regina, Saskatchewan, spoke the language less well than I did, and I had nobody to talk to. My Quebecoise grandchildren speak French fluently, and I have not been able to re-learn, courtesy of nobody to talk to here in the boonies in the west. English is my primary language now, and German colleagues are envious because I can so readily publish in English. However, I am angered and saddened by their denial of their German as so much that is relevant in my interests is found only in German. And I appreciate as an author the strengths and weaknesses of German and of English. I could not function without the latter in the modern world, but imperialism? I never saw it that way. If I could get a bit more time I would gladly learn another language, provided I can live in it and imbibe the culture that goes with it. And when I get mad at the USA, and that happens ever so often, I think back to the GI who sat down on the edge of my bed the day the Sherman tanks raced into our village, pulled out his K-rations and gave me something to eat. And the care packages that brightened our days and in the uncertainty gave us hope for a better world. And I am not surprised that the first choice of many Palestinians is to emigrate to the United States, and barring that....... Sincerely, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Buck" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:29 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Christian: > > Right on! You have a refreshing point of view that needs to be better > appreciated in the U.S. if we are ever to understand why we are the object > of so much bitterness and resentment in the world. > > Ross > > Ross Buck, Ph. D. > Professor of Communication Sciences > and Psychology > Communication Sciences U-1085 > University of Connecticut > Storrs, CT 06269-1085 > 860-486-4494 > fax 860-486-5422 > Ross.buck at uconn.edu > http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm > > > -----Original Message----- > From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org > [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Christian Rauh > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:44 PM > To: G. Reinhart-Waller; Lista Paleopsych > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > Gerry, > > I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because > without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. > > My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic > or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What > they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. > > The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have > to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and > conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the > prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the > street. That's economic pressure. > > And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice > of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the > individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you > will have to face the individual consequences. > > As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens > are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in > the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most > Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards > "spreading freedom". > > > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> Christian Rauh writes: >> >>> I have been forced to learn English. >> >> >> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? >> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American >> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >> >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> > > -- > > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ > _____________________________________________________________________ > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/2005 > > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Thu Mar 10 22:45:08 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:45:08 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] English In-Reply-To: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> References: <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050310172616.01d7ae98@incoming.verizon.net> Hi, folks! Certainly there are times when the US is like a blind elephant that really needs to work on its vision. And there are areas of science where Brazil offers opportunities to US folks just as much as vice-versa. But.. The English language is a totally different matter! To begin with, the US doesn't own that language. There was a time when Latin was the lingua franca of intelligent work in Europe. It wasn't because of the great pressure exerted by dead Roman emperors. It was because standards and conventions are critical to universal communication. It is often said these days that "Bad English is the universal language of science." Have you seen people in Budapest who complained why all Americans did not learn Hungarian? And then turned around and used English themselves to talk to visiting Rumanians or Chinese? We can't learn all the languages. -------- On the other hand, I personally believe that Arabic (not counting the alphabet) does have a kind of special logical status. The Russian linguist Sapir had some very deep and valid empirical insights into the evolution of language. Like Freud, he didn't frame his concepts in the most precise mathematical way, and he did hit a few distracting hot buttons (like Freud and like E.O. Wilson.) But we are deeply impoverished when we do not learn what we can from his observations -- and reinterpret it in a more modern context. Basically -- the modern western European languages are really very, very close in terms of the world view they impose. Some US theorists imagine that Western grammatical structures are hard-wired into the genes of all humans -- but I hear that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has had some very intense discussions about the weirdness of "scientists" who postulate that English grammar is wired into even their genes! (I have heard a lot more about those discussions...). Yes, there is some special colorful vocabulary in each Western language, but the underlying structures are very similar, in a way that Sapir noticed. And, as Max Weber suggested... these structures of thought may owe more to Plato than to DNA. We underestimate Plato's influence (and Socrates'..) because of how thoroughly we have absorbed it, in the West. But... for humanity as a whole... Arabic and Chinese represent a major flowering of a different way of phrasing things. If we were trying to be truly cosmopolitan, maybe everyone would learn English, Arabic and Chinese. But maybe we would have computers and courses to make this easier for people, and do some other fixes in the meantime. (Maybe enlarging some vocabularies a bit?) Long ago, I remember suggesting... that in a rational world... we would make a Great Bargain, perhaps in the European community or even OECD. English would get greater status as a common official language... IN RETURN for fixing up the spelling, to make it truly phonetic. And the English would agree to drive on the right side of the road, and the US to fully adopt the metric system. And with Chinese, computers would have a very special role... But... long enough, this email is already. On the Irish side of my family, there were people who fought very hard to resist English imperialism. Their feelings about it were not restrained. But they never fought the English language. They felt that they could speak it and write it better than the English, and that doing so would be a stronger path for them. (They spoke some Gaelic in school... but never tried to take it further.) Best, Paul From guavaberry at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 01:56:12 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:56:12 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] theory of everything? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050310205521.0387a8f0@mail.earthlink.net> Evidence of Cosmic Strings Found? http://www.rednova.com/news/space/132303/finding_the_ultimate_theory_of_everything/index.html Finding the Ultimate Theory of Everything Could two lookalike galaxies, barely a whisker apart in the night sky, herald a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics? Some physicists believe that the two galaxies are the same - its image has been split into two, they maintain, by a "cosmic string"; a San Andreas Fault in the very fabric of space and time. If this interpretation is correct, then CSL-1 - the name of the curious double galaxy - is the first concrete evidence for "superstring theory": the best candidate for a "theory of everything", which attempts to encapsulate all the phenomena of nature in one neat set of equations. <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 02:24:14 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:24:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> <000c01c525c2$44278150$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <039101c525e1$6c930190$1903f604@S0027397558> Dear Val and all, I found your post so moving that I've decided to post it to my Language-Origins group. Possibly rather than looking for "origins", members might be understand the historical implication for language. Language is definitely NOT a closed system as some scientists might wish to explain. I thank you for this reply. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Val Geist" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Dear Friends, > > When I learned Russian everyone about me spoke it, > and my aunt praised me for speaking with the accent > of a Muscovite. When I learned German I was > discouraged from speaking Russian, as it was not safe > and even a six-year old can sense it among red and > black banners and arms raised in "Heil Hitler". When > I learned English and French, it was because my class > learned it as it was part of the curriculum - full > stop! When I lost my French it was because my high > school French teacher in Regina, Saskatchewan, spoke > the language less well than I did, and I had nobody > to talk to. My Quebecoise grandchildren speak French > fluently, and I have not been able to re-learn, > courtesy of nobody to talk to here in the boonies in > the west. English is my primary language now, and > German colleagues are envious because I can so > readily publish in English. However, I am angered and > saddened by their denial of their German as so much > that is relevant in my interests is found only in > German. And I appreciate as an author the strengths > and weaknesses of German and of English. I could not > function without the latter in the modern world, but > imperialism? I never saw it that way. If I could get > a bit more time I would gladly learn another > language, provided I can live in it and imbibe the > culture that goes with it. And when I get mad at the > USA, and that happens ever so often, I think back to > the GI who sat down on the edge of my bed the day the > Sherman tanks raced into our village, pulled out his > K-rations and gave me something to eat. And the care > packages that brightened our days and in the > uncertainty gave us hope for a better world. And I am > not surprised that the first choice of many > Palestinians is to emigrate to the United States, and > barring that....... > > Sincerely, Val Geist > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ross Buck" > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:29 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > >> Christian: >> >> Right on! You have a refreshing point of view that >> needs to be better >> appreciated in the U.S. if we are ever to understand >> why we are the object >> of so much bitterness and resentment in the world. >> >> Ross >> >> Ross Buck, Ph. D. >> Professor of Communication Sciences >> and Psychology >> Communication Sciences U-1085 >> University of Connecticut >> Storrs, CT 06269-1085 >> 860-486-4494 >> fax 860-486-5422 >> Ross.buck at uconn.edu >> http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org >> [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf >> Of Christian Rauh >> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:44 PM >> To: G. Reinhart-Waller; Lista Paleopsych >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >> >> Gerry, >> >> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn >> english because >> without knowing it I would not be able to get a >> decent job in this world. >> >> My point was to show the irony of people fearing >> having to learn arabic >> or going to mosques when other people are having to >> learn english. What >> they fear is to be influenced to do things they >> otherwise would not. >> >> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other >> places, people have >> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a >> deliberate and >> conscious pressure, however, to the person learning >> the language, the >> prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive >> as troops on the >> street. That's economic pressure. >> >> And to the counter-argument that you always have the >> individual choice >> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you >> always have the >> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to >> mosques. But you >> will have to face the individual consequences. >> >> As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, >> American citizens >> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure >> that the US exerts in >> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in >> general, most >> Americans can't understand the cynicism that >> foreigners have towards >> "spreading freedom". >> >> >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> Christian Rauh writes: >>> >>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>> >>> >>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such >>> a heinous thing? >>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' >>> about being an American >>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>> >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> Independent Scholar >>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>> >> >> -- From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 02:33:00 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:33:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] English References: <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu><200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050310172616.01d7ae98@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <039701c525e2$a66487d0$1903f604@S0027397558> Thanks Paul for this reply and for your historical rendition. I have taken the liberty of posting this to my language-origins group because I believe your interpretation of what's needed in understanding language is "spot on". Language is not only the words or sentence structure we use; it also encompasses the "sense" of what we are trying to say. I totally agree that for anyone to have a Worldly View, one needs to be versant in Arabic, Chinese and English. Only then will a scholar have a handle on language. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul J. Werbos, Dr." To: "The new improved paleopsych list" ; "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:45 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] English > > Hi, folks! > > Certainly there are times when the US is like a blind > elephant that really needs to work > on its vision. And there are areas of science where > Brazil offers opportunities to US folks > just as much as vice-versa. > > But.. > > The English language is a totally different matter! > > To begin with, the US doesn't own that language. > > There was a time when Latin was the lingua franca of > intelligent work in Europe. It wasn't because of the > great pressure > exerted by dead Roman emperors. It was because > standards > and conventions are critical to universal > communication. > It is often said these days that "Bad English is the > universal language > of science." > > Have you seen people in Budapest who complained why > all Americans did not learn > Hungarian? And then turned around and used English > themselves to talk to visiting > Rumanians or Chinese? We can't learn all the > languages. > > -------- > > On the other hand, I personally believe that Arabic > (not counting the alphabet) does > have a kind of special logical status. The Russian > linguist Sapir had some very deep and > valid empirical insights into the evolution of > language. Like Freud, he didn't frame his > concepts in the most precise mathematical way, and he > did hit a few distracting hot buttons > (like Freud and like E.O. Wilson.) But we are deeply > impoverished when we do not > learn what we can from his observations -- and > reinterpret it in a more modern context. > > Basically -- the modern western European languages > are really very, very close in terms > of the world view they impose. Some US theorists > imagine that Western grammatical > structures are hard-wired into the genes of all > humans -- but I hear that the Chinese > Academy of Sciences has had some very intense > discussions about the weirdness > of "scientists" who postulate that English grammar is > wired into even their genes! > (I have heard a lot more about those discussions...). > Yes, there is some special colorful vocabulary in > each Western language, but the underlying structures > are very similar, in a way that Sapir noticed. > And, as Max Weber suggested... these structures of > thought may owe more to Plato than to DNA. > We underestimate Plato's influence (and Socrates'..) > because of how thoroughly we have absorbed it, in the > West. > > But... for humanity as a whole... Arabic and Chinese > represent a major flowering of a different > way of phrasing things. If we were trying to be truly > cosmopolitan, maybe everyone would > learn English, Arabic and Chinese. But maybe we would > have computers and courses to make this easier for > people, and do some other fixes in the meantime. > (Maybe enlarging some vocabularies a bit?) > > Long ago, I remember suggesting... that in a rational > world... we would make a > Great Bargain, perhaps in the European community or > even OECD. English would get greater > status as a common official language... IN RETURN for > fixing up the spelling, > to make it truly phonetic. And the English would > agree to drive on the right side of the road, > and the US to fully adopt the metric system. > > And with Chinese, computers would have a very special > role... > > But... long enough, this email is already. > > On the Irish side of my family, there were people who > fought very hard to > resist English imperialism. Their feelings about it > were not restrained. > But they never fought the English language. They felt > that they could speak it > and write it better than the English, and that doing > so would be a stronger path > for them. (They spoke some Gaelic in school... but > never tried to take it further.) > > Best, > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 11 03:35:31 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:35:31 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Pilots give aviation security efforts low grades Message-ID: <01C525A8.52DE9720.shovland@mindspring.com> Reuters News Service WASHINGTON -- A group of airline pilots gave the U.S. government failing grades today in several areas of aviation security including the screening of employees and cargo, and defending planes from shoulder-fired missiles. ADVERTISEMENT The Coalition of Airline Pilots Association released its Aviation Security Report Card that showed aviation security gets average to failing grades in over a dozen subject areas. The trade group gave failing "F" grades to the government in five areas -- screening of employees, screening of cargo, high-tech credentialing of crew members, self-defense training for crew and the plan for countering shoulder-fired missiles. The group gave good grades to the government on improved bag screening and on reinforcing cockpit doors on commercial airplanes. Jon Safley, president of CAPA, said filling some of the "gaping holes" in aviation security will require major changes in the way the airlines and airports do business, and in the way the government manages airline security. "The technology exists, or could be updated http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3078169 From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 11 03:37:40 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:37:40 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Protecting nuclear power plants in an age of unbridled terrorism (commentary by Russell Hoffman, October 22nd, 2001) Message-ID: <01C525A8.A01A51A0.shovland@mindspring.com> Protecting nuclear power plants in an age of unbridled terrorism (commentary by Russell Hoffman, October 22nd, 2001) To: listen at ajc.com From: "Russell D. Hoffman" Subject: Protecting nuclear power plants in an age of unbridled terrorism To: Editor, Atlantic Journal-Constitution From: Russell Hoffman, Concerned Citizen, Carlsbad CA Subject: Protecting nuclear power plants in an age of unbridled terrorism Date: October 22nd, 2001 To The Editor: Regarding the opinion piece published in your paper yesterday (and shown below), posting National Guard troops around our nuclear power plants would only be of limited value. What we need are much better physical barriers (earthen berms, concrete gates, etc.), more firepower for the defenders (perhaps National Guard troops) including anti-aircraft missiles, we need absolute enforcement of a no-fly zone around each plant (at least 25 miles in radius -- that gives you about 2 minutes unless the terrorists have hijacked a Concorde), and the plants need to all be shut down permanently because they are much more robust once the control rods are inserted, and over time they become more and more resistant to terrorist acts, or acts of God for that matter. Each plant is operating at risk of catastrophic failures, from earthquakes, from tsunamis for the coastal plants, from tornados, operator error, embrittlement and many other things. NONE of them have proper protections. For example tsunamis are known to reach heights of 200 feet regularly, even 1800 feet, but the tsunami wall at my local nuclear power plant (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station) is only 35 feet tall. Similarly, it's design basis is a 7.0 earthquake but new evidence suggests that 7.6 earthquakes are possible here. Please read some of the essays I've posted online regarding the many reasons we need to switch NOW to renewable energy solutions. Thank you. Russell Hoffman Concerned Citizen P.O. Box 1936 Carlsbad CA 92018 Essays on nuclear power: From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 11 03:40:34 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:40:34 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Chemical plants and terrorism (google terms) Message-ID: <01C525A9.078BF280.shovland@mindspring.com> Fast Facts Last update: June 19, 2002 In brief: According to the U.S. EPA, 123 chemical facilities in the United States each threaten a million or more nearby residents. More than 700 plants could put at least 100,000 people at risk, and more than 3,000 facilities have at least 10,000 people nearby. (Source: Washington Post ) Common facilities using chemicals that pose the greatest threats to local populations include chemical manufacturers (chlorine and a range of other chemicals), water treatment facilities (chlorine), oil refineries (chlorine and a range of other chemicals) and fertilizer manufacturers (ammonia). (Source: Jeremiah Baumann, U.S. Public Interest Research Group) Public interest groups like Greenpeace, U.S. PIRG and Environmental Defense advocate improving "inherent safety" at chemical plants and water treatment facilities by replacing especially hazardous chemicals with safer ones. Advocates for "inherent safety" argue that virtually all of the ultra-hazardous chemicals used in the United States have safer substitutes. A number of facilities have demonstrated that it's possible to change operations or chemicals to improve safety. One example: after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant near Washington, D.C., stopped using chlorine in a matter of weeks, substituting a much less toxic disinfectant. (Source: Washington Post ) A chemical release could endanger millions of Americans: A terrorist attack on a toxic chemical plant in a densely populated area could result in up to 2.4 million casualties, according to an October study by the U.S. Army surgeon general. (Source: Global Security Newswire ) Copies of U.S. chemical trade publications were found in an Osama bin Laden hideout in December 2001. (Source: Washington Post ) According to the National Transportation Safety Board and the Coast Guard, a large leak of chlorine gas can travel two miles in only 10 minutes and remain acutely toxic to a distance of about 20 miles. (Source: Greenpeace ) Only 10 parts per million of chlorine is needed to reach the IDLH ("immediately dangerous to life or health") level established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (Source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ) Chemical plant disaster scenarios documented by the U.S. EPA, as reported in December 2001 by the Washington Post : A suburban California chemical plant routinely loads chlorine into 90-ton railroad cars that, if ruptured, could poison more than 4 million people in Orange and Los Angeles counties, depending on wind and weather conditions. A Philadelphia refinery keeps 400,000 pounds of hydrogen fluoride that could asphyxiate nearly 4 million nearby residents. A South Kearny, N.J., chemical company's 180,000 pounds of chlorine or sulfur dioxide could form a cloud that could threaten 12 million people. The West Virginia sister plant of the infamous Union Carbide Corp. factory in Bhopal, India, keeps up to 200,000 pounds of methyl isocyanate that could emit a toxic fog over 60,000 people near Charleston. The Atofina Chemicals Inc. plant outside Detroit projects that a rupture of one of its 90-ton rail cars of chlorine could endanger 3 million people. the link: http://www.ems.org/chemical_plants/facts.html From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 11 03:52:38 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:52:38 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Immortality is within our grasp Message-ID: <01C525AA.B7098690.shovland@mindspring.com> Immortality is within our grasp . . . In Fantastic Voyage, high-tech visionary Ray Kurzweil teams up with life-extension expert Terry Grossman, M.D., to consider the awesome benefits to human health and longevity promised by the leading edge of medical science--and what you can do today to take full advantage of these startling advances. Citing extensive research findings that sound as radical as the most speculative science fiction, Kurzweil and Grossman offer a program designed to slow aging and disease processes to such a degree that you should be in good health and good spirits when the more extreme life-extending and life-enhancing technologies--now in development--become available. This bridge to the future will enable those who dare to make the journey from this century to the next . . . and beyond. http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Fri Mar 11 15:44:23 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <4231BCD7.7080403@uconn.edu> Gerry, I don't see your point. My first point is that there is (mostly economic) pressure to conform to US culture. Obviously, when the pressure comes from some other place people will conform to the strongest. My second point is that people in the US are unaware of this pressure. But at the same time fear any outside pressure from another source themselves. For example, an international court or an arabic country. There is no pressure for the US academician to learn portuguese. He may do it, but solely because he chooses that. I don't think that pressure to conform is bad or that it can be eliminated, but I think it can be better equalized. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make is "why is a > Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state university in > Connecticut?" > > Are you also a U.S. citizen? > > They might further comment: "If I learned Portuguese, would I then get > a decent academic job in Brazil or are such positions reserved for > Brazilian citizens"? > > People learn English usually because it guarantees them employment. If > and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and lifeways become a > ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will learn Arabic. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" > > To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; "Lista Paleopsych" > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > >> Gerry, >> >> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because >> without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. >> >> My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic >> or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What >> they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. >> >> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have >> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and >> conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the >> prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the >> street. That's economic pressure. >> >> And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice >> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the >> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you >> will have to face the individual consequences. >> >> As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens >> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in >> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most >> Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards >> "spreading freedom". >> >> >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>> Christian Rauh writes: >>> >>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>> >>> >>> >>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? >>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American >>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>> >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> Independent Scholar >>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>> >> >> -- >> >> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >> ~ P E A C E ~ >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >> > > > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Fri Mar 11 15:54:54 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:54:54 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism In-Reply-To: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> References: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <4231BF4E.2030808@uconn.edu> Ross, The role of pointing out the foreign perspective has fallen upon me on the list without conscious action on my part. It is not surprising that that has happened though. Many times, however, I try to refrain from such comment not to be labeled the grumpy outsider. :-) Christian Ross Buck wrote: > Christian: > > Right on! You have a refreshing point of view that needs to be better > appreciated in the U.S. if we are ever to understand why we are the object > of so much bitterness and resentment in the world. > > Ross > > Ross Buck, Ph. D. > Professor of Communication Sciences > and Psychology > Communication Sciences U-1085 > University of Connecticut > Storrs, CT 06269-1085 > 860-486-4494 > fax 860-486-5422 > Ross.buck at uconn.edu > http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm > > > -----Original Message----- > From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org > [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Christian Rauh > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:44 PM > To: G. Reinhart-Waller; Lista Paleopsych > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > Gerry, > > I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because > without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this world. > > My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic > or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What > they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. > > The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have > to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and > conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the > prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the > street. That's economic pressure. > > And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice > of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the > individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you > will have to face the individual consequences. > > As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens > are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in > the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most > Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards > "spreading freedom". > > > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >>Christian Rauh writes: >> >> >>>I have been forced to learn English. >> >> >>When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? >>France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American >>citizen and having to speak English, are you? >> >> >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>Independent Scholar >>http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> > > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 19:21:25 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:21:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism References: <200503102029.j2AKTWB04863@tick.javien.com> <000c01c525c2$44278150$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <039101c525e1$6c930190$1903f604@S0027397558> <002801c525f5$4a2c4e40$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <018501c5266f$85f812e0$aa00f604@S0027397558> Dear Val, I'm always pleased to answer considerate emails like the kind you write and I will do my best to try solving your puzzle. Yes, I can relate to the emotional rush you feel when you read Russian or listen to Russian folk songs. The same thing happens to me when I recall the East Coast, particularly Massachusetts where I was born, and educated and the place where I raised my daughter. When I hear a song from my teen or college years and later, I undergo horrible pangs of nostalgia. Now I rarely listen to stereo or radio. A life without music for me is both dismal and depressing. When I watch young mothers walk hand in hand with their children.....I recall the play groups or afternoons at the beach that my daughter and I would spend together building forts and castles in the sand. I watch in envy as these new moms gather together in play groups or stroller exercise classes and wonder what it must be like raising an infant in our apartment compound. My friends and family continue residing back East but after my father's death, our family lost contact so other than visiting an old friend in Cambridge, I have no need to make contact with them. When I search Public Library shelves for a text, I recall my educational training and the many years I spent hanging out in the numerous uni. libraries back east. There are times when the loneliness is so powerful that I need to leave the library as quickly as possible. I do live close to a major private university here in California but their libraries actually contain very few books....lots of computer terminals though. Each day I wait for a change in the weather but other than cloudy mornings most of the year is bright sunshine with the same boring places to walk or drive to. On the days I go grocery shopping I spend a brief while planning a menu for the week and that's when I can actually taste treats from back East....pastrami on rye with a sour pickle or deep fried clams or shrimp always pop into my head. So does an evening ice cream cone from the local dairy stand. I then sink so low that it takes a good while to raise my spirits before I trek to the market. For you my advice would be to spend time in Moscow and reacquaint yourself with the area. Maybe you could find some type of employment or if you are in retirement, a place to volunteer or an institution with which to affiliate. For me, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my daughter soon will graduate in her PhD program here and will be looking for a job.....once that has been settled, I can better gain a glimpse into my future. Hope this helps. Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Val Geist" To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Dear Garry, > > Thank you very much for your kind e-mail. Your really > touched a nerve, one that has been touchy for nearly > four decades as I am groping for an answer. You are > more likely than anyone to relate to it and explain > something that is a puzzle to me. > > As you are aware, Russian was my first and only > language, which I spoke fluently till six years of > age. German followed to the total exclusion of > Russian, and I lost it. At the age of 23, in Canada, > doing my PhD dissertation research, I was isolated > for two years hermit-like in the mountain wilderness > of Northern British Columbia. I studied Stone's sheep > and other large mammals and saw no other humans for > months on end, as my closest neighbors were 40 miles > away. That's two days by dog sled one way! We had > built a nice warm cabin, and during winter at that > latitude just short of 60 the nights are very long. > What better time to re-learn my Russian? I had > obtained the three-volume set of lessons from the > Moscow foreign languages publishing house. And so, I > began. There were 32 chapters to go through, but I > only went to 16 because by that time matters were > flooding back and I began to read Trotsky and Pushkin > and Tolstoy. To my surprise I could understand > sentences even though I did not know specific words. > And I was so eager to read, as I understood, and I > enjoyed it. I re-learned well enough to read original > Russian for my PhD dissertation, but soon discovered > that the east Germans had translated virtually > everything I was interested in and I lost my Russian > as second time. However, that's not what I am > concerned about. I soon discovered in reading Russian > that my ability to read had limits, because I would > suddenly be sitting in tears. And I could not control > it. Here I sat trying to figurer out why I was > crying. It made no sense, and it would stop only if I > laid down the books and did something else. Ditto > with Russian folk songs. I can get past the first > verse, more or less, but must quite on the second and > definitely by the third. And that has haunted me for > four decades. I loved the novels I read then, I love > the folksongs, but invariably something turns on the > spouts and I cannot proceed. Any answers? > > Sincerely, Val Geist From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 19:38:23 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:38:23 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] university employment for non U.S. citizens References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com><422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu><02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558><4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu><01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> <4231BCD7.7080403@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <019e01c52671$e4913a50$aa00f604@S0027397558> Christian writes: > I don't see your point. Let's see if I can post it again: >> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make >> is "why is a >> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state >> university in >> Connecticut?" Since you are not U.S. Citizen, how long have you lived in America and taught at U.Conn? The point being....why is someone without citizenship able to slot into a full time teaching job at good University when an equally qualified U.S. academician is unemployed? Please excuse the questions....it's the way I was taught to think. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" To: "Lista Paleopsych" Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > Gerry, > > I don't see your point. > > My first point is that there is (mostly economic) > pressure to conform to > US culture. Obviously, when the pressure comes from > some other place > people will conform to the strongest. > > My second point is that people in the US are unaware > of this pressure. > But at the same time fear any outside pressure from > another source > themselves. For example, an international court or an > arabic country. > > There is no pressure for the US academician to learn > portuguese. He may > do it, but solely because he chooses that. > > I don't think that pressure to conform is bad or that > it can be > eliminated, but I think it can be better equalized. > > Christian > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make >> is "why is a >> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state >> university in >> Connecticut?" >> >> Are you also a U.S. citizen? >> >> They might further comment: "If I learned >> Portuguese, would I then get >> a decent academic job in Brazil or are such >> positions reserved for >> Brazilian citizens"? >> >> People learn English usually because it guarantees >> them employment. If >> and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and >> lifeways become a >> ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will >> learn Arabic. >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" >> >> To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; >> "Lista Paleopsych" >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >> >> >>> Gerry, >>> >>> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn >>> english because >>> without knowing it I would not be able to get a >>> decent job in this world. >>> >>> My point was to show the irony of people fearing >>> having to learn arabic >>> or going to mosques when other people are having to >>> learn english. What >>> they fear is to be influenced to do things they >>> otherwise would not. >>> >>> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other >>> places, people have >>> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a >>> deliberate and >>> conscious pressure, however, to the person learning >>> the language, the >>> prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive >>> as troops on the >>> street. That's economic pressure. >>> >>> And to the counter-argument that you always have >>> the individual choice >>> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you >>> always have the >>> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going >>> to mosques. But you >>> will have to face the individual consequences. >>> >>> As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, >>> American citizens >>> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure >>> that the US exerts in >>> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, >>> in general, most >>> Americans can't understand the cynicism that >>> foreigners have towards >>> "spreading freedom". >>> >>> >>> >>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>>> Christian Rauh writes: >>>> >>>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such >>>> a heinous thing? >>>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' >>>> about being an American >>>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>>> >>>> >>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>> Independent Scholar >>>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> ~ P E A C E ~ >>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> >> >> >> > > -- > > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ > _____________________________________________________________________ > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 12 01:11:06 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:11:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <200503112012.j2BKBpE07459@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Christian says: >>My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not.<< --That's a good point. We often fail to see how much influence we have, to the point of making life impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist that everyone live in it with you. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:23:42 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:23:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Passage from "Fantastic Voyage" Message-ID: <01C5265F.13525A80.shovland@mindspring.com> Do we have the knowledge and the tools today to live forever? If all science and technology development suddenly stopped, the answer would have to be no. We do have the means to dramatically slow disease and the aging process far more than most people realize, but we do not yet have all the techniques we need to indefinitely extend human life. However, it is clear that far from halting, the pace of scientific and technological discovery is accelerating. According to models that Ray has created, our paradigm-shift rate-the rate of technical progress-is doubling every decade, and the capability (price performance, capacity, and speed) of specific information technologies is doubling every year. So the answer to our question is actually a definitive yes-the knowledge exists, if aggressively applied, for you to slow aging and disease processes to such a degree that you can be in good health and good spirits when the more radical life-extending and life-enhancing technologies become available over the next couple of decades. Longevity expert and gerontologist Aubrey de Grey uses the metaphor of maintaining a house to explain this key concept. How long does a house last? The answer obviously depends on how well you take care of it. If you do nothing, the roof will spring a leak before long, water and the elements will invade, and eventually the house will disintegrate. But if you proactively take care of the structure, repair all damage, confront all dangers, and rebuild or renovate parts from time to time using new materials and technologies, the life of the house can essentially be extended without limit. The same holds true for our bodies and brains. The only difference is that while we fully understand the methods underlying the maintenance of a house, we do not yet fully understand all of the biological principles of life. But with our rapidly increasing comprehension of the human genome, the proteins expressed by the genome (proteome), and the biochemical processes and pathways of our metabolism, we are quickly gaining that knowledge. We are beginning to understand aging, not as a single inexorable progression but as a group of related biological processes. Strategies for reversing each of these aging progressions using different combinations of biotechnology techniques are emerging. Many scientists, including the authors of this book, believe that we will have the means to stop and even reverse aging within the next two decades. In the meantime, we can slow each aging process to a crawl using the methods outlined in this book. From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:31:05 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:31:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language Message-ID: <01C52660.1B56B3B0.shovland@mindspring.com> They don't need to adapt our agenda in order to find English useful. The world has had global languages for thousands of years. Someday English will fade and something else will replace it. If the Euro is gaining strength against the Dollar, then it may be that the people who live in Euro countries will develop one language from their whole collection and that this language would ride out to rule the world along with the Euro. The people under the Euro fold do interract more with each other. Often two parties will know a smattering of each others language, and they will communicate using this smattering. It is their own language for these two people. Now imagine all the people in Euro-land talking to each other using smatterings. The sum of all these smatterings is Euro-speak. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 5:11 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] influence Christian says: >>My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not.<< --That's a good point. We often fail to see how much influence we have, to the point of making life impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist that everyone live in it with you. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:33:36 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:33:36 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fantastic Voyage: The Biotechnology Revolution Message-ID: <01C52660.75633900.shovland@mindspring.com> As we learn how information is transformed in biological processes, many strategies are emerging for overcoming disease and aging processes. We'll review some of the more promising approaches here, and then discuss further examples in the chapters ahead. One powerful approach is to start with biology's information backbone: the genome. With gene technologies, we're now on the verge of being able to control how genes express themselves. Ultimately, we will actually be able to change the genes themselves. We are already deploying gene technologies in other species. Using a method called recombinant technology, which is being used commercially to provide many new pharmaceutical drugs, the genes of organisms ranging from bacteria to farmyard animals are being modified to produce the proteins we need to combat human diseases. http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/Chapter2.htm From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:36:43 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:36:43 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fantastic Voyage- Bridge Three: Nanotechnology and Artificial Intelligence Message-ID: <01C52660.E4CFD9B0.shovland@mindspring.com> As we "reverse engineer" (understand the principles of operation behind) our biology, we will apply our technology to augment and redesign our bodies and brains to radically extend longevity, enhance our health, and expand our intelligence and experiences. Much of this technological development will be the result of research into nanotechnology, a term originally coined by K. Eric Drexler in the 1970s to describe the study of objects whose smallest features are less than 100 nanometers (billionths of a meter). A nanometer equals roughly the diameter of five carbon atoms. Rob Freitas, a nanotechnology theorist, writes, "The comprehensive knowledge of human molecular structure so painstakingly acquired during the 20th and early 21st centuries will be used in the 21st century to design medically active microscopic machines. These machines, rather than being tasked primarily with voyages of pure discovery, will instead most often be sent on missions of cellular inspection, repair, and reconstruction."35 http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/Chapter1.htm http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/Chapter2.htm http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/Chapter3.htm From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:42:04 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:42:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Link to Ray Kurzweil's AI Newsletter Message-ID: <01C52661.A458BF90.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=2 Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 01:45:53 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:45:53 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Link to Terry Grossman's longevity site Message-ID: <01C52662.2CF2B040.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.fmiclinic.com/ Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 12 02:04:57 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:04:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> Michael writes: > --That's a good point. We often fail to see how much > influence we have, to the point of making life > impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. > And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. > It > is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist > that everyone live in it with you. --How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in bringing about reasonable peace throughout the world? Any person who has assumed a leadership role, be it doctor, lawyer or teacher, knows what leadership means. It means that there will be supporters as well as those who counter your role....that's to be expected. Didn't someone say not too long ago: "You are either with us or against us"? Maybe it was our president when we rallied to invade Iraq. Only difficulty with this stance is that it just might create another Civil War. Gerry From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 12 03:03:36 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:03:36 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language References: <01C52660.1B56B3B0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <042d01c526b0$16ec6d60$aa00f604@S0027397558> > Now imagine all the people in Euro-land > talking to each other using smatterings. > The sum of all these smatterings > is Euro-speak. The only "Euro-speak" I know of is Esperanto and learning that takes as concerted an effort as one would need to learn French, Spanish or other foreign language. Please explain what you mean by Euro-speak. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 04:45:56 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:45:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language Message-ID: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> Eurospeak is a combination of all the languages in the area covered by the Euro. Many people there speak languages interchangeably, so one can argue that all of those languages could evolve into one. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language > Now imagine all the people in Euro-land > talking to each other using smatterings. > The sum of all these smatterings > is Euro-speak. The only "Euro-speak" I know of is Esperanto and learning that takes as concerted an effort as one would need to learn French, Spanish or other foreign language. Please explain what you mean by Euro-speak. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 05:19:56 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:19:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The Wellness Hour Message-ID: <01C52680.334EF890.shovland@mindspring.com> http://wellnesshour.com/index.html Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Mar 12 14:14:25 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:14:25 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> This touches on one of the most central themes in the politics of our world -- and in how it is being screwed up, both on the mundane level and on the spiritual level. At 09:04 PM 3/11/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Michael writes: >>--That's a good point. We often fail to see how much >>influence we have, to the point of making life >>impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. >>And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It >>is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist >>that everyone live in it with you. > >--How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in bringing >about reasonable peace throughout the world? Any person who has assumed a >leadership role, be it doctor, lawyer or teacher, knows what leadership >means. It means that there will be supporters as well as those who >counter your role....that's to be expected. Didn't someone say not too >long ago: "You are either with us or against us"? Maybe it was our >president when we rallied to invade Iraq. Only difficulty with this >stance is that it just might create another Civil War. > >Gerry Some people basically propose, as an ethical principle, that we should all just shut up. That we should try hard to avoid influencing anyone else's decision or fate. But in the end, I would argue that this is profoundly unnatural and even irresponsible... and to some degree physically impossible for some of us. The VERY IDEA of such an ethical principle is one of the problems in our world. (To be fancy, you cold label it as an aspect of "original sin." I personally would prefer to be more complete and more accurate in discussing those aspects... but... you wouldn't like such details here and now.) Some people rebel, by taking a diametrically opposite position, and "do their best" with whatever they have, trying to influence the world in whatever way they prefer. That ends up being equally bad, and the excesses it leads to have been the theme of struggles and pain on this world for as long as history goes back. In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being influenced ourselves. That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see that it is profoundly irrational. Yes, if we are omniscient and infallible, both in knowledge and in values, it is natural for us to "do our best" in this autistic style. But -- recognition of our own uncertainty, of probability distributions concerning our knowledge, of areas we know almost nothing about -- should lead any rational person to be open to certain kinds of "influence." In extremis -- some of us even go to Quaker meetings, in a very active effort to develop our abilities in "listening." (Some of us, having been bulls in a China shop, may appreciate we have a special need to work hard on that aspect of our intelligence.) One may even cultivated "being influenced." ---- Sometimes, when I think of the wild destruction of fundamentalists both "Christian" and "Moslem," I remember the guy who once said: "You don't use God. God uses you." That's an oversimplification.. but it would be very healthy for them to pay more attention to. Best, Paul From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Sat Mar 12 14:36:05 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:36:05 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: university employment for non U.S. citizens In-Reply-To: <019e01c52671$e4913a50$aa00f604@S0027397558> References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> <4231BCD7.7080403@uconn.edu> <019e01c52671$e4913a50$aa00f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <4232FE55.2030901@uconn.edu> Gerry, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >>> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make is "why is a >>> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state university in >>> Connecticut?" > > Since you are not U.S. Citizen, how long have you lived in America and > taught at U.Conn? The point being....why is someone without citizenship > able to slot into a full time teaching job at good University when an > equally qualified U.S. academician is unemployed? I am a grad student at UConn, currently in my third year. My assistanship is nothing but cushy and the reason why I am in this position is because there was no equally qualified person in the US. > Please excuse the questions....it's the way I was taught to think. Me too. And let me ask you another question: What do you think is the difference between an American unemployed academician and a Brazilian unemployed academician? Christian > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" > > To: "Lista Paleopsych" > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:44 AM > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism > > >> Gerry, >> >> I don't see your point. >> >> My first point is that there is (mostly economic) pressure to conform to >> US culture. Obviously, when the pressure comes from some other place >> people will conform to the strongest. >> >> My second point is that people in the US are unaware of this pressure. >> But at the same time fear any outside pressure from another source >> themselves. For example, an international court or an arabic country. >> >> There is no pressure for the US academician to learn portuguese. He may >> do it, but solely because he chooses that. >> >> I don't think that pressure to conform is bad or that it can be >> eliminated, but I think it can be better equalized. >> >> Christian >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might make is "why is a >>> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at state university in >>> Connecticut?" >>> >>> Are you also a U.S. citizen? >>> >>> They might further comment: "If I learned Portuguese, would I then get >>> a decent academic job in Brazil or are such positions reserved for >>> Brazilian citizens"? >>> >>> People learn English usually because it guarantees them employment. If >>> and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and lifeways become a >>> ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will learn Arabic. >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" >>> >>> To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; "Lista Paleopsych" >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >>> >>> >>>> Gerry, >>>> >>>> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to learn english because >>>> without knowing it I would not be able to get a decent job in this >>>> world. >>>> >>>> My point was to show the irony of people fearing having to learn arabic >>>> or going to mosques when other people are having to learn english. What >>>> they fear is to be influenced to do things they otherwise would not. >>>> >>>> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In other places, people have >>>> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a deliberate and >>>> conscious pressure, however, to the person learning the language, the >>>> prospect of not having a decent job is as coercive as troops on the >>>> street. That's economic pressure. >>>> >>>> And to the counter-argument that you always have the individual choice >>>> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that you always have the >>>> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going to mosques. But you >>>> will have to face the individual consequences. >>>> >>>> As a final comment, I don't think that, in general, American citizens >>>> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure that the US exerts in >>>> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, in general, most >>>> Americans can't understand the cynicism that foreigners have towards >>>> "spreading freedom". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>> >>>>> Christian Rauh writes: >>>>> >>>>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do such a heinous thing? >>>>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' about being an American >>>>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>>> Independent Scholar >>>>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>>> ~ P E A C E ~ >>>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >> ~ P E A C E ~ >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From guavaberry at earthlink.net Sat Mar 12 15:50:57 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:50:57 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> hi, This is what the world of commerce is speaking. Linguisitics http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html see: Netglish "Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the web are written in English. More than four fifths of all international organisations use English as either their main or one of their main operating languages. At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " Karen Ellis <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 12 16:37:24 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:37:24 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: university employment for non U.S. citizens References: <20050306194359.71770.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <422C6ECD.3010505@uconn.edu> <02a401c52370$ea470780$7f03f604@S0027397558> <4230A37B.7020003@uconn.edu> <01d601c525af$26592c90$1903f604@S0027397558> <4231BCD7.7080403@uconn.edu> <019e01c52671$e4913a50$aa00f604@S0027397558> <4232FE55.2030901@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <006d01c52721$c636c790$8d00f604@S0027397558> Christian, Ahhhh, so you are a grad student....that enplains it! >.... And let me ask you another question: > > What do you think is the difference between an > American unemployed > academician and a Brazilian unemployed academician? Let's see.....maybe the size of the hole in his shoe? Nice chatting with you. Good luck and take care, Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" Cc: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 6:36 AM Subject: Re: university employment for non U.S. citizens > Gerry, > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>>> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might >>>> make is "why is a >>>> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at >>>> state university in >>>> Connecticut?" >> >> Since you are not U.S. Citizen, how long have you >> lived in America and >> taught at U.Conn? The point being....why is someone >> without citizenship >> able to slot into a full time teaching job at good >> University when an >> equally qualified U.S. academician is unemployed? > > I am a grad student at UConn, currently in my third > year. My > assistanship is nothing but cushy and the reason why > I am in this > position is because there was no equally qualified > person in the US. > >> Please excuse the questions....it's the way I was >> taught to think. > > Me too. And let me ask you another question: > > What do you think is the difference between an > American unemployed > academician and a Brazilian unemployed academician? > > Christian > >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Rauh" >> >> To: "Lista Paleopsych" >> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:44 AM >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >> >> >>> Gerry, >>> >>> I don't see your point. >>> >>> My first point is that there is (mostly economic) >>> pressure to conform to >>> US culture. Obviously, when the pressure comes from >>> some other place >>> people will conform to the strongest. >>> >>> My second point is that people in the US are >>> unaware of this pressure. >>> But at the same time fear any outside pressure from >>> another source >>> themselves. For example, an international court or >>> an arabic country. >>> >>> There is no pressure for the US academician to >>> learn portuguese. He may >>> do it, but solely because he chooses that. >>> >>> I don't think that pressure to conform is bad or >>> that it can be >>> eliminated, but I think it can be better equalized. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>>> One reply an unemployed U.S. academician might >>>> make is "why is a >>>> Brazilian citizen able to land a cushy job at >>>> state university in >>>> Connecticut?" >>>> >>>> Are you also a U.S. citizen? >>>> >>>> They might further comment: "If I learned >>>> Portuguese, would I then get >>>> a decent academic job in Brazil or are such >>>> positions reserved for >>>> Brazilian citizens"? >>>> >>>> People learn English usually because it guarantees >>>> them employment. If >>>> and when Arabic language and Muslim religion and >>>> lifeways become a >>>> ticket to wealth and prosperity, then people will >>>> learn Arabic. >>>> >>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian >>>> Rauh" >>>> >>>> To: "G. Reinhart-Waller" ; >>>> "Lista Paleopsych" >>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:43 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] islamic radicalism >>>> >>>> >>>>> Gerry, >>>>> >>>>> I am a Brazilian citizen and I was forced to >>>>> learn english because >>>>> without knowing it I would not be able to get a >>>>> decent job in this >>>>> world. >>>>> >>>>> My point was to show the irony of people fearing >>>>> having to learn arabic >>>>> or going to mosques when other people are having >>>>> to learn english. What >>>>> they fear is to be influenced to do things they >>>>> otherwise would not. >>>>> >>>>> The US exerts pressure in other countries. In >>>>> other places, people have >>>>> to learn English. One can argue that it is not a >>>>> deliberate and >>>>> conscious pressure, however, to the person >>>>> learning the language, the >>>>> prospect of not having a decent job is as >>>>> coercive as troops on the >>>>> street. That's economic pressure. >>>>> >>>>> And to the counter-argument that you always have >>>>> the individual choice >>>>> of *not* learning english, goes the answer that >>>>> you always have the >>>>> individual choice of *not* learning arab or going >>>>> to mosques. But you >>>>> will have to face the individual consequences. >>>>> >>>>> As a final comment, I don't think that, in >>>>> general, American citizens >>>>> are aware of the amount of influence and pressure >>>>> that the US exerts in >>>>> the world. That is the reason why I believe that, >>>>> in general, most >>>>> Americans can't understand the cynicism that >>>>> foreigners have towards >>>>> "spreading freedom". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Christian Rauh writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been forced to learn English. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When? By whom? Why? Which country would do >>>>>> such a heinous thing? >>>>>> France? Germany? Sweden? You aren't buzzin' >>>>>> about being an American >>>>>> citizen and having to speak English, are you? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>>>> Independent Scholar >>>>>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>>>> ~ P E A C E ~ >>>>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>>>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> ~ P E A C E ~ >>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> > > -- > > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ > _____________________________________________________________________ > ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Mar 12 16:40:22 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:40:22 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: http://www.etymonline.com/ That said, here is a quiz: What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Trilingual What about someone who speaks two languages? Bilingual And what do we call someone who speaks one language? American Lynn -former trilingual fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. K.E. wrote: > hi, > > > This is what the world of commerce is speaking. > > Linguisitics > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html > > see: Netglish > > "Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in > English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the > web are written in English. > > More than four fifths of all international organisations use English > as either their main or one of their main operating languages. > > At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next > biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " > > Karen Ellis > > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > The Educational CyberPlayGround > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ > > National Children's Folksong Repository > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ > > Hot List of Schools Online and > Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ > > 7 Hot Site Awards > New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, > USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 16:41:27 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:41:27 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: San Francisco? Message-ID: <01C526DF.48DB9600.shovland@mindspring.com> Genentech is the mother ship of biotech, and I know they have big efforts going on in terms of ERP, on-line training, and in documenting their systems. They are hiring people every day, as are other biotechs. The energy level is very high and they are rolling in money. Like other companies in the Bay Area they have an international staff. Amgen is also quite large, but based in Los Angeles, which is very polluted. There are about 100 biotechs on the peninsula and another 70 in the East Bay. Some of them are very small and some are probably fronts for Chinese spying. If you worked at Genentech for 5 years then you could take your pick of the other biotechs. Make sure you read my posts about the "Fantastic Voyage." It gives you some insight into the potential. Biotech is an industry, but nanotech is a technology. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about biotech being the next big thing. They can now grow proteins to do all kinds of things, and there are further levels to go. Right now they are working at the cell level, but in the future they will be working at the gene level. I think that after 50 years of rapid growth, the computer business has now reached maturity. I don't see anything coming in computers that will come close to matching the potential growth in biotech. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 7:43 AM To: Steve Hovland Subject: Re: San Francisco? Steve, My degree is a Ph.D. in communication sciences, new communication technologies to be more specific. Pretty much internet, media and marketing stuff. My masters is in computer science. I'm married and looking for a job in industry. My dream job would be managing a large media website or doing online marketing but any new tech developing/marketing job is fine. Many people have pointed that NY is the center of those activities but I can't stand the east cost any longer. And SF seems to be the most cultural city in the US, at least the type of culture I care for. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated although it may be a little too soon. Thanks for the attention, Christian Steve Hovland wrote: > What is your degree in? > > The reason I ask is that the Bay Area is the center > of the biotech industry, which is starting to take off > and will do well for many years. They are hiring > continuously. I have done several consulting > projects for biotechs and plan to concentrate on > them. > > A lot of those companies, including Genentech, > the biggest one, are in South San Francisco, which > is cheaper. There are also many in the East Bay. > > The cost of living is lower than it was a few years > ago because of the dot com crash. I have heard > that perhaps 100,000 people have left the area. > The cost of housing is also less in the East Bay. > > This means that you can now rent a room in an > apartment for $600-700 a month > > San Francisco has pretty good mass transit, > with an underground and buses. You can > live without a car here. Parking is difficult. > > But it has world-class culture, and people > from all over the world live here. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 5:46 AM > To: Steve Hovland > Subject: Re: San Francisco? > > I see. Well, as I get closer to a possible move there, I'll contact you > again about it. :-) > > Yours, > > Christian > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >>It's a great place but very expensive. >> >>Living in a world class city is important >>to me because of photography. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] >>Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:04 AM >>To: Steve Hovland >>Subject: Re: San Francisco? >> >>Steve, >> >>Nice. I'm not from San Francisco, yet. It is one of the candidate cities >>for my next place to live once I finish my Ph.D. in about an year. >> >>How do you like it? Would you recommend the city? >> >>Christian >> >>Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >>>Mission District >>> >>>Steve Hovland >>>www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] >>>Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:11 AM >>>To: Steve Hovland >>>Subject: San Francisco? >>> >>>Steve, >>> >>>This is Christian Rauh from the paleopsych list. Are you from SF? >>> >>>Christian >> >> > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ???????????????????????????????$o$??????????????????????????????????? From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 17:31:41 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:31:41 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language Message-ID: <01C526E6.4D5B2680.shovland@mindspring.com> And English is not pure, so it's an example of what world languages have always been. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: http://www.etymonline.com/ That said, here is a quiz: What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Trilingual What about someone who speaks two languages? Bilingual And what do we call someone who speaks one language? American Lynn -former trilingual fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. K.E. wrote: > hi, > > > This is what the world of commerce is speaking. > > Linguisitics > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html > > see: Netglish > > "Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in > English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the > web are written in English. > > More than four fifths of all international organisations use English > as either their main or one of their main operating languages. > > At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next > biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " > > Karen Ellis > > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > The Educational CyberPlayGround > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ > > National Children's Folksong Repository > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ > > Hot List of Schools Online and > Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ > > 7 Hot Site Awards > New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, > USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 12 19:27:43 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:27:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace In-Reply-To: <200503121916.j2CJGkE23924@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050312192743.47189.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Gerry says: >>How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in bringing about reasonable peace throughout the world?<< --Depends on how you go about it. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 12 19:56:25 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:56:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Talking to the dead Message-ID: <01C526FA.84C9E2F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Whether or not they exist after their demise, it may be a good idea to talk to the dead. Their personal energy is still affecting things, although it is at a level that can't be measured. Yet Far from being crazy, having an imaginary conversation with a dead person could help you cope with your present life. http://print.google.com/print?id=lwI9ahWtNjkC&prev=http://print.google.c om/print%3Fq%3Dtalking%2Bto%2Bthe%2Bdead&pg=11&sig=EG25D0RATGa1lTLzjCr7- SEjL1k Far Shores: http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/jd0125.htm Necromancy: http://www.premier1.net/~raines/necromancy.html 11 techniques for talking to the dead: http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jvplkl.htm Search string: talking to the dead Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 03:58:32 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:58:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace References: <20050312192743.47189.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002b01c52780$ed96d730$a703f604@S0027397558> Most nations engaged in civil war have at least two sides represented....one side is the one agreed upon in U.S. as capable of fostering democratic rule. Shouldn't the quesion be "how does a country impose democracy upon another in which voters have no say?" I'm partial to the concept of democracy and like to think that a world in which all countries place their votes in a ballot box just might be the next step to some sort of world peace. I'm very pleased to see that Spain's Muslim population has issued a fatwa on Osama bin Laden. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Christopher" To: Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 11:27 AM Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace > > Gerry says: >>>How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a > leading role in bringing about reasonable peace > throughout the world?<< > > --Depends on how you go about it. > > Michael > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 05:41:33 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:41:33 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <4233D28D.2070301@earthlink.net> Thank you for the marvelous link. As far a speaking a language, what about someone who has knowledge of three but can only speak one? Does that sound like another American? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: > A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. > English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he > was at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak > English as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: > http://www.etymonline.com/ > > That said, here is a quiz: > > What do you call someone who speaks three languages? > Trilingual > > What about someone who speaks two languages? > Bilingual > > And what do we call someone who speaks one language? > American > > Lynn > -former trilingual > fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally > disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on > me at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. > > K.E. wrote: > >> hi, >> >> >> This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >> >> Linguisitics >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >> >> see: Netglish >> >> "Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >> English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >> web are written in English. >> >> More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >> as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >> >> At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >> biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >> >> Karen Ellis >> >> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >> The Educational CyberPlayGround >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >> >> National Children's Folksong Repository >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >> >> Hot List of Schools Online and >> Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >> >> 7 Hot Site Awards >> New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >> USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 05:47:49 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:47:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> Paul writes: >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being influenced ourselves. That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see that it is profoundly irrational. >> Interesting point you make about our influence on others being irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > This touches on one of the most central themes in the politics of our > world -- > and in how it is being screwed up, both on the mundane level and on > the spiritual level. > > At 09:04 PM 3/11/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Michael writes: >> >>> --That's a good point. We often fail to see how much >>> influence we have, to the point of making life >>> impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. >>> And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It >>> is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist >>> that everyone live in it with you. >> >> >> --How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in >> bringing about reasonable peace throughout the world? Any person who >> has assumed a leadership role, be it doctor, lawyer or teacher, knows >> what leadership means. It means that there will be supporters as >> well as those who counter your role....that's to be expected. Didn't >> someone say not too long ago: "You are either with us or against >> us"? Maybe it was our president when we rallied to invade Iraq. Only >> difficulty with this stance is that it just might create another >> Civil War. >> >> Gerry > > > Some people basically propose, as an ethical principle, that we should > all just shut up. > That we should try hard to avoid influencing anyone else's decision or > fate. > But in the end, I would argue that this is profoundly unnatural and > even irresponsible... > and to some degree physically impossible for some of us. The VERY IDEA > of such an ethical principle is one of the problems in our world. (To > be fancy, you > cold label it as an aspect of "original sin." I personally would > prefer to > be more complete and more accurate in discussing those aspects... but... > you wouldn't like such details here and now.) > > Some people rebel, by taking a diametrically opposite position, and > "do their best" > with whatever they have, trying to influence the world in whatever way > they prefer. > That ends up being equally bad, and the excesses it leads to have been > the theme of struggles and pain > on this world for as long as history goes back. > > In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being > influenced ourselves. > > That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see > that it is > profoundly irrational. > > Yes, if we are omniscient and infallible, both in knowledge and in > values, it is natural > for us to "do our best" in this autistic style. > > But -- recognition of our own uncertainty, of probability > distributions concerning our knowledge, > of areas we know almost nothing about -- should lead any rational person > to be open to certain kinds of "influence." > > In extremis -- some of us even go to Quaker meetings, in a very active > effort to > develop our abilities in "listening." (Some of us, having been bulls > in a China shop, > may appreciate we have a special need to work hard on that aspect of > our intelligence.) > One may even cultivated "being influenced." > > ---- > > Sometimes, when I think of the wild destruction of fundamentalists > both "Christian" > and "Moslem," I remember the guy who once said: > "You don't use God. God uses you." > > That's an oversimplification.. but it would be very healthy for them > to pay more attention to. > > Best, > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sun Mar 13 13:02:55 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:02:55 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:47 AM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Paul writes: > > >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being > influenced ourselves. >That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see that >it is >profoundly irrational. >> > >Interesting point you make about our influence on others being >irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! Please forgive me for being less than clear. I did NOT mean to say it is irrational for us to try to influence others in some way. It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. In fact, the word "influence" itself is very loaded -- and, if untempered, reflects a kind of dangerous filtering in our perceptions of human interactions. Perhaps I should have simpler, more Quakerly language. It is natural that we should often speak so as to be heard, and listen so as to learn and understand. Speaking and listening are equally essential to effective systems of dialogue, either internal or external, mundane or spiritual. Traditions which obstruct this aspect of nature are both perverted and threats to the larger system. >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > >>This touches on one of the most central themes in the politics of our >>world -- >>and in how it is being screwed up, both on the mundane level and on the >>spiritual level. >> >>At 09:04 PM 3/11/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>>Michael writes: >>> >>>>--That's a good point. We often fail to see how much >>>>influence we have, to the point of making life >>>>impossible for others who don't adapt to our agenda. >>>>And yet, we do not want to be influenced ourselves. It >>>>is hard to break out of a bubble, easier to insist >>>>that everyone live in it with you. >>> >>> >>>--How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a leading role in >>>bringing about reasonable peace throughout the world? Any person who >>>has assumed a leadership role, be it doctor, lawyer or teacher, knows >>>what leadership means. It means that there will be supporters as well >>>as those who counter your role....that's to be expected. Didn't someone >>>say not too long ago: "You are either with us or against us"? Maybe it >>>was our president when we rallied to invade Iraq. Only difficulty with >>>this stance is that it just might create another Civil War. >>> >>>Gerry >> >> >>Some people basically propose, as an ethical principle, that we should >>all just shut up. >>That we should try hard to avoid influencing anyone else's decision or fate. >>But in the end, I would argue that this is profoundly unnatural and even >>irresponsible... >>and to some degree physically impossible for some of us. The VERY IDEA >>of such an ethical principle is one of the problems in our world. (To be >>fancy, you >>cold label it as an aspect of "original sin." I personally would prefer to >>be more complete and more accurate in discussing those aspects... but... >>you wouldn't like such details here and now.) >> >>Some people rebel, by taking a diametrically opposite position, and "do >>their best" >>with whatever they have, trying to influence the world in whatever way >>they prefer. >>That ends up being equally bad, and the excesses it leads to have been >>the theme of struggles and pain >>on this world for as long as history goes back. >> >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being >>influenced ourselves. >> >>That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see >>that it is >>profoundly irrational. >> >>Yes, if we are omniscient and infallible, both in knowledge and in >>values, it is natural >>for us to "do our best" in this autistic style. >> >>But -- recognition of our own uncertainty, of probability distributions >>concerning our knowledge, >>of areas we know almost nothing about -- should lead any rational person >>to be open to certain kinds of "influence." >> >>In extremis -- some of us even go to Quaker meetings, in a very active >>effort to >>develop our abilities in "listening." (Some of us, having been bulls in a >>China shop, >>may appreciate we have a special need to work hard on that aspect of our >>intelligence.) >>One may even cultivated "being influenced." >> >>---- >> >>Sometimes, when I think of the wild destruction of fundamentalists both >>"Christian" >>and "Moslem," I remember the guy who once said: >>"You don't use God. God uses you." >> >>That's an oversimplification.. but it would be very healthy for them to >>pay more attention to. >> >>Best, >> >> Paul >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 13 18:17:14 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:17:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] An interesting juxtaposition Message-ID: <01C527B5.D461F300.shovland@mindspring.com> Seen on 24th Street in the Mission District in San Francisco- the Latino neighborhood: Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 117825 bytes Desc: not available URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 19:20:38 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:20:38 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> Paul writes: >>It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >> Possibly you might be saying that all people are irrational which just may be correct. Most influential people have one purpose in mind....sell their product (either tangible goods or ideas) to others without having to accept someone else's. It would appear that this so called asymmetry is the capitalistic way of doing business. Maybe you are suggesting another modus operandi. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 12:47 AM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Paul writes: >> >> >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being >> influenced ourselves. >> That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see >> that it is >> profoundly irrational. >> >> >> Interesting point you make about our influence on others being >> irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! > > > > Please forgive me for being less than clear. > > I did NOT mean to say it is irrational for us to try to influence > others in > some way. > > It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. > The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. > > In fact, the word "influence" itself is very loaded -- and, if > untempered, reflects a kind of dangerous > filtering in our perceptions of human interactions. > > Perhaps I should have simpler, more Quakerly language. > > It is natural that we should often speak so as to be heard, and listen > so as > to learn and understand. Speaking and listening are equally essential > to effective systems of dialogue, either internal or external, mundane > or spiritual. > Traditions which obstruct this aspect of nature are both perverted and > threats to the larger system. > > > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sun Mar 13 19:51:27 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:51:27 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> At 02:20 PM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Paul writes: > >>It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. >The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >> > >Possibly you might be saying that all people are irrational which just may >be correct. Most influential people have one purpose in mind....sell >their product (either tangible goods or ideas) to others without having to >accept someone else's. It would appear that this so called asymmetry is >the capitalistic way of doing business. Maybe you are suggesting another >modus operandi. I would say that people are generally born arational rather than irrational. They are also born without speech or symbolic reasoning ability, or even the ability to walk. They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more rational, but some learn faster than others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some areas than others. Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow up unable to walk. Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to resist such perversions, and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to have adopted Karl Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image of power of living up to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... Ronald Reagan tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears had in mind, and is more rational, in my view. Does capitalism allow freedom? Does freedom allow capitalism? The words are too fuzzy to allow a simple answer. Best, Paul >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > > >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > >>At 12:47 AM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>>Paul writes: >>> >>> >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being >>> influenced ourselves. >>>That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can see >>>that it is >>>profoundly irrational. >> >>> >>>Interesting point you make about our influence on others being >>>irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! >> >> >> >>Please forgive me for being less than clear. >> >>I did NOT mean to say it is irrational for us to try to influence others in >>some way. >> >>It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. >>The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >> >>In fact, the word "influence" itself is very loaded -- and, if >>untempered, reflects a kind of dangerous >>filtering in our perceptions of human interactions. >> >>Perhaps I should have simpler, more Quakerly language. >> >>It is natural that we should often speak so as to be heard, and listen so as >>to learn and understand. Speaking and listening are equally essential >>to effective systems of dialogue, either internal or external, mundane or >>spiritual. >>Traditions which obstruct this aspect of nature are both perverted and >>threats to the larger system. >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From guavaberry at earthlink.net Sun Mar 13 21:29:43 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:29:43 -0500 Subject: Etymology of Jazz Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050313162243.03847e58@mail.earthlink.net> Lynn, better tell your friend to update the info on etymonline.com WRONG -- Probably ult. from Creole patois jass Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com Linguistics http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/ SEE: Irish American Vernacular English Etymology of JAZZ Sanas of Jazz find 7 articles, fantastic info and story. need latest version of acrobat to read Happy St. Paddy's Day to ya. happy sunday afternoon reading, Karen Ellis At 11:40 AM 3/12/2005, you wrote: >A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. English >is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was at a >meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English as the >common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: > http://www.etymonline.com/ >> >> >>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >> >>Linguisitics >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html > ><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >The Educational CyberPlayGround >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ > >National Children's Folksong Repository >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ > >Hot List of Schools Online and >Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ > >7 Hot Site Awards >New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty ><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Mar 14 00:45:54 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:45:54 -0700 Subject: Etymology of Jazz Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050313162243.03847e58@mail.earthlink.net> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050313162243.03847e58@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4234DEC2.9020103@solution-consulting.com> Thanks, interesting point. The online OED says "jazz" is of unknown origin. If you can't trust OED, whom can you? The idea that it may come from Irish is fascinating. My friend has nothing to do with the etomology site, that was a separate resource I thought people would enjoy. I have no influence over the site. For the OED link: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/jazz?view=uk K.E. wrote: > Lynn, > > better tell your friend to update the info on etymonline.com > > WRONG -- Probably ult. from Creole patois jass > > > Educational CyberPlayGround > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com > > Linguistics > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/ > > SEE: Irish American Vernacular English > > Etymology of JAZZ > Sanas of Jazz > find 7 articles, fantastic info and story. > > need latest version of acrobat to read > > Happy St. Paddy's Day to ya. > > happy sunday afternoon reading, > > Karen Ellis > > > At 11:40 AM 3/12/2005, you wrote: > >> A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. >> English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he >> was at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak >> English as the common language. I love English. Here is a great >> resource: >> http://www.etymonline.com/ >> >>> >>> >>> This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >>> >>> Linguisitics >>> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >> >> >> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >> The Educational CyberPlayGround >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >> >> National Children's Folksong Repository >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >> >> Hot List of Schools Online and >> Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >> >> 7 Hot Site Awards >> New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >> USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From guavaberry at earthlink.net Mon Mar 14 02:56:31 2005 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:56:31 -0500 Subject: Etymology of Jazz Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language In-Reply-To: <4234DEC2.9020103@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C5267B.540D5540.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050312104500.01df3510@mail.earthlink.net> <42331B76.9050103@solution-consulting.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050313162243.03847e58@mail.earthlink.net> <4234DEC2.9020103@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050313214919.036b5f98@mail.earthlink.net> At 07:45 PM 3/13/2005, you wrote: >Thanks, interesting point. The online OED says "jazz" is of unknown origin. yes it is also wrong. It's a fraternity - you'll read it over and over and over . . . everywhere Cause folks see it everywhere they think it must be true. > If you can't trust OED, whom can you? well, it's always a matter of scholarship, the fraternity of who is in charge of the "knowing" the gatekeepers, Facts exist outside the gatekeepers control. When they decide to update dictionaries is another story Jazz is an Irish word and it's a fact. Glad you enjoyed it. best, karen >The idea that it may come from Irish is fascinating. My friend has nothing >to do with the etomology site, that was a separate resource I thought >people would enjoy. I have no influence over the site. > >For the OED link: >http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/jazz?view=uk > > >K.E. wrote: > >>Lynn, >> >>better tell your friend to update the info on etymonline.com >> >>WRONG -- Probably ult. from Creole patois jass >> >> >>Educational CyberPlayGround >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com >> >>Linguistics >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/ >> >>SEE: Irish American Vernacular English >> >>Etymology of JAZZ >>Sanas of Jazz >>find 7 articles, fantastic info and story. >> >>need latest version of acrobat to read >> >>Happy St. Paddy's Day to ya. >> >>happy sunday afternoon reading, >> >>Karen Ellis >> >> >>At 11:40 AM 3/12/2005, you wrote: >> >>>A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. >>>English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was >>>at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English >>>as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: >>> http://www.etymonline.com/ >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >>>> >>>>Linguisitics >>>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >>> >>> >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >>> >>>National Children's Folksong Repository >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >>> >>>Hot List of Schools Online and >>>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >>> >>>7 Hot Site Awards >>>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 14 04:05:04 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:05:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <42350D70.9010402@earthlink.net> Paul writes: I would say that people are generally born arational rather than irrational. They are also born without speech or symbolic reasoning ability, or even the ability to walk. GRW: Yes, yes, but are they all born with schizophrenia? That's what I meant by being irrational. They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more rational, but some learn faster than others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some areas than others. Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow up unable to walk. Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to resist such perversions, and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). GRW: I wasn't referring to physical circumstances (link binding of girl's feet) but rather in the way they are brow beaten by parents, family, community, etc. As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to have adopted Karl Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image of power of living up to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... Ronald Reagan tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears had in mind, and is more rational, in my view. GRW: There should be nothing wrong with the word capitalism....if it is performed with a concern for others i.e. adding soul to capitalism. Quakers and Ronald Reagan were fine for the time in which they lived. Now we need to move ahead. Does capitalism allow freedom? Does freedom allow capitalism? The words are too fuzzy to allow a simple answer. GRW: Most certainly does capitalism allow freedom Why would you think otherwise? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 02:20 PM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Paul writes: >> >>It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE >> influenced. >> The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >> >> >> Possibly you might be saying that all people are irrational which >> just may be correct. Most influential people have one purpose in >> mind....sell their product (either tangible goods or ideas) to others >> without having to accept someone else's. It would appear that this >> so called asymmetry is the capitalistic way of doing business. Maybe >> you are suggesting another modus operandi. > > > I would say that people are generally born arational rather than > irrational. > They are also born without speech or symbolic reasoning ability, or even > the ability to walk. > > They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more rational, > but some learn faster than > others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some > areas than others. > Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow > up unable to walk. > Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to > resist such perversions, > and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). > > As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to > have adopted Karl > Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image > of power of living up > to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... > Ronald Reagan > tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined > to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears > had in mind, > and is more rational, in my view. > > Does capitalism allow freedom? Does freedom allow capitalism? The > words are too fuzzy to allow > a simple answer. > > Best, > > Paul > > >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> >> >> >> Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: >> >>> At 12:47 AM 3/13/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>>> Paul writes: >>>> >>>> >>In the second view -- we try to influence others, while not being >>>> influenced ourselves. >>>> That is a common view... but if we look at it objectively, we can >>>> see that it is >>>> profoundly irrational. >> >>>> >>>> Interesting point you make about our influence on others being >>>> irrational. If that were so, then we'd do not better than to shut up! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Please forgive me for being less than clear. >>> >>> I did NOT mean to say it is irrational for us to try to influence >>> others in >>> some way. >>> >>> It is irrational to try to influence while trying not to BE influenced. >>> The asymmetry of the idea should be a warning to people. >>> >>> In fact, the word "influence" itself is very loaded -- and, if >>> untempered, reflects a kind of dangerous >>> filtering in our perceptions of human interactions. >>> >>> Perhaps I should have simpler, more Quakerly language. >>> >>> It is natural that we should often speak so as to be heard, and >>> listen so as >>> to learn and understand. Speaking and listening are equally essential >>> to effective systems of dialogue, either internal or external, >>> mundane or spiritual. >>> Traditions which obstruct this aspect of nature are both perverted and >>> threats to the larger system. >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Mon Mar 14 15:12:36 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:12:36 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C526E6.4D5B2680.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C526E6.4D5B2680.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4235A9E4.3070204@uconn.edu> I was wondering how does a world language change? And how will that process occur in our current time. Faster I would guess? The world language has always been the language of whoever is most influential. Latin when the Catholic Church was running things, French when France was bullying around, then English when the England Empire was always sunny, and now US English. But how does that world language change process occurs? Imagine the Chinese became the new superpower as some people are afraid. How will the world language change to Chinese? Are going to see so many chinese webpages that we'll all enroll in Chinese classes? Books and articles would start being published mostly in Chinese? Has anyone studied these world language transitions? Christian Steve Hovland wrote: > And English is not pure, so it's an example of what > world languages have always been. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language > > A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. > English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was > at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English > as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: > http://www.etymonline.com/ > > That said, here is a quiz: > > What do you call someone who speaks three languages? > Trilingual > > What about someone who speaks two languages? > Bilingual > > And what do we call someone who speaks one language? > American > > Lynn > -former trilingual > fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally > disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me > at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. > > K.E. wrote: > > >>hi, >> >> >>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >> >>Linguisitics >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >> >>see: Netglish >> >>"Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >>English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >>web are written in English. >> >>More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >>as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >> >>At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >>biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >> >>Karen Ellis >> >><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >> >>National Children's Folksong Repository >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >> >>Hot List of Schools Online and >>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >> >>7 Hot Site Awards >>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Mon Mar 14 15:18:49 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:18:49 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace In-Reply-To: <002b01c52780$ed96d730$a703f604@S0027397558> References: <20050312192743.47189.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <002b01c52780$ed96d730$a703f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <4235AB59.2040405@uconn.edu> To me Ukraine is the most recent example of how to go about "spreading democracy". There was intense western funding of democratic grassroots movements and later of the opposition. That was well-known. In this process some people were persecuted for that, some jailed, some were killed. There must also be a high awareness of conflict of interests and those should be avoided. All nations should have the same right for "freedom" independent of their natural resources of geostrategic positions. Nations "closer" to democracy should be acted upon first to maximize investment and buid a broader base before tackling the hard cases. Finally, spreading democracy may only work if no local militias get trained and funded to fight. These have always turned into the next democracy enemy, and US problem. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > Most nations engaged in civil war have at least two sides > represented....one side is the one agreed upon in U.S. as capable of > fostering democratic rule. Shouldn't the quesion be "how does a country > impose democracy upon another in which voters have no say?" I'm partial > to the concept of democracy and like to think that a world in which all > countries place their votes in a ballot box just might be the next step > to some sort of world peace. I'm very pleased to see that Spain's > Muslim population has issued a fatwa on Osama bin Laden. > > Gerry > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Christopher" > > To: > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 11:27 AM > Subject: [Paleopsych] bringing peace > > >> >> Gerry says: >> >>>> How wrong is it for your own nation to assume a >> >> leading role in bringing about reasonable peace >> throughout the world?<< >> >> --Depends on how you go about it. >> >> Michael >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 14 15:29:58 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:29:58 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The next big thing Message-ID: <01C52867.A1055170.shovland@mindspring.com> In the 21st century, biotech will be what computers were in the 20th century. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 14 17:08:19 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:08:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4235A9E4.3070204@uconn.edu> References: <01C526E6.4D5B2680.shovland@mindspring.com> <4235A9E4.3070204@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <4235C503.5030804@earthlink.net> Not being a scholar of world language changes, I could hazard a guess that the language used on the internet could become the dominant one. So far that language is English and the next closest is German as determined by the number of web sites is either of the two languages. I read somewhere that the number of German websites is less than 15% of total. About China, likely that country will become a major economic force in the next few decades but learning to read and write Mandarin is a fairly daunting task. My guess is that an easier language such as English will remain as the favored internet lingo. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Christian Rauh wrote: >I was wondering how does a world language change? And how will that >process occur in our current time. Faster I would guess? > >The world language has always been the language of whoever is most >influential. Latin when the Catholic Church was running things, French >when France was bullying around, then English when the England Empire >was always sunny, and now US English. > >But how does that world language change process occurs? > >Imagine the Chinese became the new superpower as some people are afraid. >How will the world language change to Chinese? Are going to see so many >chinese webpages that we'll all enroll in Chinese classes? Books and >articles would start being published mostly in Chinese? > >Has anyone studied these world language transitions? > >Christian > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > >>And English is not pure, so it's an example of what >>world languages have always been. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language >> >>A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. >>English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was >>at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English >>as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: >> http://www.etymonline.com/ >> >>That said, here is a quiz: >> >>What do you call someone who speaks three languages? >> Trilingual >> >>What about someone who speaks two languages? >> Bilingual >> >>And what do we call someone who speaks one language? >> American >> >>Lynn >> -former trilingual >>fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally >>disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me >>at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. >> >>K.E. wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>hi, >>> >>> >>>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >>> >>>Linguisitics >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >>> >>>see: Netglish >>> >>>"Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >>>English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >>>web are written in English. >>> >>>More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >>>as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >>> >>>At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >>>biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >>> >>>Karen Ellis >>> >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >>> >>>National Children's Folksong Repository >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >>> >>>Hot List of Schools Online and >>>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >>> >>>7 Hot Site Awards >>>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Mar 14 22:58:24 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:58:24 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <42350D70.9010402@earthlink.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> <42350D70.9010402@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050314174749.01db8790@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:05 PM 3/13/2005, you wrote: >Paul writes: >They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more rational, but >some learn faster than >others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some areas >than others. >Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow up >unable to walk. >Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to resist >such perversions, >and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). > >GRW: I wasn't referring to physical circumstances (link binding of girl's >feet) but rather in the way they are brow beaten by parents, family, >community, etc. Yes, I said "others try to do the same with the mind." >As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to have >adopted Karl >Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image of >power of living up >to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... >Ronald Reagan >tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined >to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears had in >mind, >and is more rational, in my view. > >GRW: There should be nothing wrong with the word capitalism....if it is >performed with a concern for others i.e. adding soul to capitalism. >Quakers and Ronald Reagan were fine for the time in which they lived. >Now we need to move ahead. The word "capitalism" is used with different definitions by different people, and is doubly fuzzy (multiple meanings and a broad "membership function") even as used by most individual people. ANY word with such fuzziness needs to handled with great care. Examples of that principle -- The word "consciousness" has been a great toy for those who try to use words to liberate them from objective reality. Picture the person saying: "Consciousness.. it is all about illumination and coherence. So of course the physical basis of consciousness must be zillions of tiny lasers in the brain, emitting coherent light.." (People really believe that kind of stuff..) Or: "I support capitalism, the all-America principle of freedom laid down for generations. And of course, since capitalism means that monopolies rule, as explained by that all-American capitalist Groucho Marx, it is fair that we trade on the free market for Congressmen, in order to buy subsidies and regulations and special tax breaks and plus ups and pass laws to make it illegal for people to shirk on their duty to be always obedient to their overlords..." I really do not think that the core values of the Quakers are out of date. They are part of the real weltanschaung (sp?) of this civilization... they are the kind of values the rejection of which would be an example of what Spengler called the transition from Culture to Civilization. I hope we can be conscious enough to choose to not do that. But if instead we trust in teeny tiny lasers implanted in the brain... well, in that case, "God help us" (though would he?). Best, Paul From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 14 23:10:18 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:10:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change Message-ID: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> I think that because of the web English is becoming even more entrenched. Chinese has an inefficient written language. I think the day of world "peace" being enforced by any one state may be past. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:13 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change I was wondering how does a world language change? And how will that process occur in our current time. Faster I would guess? The world language has always been the language of whoever is most influential. Latin when the Catholic Church was running things, French when France was bullying around, then English when the England Empire was always sunny, and now US English. But how does that world language change process occurs? Imagine the Chinese became the new superpower as some people are afraid. How will the world language change to Chinese? Are going to see so many chinese webpages that we'll all enroll in Chinese classes? Books and articles would start being published mostly in Chinese? Has anyone studied these world language transitions? Christian Steve Hovland wrote: > And English is not pure, so it's an example of what > world languages have always been. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language > > A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. > English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was > at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English > as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: > http://www.etymonline.com/ > > That said, here is a quiz: > > What do you call someone who speaks three languages? > Trilingual > > What about someone who speaks two languages? > Bilingual > > And what do we call someone who speaks one language? > American > > Lynn > -former trilingual > fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally > disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me > at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. > > K.E. wrote: > > >>hi, >> >> >>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >> >>Linguisitics >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >> >>see: Netglish >> >>"Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >>English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >>web are written in English. >> >>More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >>as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >> >>At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >>biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >> >>Karen Ellis >> >><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >> >>National Children's Folksong Repository >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >> >>Hot List of Schools Online and >>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >> >>7 Hot Site Awards >>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ???????????????????????????????$o$??????????????????????????????????? _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 00:30:50 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:30:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] influence In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050314174749.01db8790@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20050312011106.95404.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <041d01c526a7$e4e2f440$aa00f604@S0027397558> <6.2.0.14.0.20050312090241.01db2570@incoming.verizon.net> <4233D405.7080009@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313075507.01e07860@incoming.verizon.net> <42349286.8090508@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050313144530.01df49d0@incoming.verizon.net> <42350D70.9010402@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050314174749.01db8790@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <42362CBA.2030808@earthlink.net> *Hi Paul, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 11:05 PM 3/13/2005, you wrote: > >> Paul writes: >> They have the ability to learn to be more effective and more >> rational, but some learn faster than >> others, and some cultures support learning more positively in some >> areas than others. >> Some cultures have violated nature by tying girl's feet, so they grow >> up unable to walk. >> Others try to do the same with the mind. Yet it is our nature to >> resist such perversions, >> and to try to grow out of our mistakes (both personal and collective). >> >> GRW: I wasn't referring to physical circumstances (link binding of >> girl's feet) but rather in the way they are brow beaten by parents, >> family, community, etc. > > > Yes, I said "others try to do the same with the mind." *GRW: Now we are in agreement. I must have missed your second point when I first read the post. > > >> As for "capitalism," it is a fuzzy word. Many people nowadays seem to >> have adopted Karl >> Marx's version of the word, especially those who delight in the image >> of power of living up >> to someone else's image of a great devil. If I remember correctly... >> Ronald Reagan >> tried hard to change the emphasis back form "capitalism" so-defined >> to "freedom," which is more like the idea that our Quaker forebears >> had in mind, >> and is more rational, in my view. >> >> GRW: There should be nothing wrong with the word capitalism....if it >> is performed with a concern for others i.e. adding soul to capitalism. >> Quakers and Ronald Reagan were fine for the time in which they lived. >> Now we need to move ahead. > > > The word "capitalism" is used with different definitions by different > people, > and is doubly fuzzy (multiple meanings and a broad "membership function") > even as used by most individual people. ANY word with such fuzziness > needs to handled with great care. *GRW: If you have ever done an etymological study of words that have existed for say at least a thousand years, you would see that most terms end up being "fuzzy" because their meanings are in constant change, especially words that have a political sense like "state" or in this instance "capitalism". > > Examples of that principle -- > > The word "consciousness" has been a great toy for those who try to use > words to > liberate them from objective reality. Picture the person saying: > "Consciousness.. > it is all about illumination and coherence. So of course the physical > basis of consciousness must > be zillions of tiny lasers in the brain, emitting coherent light.." > (People really believe that kind of stuff..) *GRW: I don't have immediate access to the OED but I'll wager that there are lots of definitions for the terms "consciousness" so I don't doubt in the least what you are saying. > > Or: "I support capitalism, the all-America principle of freedom laid > down for generations. > And of course, since capitalism means that monopolies rule, as > explained by that all-American > capitalist Groucho Marx, it is fair that we trade on the free market > for Congressmen, in order to > buy subsidies and regulations and special tax breaks and plus ups and > pass laws to > make it illegal for people to shirk on their duty to be always > obedient to their overlords..." *GRW: I know that you and Howard Bloom have been in communication. You might glance at his "Reinventing Capitalism" . The first draft of this manuscript just sold on eBay for $100. Here's a link: http://www.*howard**bloom*.net/*reinventing*_*capitalism*/ > > I really do not think that the core values of the Quakers are out of > date. > They are part of the real weltanschaung (sp?) of this civilization... > they > are the kind of values the rejection of which would be an example > of what Spengler called the transition from Culture to Civilization. > I hope we can be conscious enough to choose to not do that. > But if instead we trust in teeny tiny lasers implanted in the brain... > well, > in that case, "God help us" (though would he?). *GRW: Which values of the Quakers are you speaking about? My only encounter with Quakerism is from lower school study of Puritans, Pilgrims, and all.... and the following ditty: "Quaker's meeting has begun, no more laughing, no more fun. If you show your teeth or tongue you shall pay a forfeit". Possibly you might wish to elaborate. Regards, Gerry > > Best, > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 00:40:28 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:28 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42362EFC.900@earthlink.net> "I think the day of world "peace" being enforced by any one state may be past." -- On what are you basing this assumption? Can't be our failure to engage many European countries in democratizing Iraq. Can't be our inability to gain Putin as our ally in democratizing the world. Even Canada and our southerly neighbors are not running to our (U.S.) assist. The only major power left is that of China and I don't see olive branches being extended in either direction. Gerry Reinhart-Waller From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 01:02:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:02:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanobacteria Message-ID: <01C528B7.A7BC2A20.shovland@mindspring.com> http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66861,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Olavi Kajander didn't mean to discover the mysterious particles that have been called the most primitive organisms on Earth and that could be responsible for a series of painful and sometimes fatal illnesses. He was simply trying to find out why certain cultures of mammalian cells in his lab would die no matter how carefully he prepared them. So the Finnish biochemist and his colleagues slipped some of their old cultures under an electron microscope one day in 1988 and took a closer look. That's when they saw the particles. Like bacteria but an astonishing 100 times smaller, they seemed to be thriving inside the dying cells. Believing them to be a possible new form of life, Kajander named the particles "nanobacteria," published a paper outlining his findings and spurred one of the biggest controversies in modern microbiology. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether nanobacteria could actually be a new form of life. To this day, critics argue that a particle just 20 to 200 nanometers in diameter can't possibly harbor the components necessary to sustain life. The particles are also incredibly resistant to heat and other methods that would normally kill bacteria, which makes some scientists wonder if they might be an unusual form of crystal rather than organisms. From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 01:05:54 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:05:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change Message-ID: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> When the US can no longer afford the pretense of being the world cop, we may move more toward group security. As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up with blather about democracy. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:40 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] World language change "I think the day of world "peace" being enforced by any one state may be past." -- On what are you basing this assumption? Can't be our failure to engage many European countries in democratizing Iraq. Can't be our inability to gain Putin as our ally in democratizing the world. Even Canada and our southerly neighbors are not running to our (U.S.) assist. The only major power left is that of China and I don't see olive branches being extended in either direction. Gerry Reinhart-Waller _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 02:06:16 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:06:16 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested in Democracy. That's good enough for me. Gerry Steve Hovland wrote: >When the US can no longer afford the pretense >of being the world cop, we may move more toward >group security. > >As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >with blather about democracy. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 02:51:26 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:51:26 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change Message-ID: <01C528C6.D41E2C30.shovland@mindspring.com> I don't think any one country should be world cop. Since we have started two wars in recent years, it is hard to see us as agents of peace. I think our defense posture should be "strong enough to do our share," not "stronger than anyone." Insisting on being number one is the path to exhaustion and destruction. The last I heard the effort to form a new government in Iraq had broken down. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 6:06 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] World language change This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested in Democracy. That's good enough for me. Gerry Steve Hovland wrote: >When the US can no longer afford the pretense >of being the world cop, we may move more toward >group security. > >As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >with blather about democracy. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Tue Mar 15 02:56:34 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:56:34 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> No world cop. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it > to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American > dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at > playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not > because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. > > The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested > in Democracy. That's good enough for me. > Gerry > > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >> When the US can no longer afford the pretense >> of being the world cop, we may move more toward >> group security. >> >> As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >> allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >> are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >> with blather about democracy. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 03:59:37 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:59:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] capitalism and influence In-Reply-To: <200503141944.j2EJhrE23402@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050315035938.14711.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Gerry says: >>Most influential people have one purpose in mind....sell their product (either tangible goods or ideas) to others without having to accept someone else's.<< --Impossible to sell any product without being influenced. You have to be influenced by the needs of consumers (psychological needs if not physical needs) in order to know HOW to sell to them. You have to be influenced by shareholders if you work for a big company. You are influenced by the media you use to advertise, by the companies you hire to do your public relations, by the economic textbooks you read in business school... the list goes on and on. Those who don't let themselves be influenced, don't make it very far. Even the President, who marketed himself as a man who didn't listen to opinion polls or focus groups, must have people around him who pay attention to polls and focus groups, in order to sell his message. >>It would appear that this so called asymmetry is the capitalistic way of doing business.<< --Not at all. Capitalism is a flow of energy, in all directions. Sometimes an exchange leaves one party feeling less happy about it than the other, but over time it's expected that people will learn to get good value for their time/money and make mutually beneficial trades. If that were not the case, the whole argument for capitalism as a sustainable system would crumble. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 04:11:27 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:11:27 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C528C6.D41E2C30.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C528C6.D41E2C30.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4236606F.4050104@earthlink.net> Doesn't matter whether or not you like one country as world cop. That's the way it is!!! Let me ask you....has any other country volunteered to assist U.S. in "maintaining the peace? I don't know of any; do you? Forming a new government in Iraq is a give and take situation. Where you place the effort depends on whether you're with the ebb or flo. Regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller Steve Hovland wrote: >I don't think any one country should be >world cop. Since we have started two >wars in recent years, it is hard to see >us as agents of peace. > >I think our defense posture should be >"strong enough to do our share," not >"stronger than anyone." Insisting on >being number one is the path to >exhaustion and destruction. > >The last I heard the effort to form a >new government in Iraq had broken >down. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 6:06 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] World language change > >This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. > >The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >in Democracy. That's good enough for me. > >Gerry > > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>group security. >> >>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>with blather about democracy. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Mar 15 04:12:26 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:12:26 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C528A7.EFAF26D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423660AA.7040109@solution-consulting.com> Mao Tse tung seriously considered changing the language of china to english, to deal with the inefficiencies of the written language. Steve Hovland wrote: >I think that because of the web English is becoming >even more entrenched. > >Chinese has an inefficient written language. > >I think the day of world "peace" being enforced >by any one state may be past. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Christian Rauh [SMTP:christian.rauh at uconn.edu] >Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:13 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change > >I was wondering how does a world language change? And how will that >process occur in our current time. Faster I would guess? > >The world language has always been the language of whoever is most >influential. Latin when the Catholic Church was running things, French >when France was bullying around, then English when the England Empire >was always sunny, and now US English. > >But how does that world language change process occurs? > >Imagine the Chinese became the new superpower as some people are afraid. >How will the world language change to Chinese? Are going to see so many >chinese webpages that we'll all enroll in Chinese classes? Books and >articles would start being published mostly in Chinese? > >Has anyone studied these world language transitions? > >Christian > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > >>And English is not pure, so it's an example of what >>world languages have always been. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:40 AM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The next world language >> >>A colleague who is an international business consultant says same. >>English is lingua franca everywhere, from Asia to Europe. He said he was >>at a meeting with both German and French workers, and they speak English >>as the common language. I love English. Here is a great resource: >> http://www.etymonline.com/ >> >>That said, here is a quiz: >> >>What do you call someone who speaks three languages? >> Trilingual >> >>What about someone who speaks two languages? >> Bilingual >> >>And what do we call someone who speaks one language? >> American >> >>Lynn >> -former trilingual >>fluent in English, capable in Spanish, German has almost totally >>disappeared. If we could only get a lot of illegal Germans waiting on me >>at McDonalds's I could get my German back quickly. >> >>K.E. wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>hi, >>> >>> >>>This is what the world of commerce is speaking. >>> >>>Linguisitics >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/Home_Linguistics.html >>> >>>see: Netglish >>> >>>"Nine out of ten computers connected to the internet are located in >>>English-speaking countries and more than 80% of all home pages on the >>>web are written in English. >>> >>>More than four fifths of all international organisations use English >>>as either their main or one of their main operating languages. >>> >>>At the moment no other language comes anywhere near English. The next >>>biggest is German. But less than 5% of web home pages are in German. " >>> >>>Karen Ellis >>> >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>The Educational CyberPlayGround >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >>> >>>National Children's Folksong Repository >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NCFR/ >>> >>>Hot List of Schools Online and >>>Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>>http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/ >>> >>>7 Hot Site Awards >>>New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>>USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty >>><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 04:15:05 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:15:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> Me too. Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is there a new resurrection? Gerry Christian Rauh wrote: >No world cop. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >> >>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>Gerry >> >> >>Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >> >>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>group security. >>> >>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>with blather about democracy. >>> >>>Steve Hovland >>>www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Tue Mar 15 13:22:06 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] capitalism and influence In-Reply-To: <20050315035938.14711.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050315035938.14711.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4236E17E.7010904@uconn.edu> Michael Christopher wrote: > If that were not the case, the > whole argument for capitalism as a sustainable system > would crumble. Crumble. Christian -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Tue Mar 15 13:24:48 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:24:48 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> There must be a global democratic political structure with executive legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". People should arbitrate their problems through that system. This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Me too. > > Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is > there a new resurrection? > > Gerry > > Christian Rauh wrote: > >>No world cop. >> >>Christian >> >>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >> >>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>> >>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>Gerry >>> >>> >>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>group security. >>>> >>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>with blather about democracy. >>>> >>>>Steve Hovland >>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Mar 15 14:56:02 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:56:02 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Good vs. evil In-Reply-To: <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <4236F782.6090500@solution-consulting.com> Christian, I am inspired by your hope but dubious of your grasp of human evil. You know very well there are sections of Rio where no one can go without extreme risk. There are no cops there, so the good people suffer at the hands of the evil. World history seems to tell me that without cops the worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop. An international "cop?" But the U.N. has failed over and over, from failure to prevent genocide to corruption in the oil for food scandals. So how can we hope for something that has never happened? Democracy, we learn from history, is achieved mostly through force and warfare. The U. S. democratic republic arose from conflict and is one of the oldest in the world. England has a democracy that was born of armed nobility confronting a king. Germany, Japan, Iraq -- all examples of democracy arising from armed conflict. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine wouldn't have been possible without Reagan's insistance that we could afford a military buildup and the Soviets could not. Lebanon wouldn't have hope without the example of Iraq. Libya is restrained by force of the American cop on the corner. And, as the joke goes, Bush has announced how he will withdraw from Iraq: "We'll just go through Iran." And why must democracy be purchased at the price of our blood? Psychopaths respond only to firm, quick resistance to their lawless behavior. Thoughout history, the psychopaths have risen to the top (consider the French revolution; consider the sad history of Argentina, my beloved tragic second home). But in the American revolution, the careful and the accountable became the leaders and have inspired the world ever since. Other than that, I have no strong feelings. Chau, amigo Lynn Christian Rauh wrote: >There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >People should arbitrate their problems through that system. > >This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. >I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>Me too. >> >>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>there a new resurrection? >> >>Gerry >> >>Christian Rauh wrote: >> >> >> >>>No world cop. >>> >>>Christian >>> >>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>> >>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>Gerry >>>> >>>> >>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>group security. >>>>> >>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>> >>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 15 16:12:25 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:12:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a model? Which nordic country are you referring to? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Christian Rauh wrote: >There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >People should arbitrate their problems through that system. > >This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. >I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>Me too. >> >>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>there a new resurrection? >> >>Gerry >> >>Christian Rauh wrote: >> >> >> >>>No world cop. >>> >>>Christian >>> >>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>> >>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>Gerry >>>> >>>> >>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>group security. >>>>> >>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>> >>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 22:07:06 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:07:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] cop In-Reply-To: <200503151923.j2FJNfE13832@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says: >>World history seems to tell me that without cops the worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop.<< --I don't see any one nation being able to be the sole "cop" for very long without bankrupting itself. It may be possible for several nations to form temporary alliances to deal with problems as they arise. That may work better. michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 22:56:54 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:56:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] DNA with three base pairs - A step towards expanding the genetic code Message-ID: <01C5296F.3B066270.shovland@mindspring.com> SAN DIEGO, March 14, 2005 --Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California are reporting today at the 229th national meeting of the American Chemical Society progress toward the creation of a system for replicating a modified form of DNA containing an unnatural base pair. According to the Scripps Research scientists, this finding is a significant step towards expanding the genetic code and the ability of DNA to act as an information storage and retrieval system in the test tube and in simple, engineered organisms, such as yeast or bacteria. DNA with three or more base pairs could find broad applications in a number of fields, including biotechnology, medicine, data storage, and security. Instead of just the canonical base pairs "G-C" or guanine-cytosine, and "A-T" or adenine-thymine, the Scripps Research scientists' DNA has a third pairing: "3FB-3FB" between two unnatural bases called 3-fluorobenzene (or 3FB). Unlike other unnatural base pairs, DNA polymerases are able to replicate this base pair, albeit with reduced fidelity. To improve replication, the scientists also reported the development of a system capable of evolving polymerases to better recognize 3FB in DNA. Using a selection system some liken to evolution in the test tube, they are creating their own "polymerase" enzyme able to replicate the unnatural DNA. While the polymerase does not replicate the unnatural DNA with the same fidelity observed in nature, (roughly one mistake for every 10 million bases of DNA copied), its fidelity is reasonable (typically making only one mistake for every1000 base pairs). This is the first time anyone has been able to replicate unnatural DNA with fidelity against every possible mispair. "We definitely are still working on improvements, especially in fidelity," says Scripps Research Assistant Professor Floyd Romesberg, who led the research. "Nevertheless, we are now able to replicate unnatural DNA." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/acs-wt030805.php From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 15 22:58:57 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:58:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] cop Message-ID: <01C5296F.84332460.shovland@mindspring.com> At the moment, most of the world thinks the US is the criminal, not the cop. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:07 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] cop Lynn says: >>World history seems to tell me that without cops the worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop.<< --I don't see any one nation being able to be the sole "cop" for very long without bankrupting itself. It may be possible for several nations to form temporary alliances to deal with problems as they arise. That may work better. michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Mar 16 02:52:44 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:52:44 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] cop In-Reply-To: <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42379F7C.3050402@solution-consulting.com> Very good point. England helped us with Iraq; now Germany and France are showing more support. However, the reality is that Europe is useless because they have cut their militaries beyond bone, and cannot actually show up with force. Europe also is useless because the wars have left them too tolerant and they make money from dictators and dangerous tyrants. Canada is useless as an ally, unless Alberta & the heartland seceeds. South America has a strong military tradition but little respect for civilian authority. Poland and a few other countries have some potential for alliances. China is an economic enemy. Australia is an excellent ally. So we have England, Australia, and Poland. Enough? Probably not. I wish I could see where we could turn. Any ideas? The big stick helps us negotiate with the Syria type countries, and we are better to never use it. Your point about bankrupcy is excellent; there is a genuine danger of that. We are already far too dependent on China to bankroll our deficits. China is over a barrel, they cannot afford to cash in their bonds. Things are a mess. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>World history seems to tell me that without cops the >>> >>> >worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop.<< > >--I don't see any one nation being able to be the sole >"cop" for very long without bankrupting itself. It may >be possible for several nations to form temporary >alliances to deal with problems as they arise. That >may work better. > >michael > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 16 03:29:21 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:29:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] cop Message-ID: <01C52995.4A6BC590.shovland@mindspring.com> Our big stick lost in Vietnam. If the war in Iraq continues the 2006 election may be a referendum on it. If it is still going in 2008, any candidate can win who can credibly promise to end it. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:53 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] cop Very good point. England helped us with Iraq; now Germany and France are showing more support. However, the reality is that Europe is useless because they have cut their militaries beyond bone, and cannot actually show up with force. Europe also is useless because the wars have left them too tolerant and they make money from dictators and dangerous tyrants. Canada is useless as an ally, unless Alberta & the heartland seceeds. South America has a strong military tradition but little respect for civilian authority. Poland and a few other countries have some potential for alliances. China is an economic enemy. Australia is an excellent ally. So we have England, Australia, and Poland. Enough? Probably not. I wish I could see where we could turn. Any ideas? The big stick helps us negotiate with the Syria type countries, and we are better to never use it. Your point about bankrupcy is excellent; there is a genuine danger of that. We are already far too dependent on China to bankroll our deficits. China is over a barrel, they cannot afford to cash in their bonds. Things are a mess. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >Lynn says: > > >>>World history seems to tell me that without cops the >>> >>> >worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop.<< > >--I don't see any one nation being able to be the sole >"cop" for very long without bankrupting itself. It may >be possible for several nations to form temporary >alliances to deal with problems as they arise. That >may work better. > >michael > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Mar 16 04:46:18 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:46:18 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] disruptive innovations link Message-ID: <4237BA1A.3050508@solution-consulting.com> Here is an interesting interview of Clayton Christensen, Harvard Prof and proponent of disruptive innovations. His ideas apply to societies as well as businesses, IMHO. http://www.cio.com/archive/040101/disruption.html Intro blurb: IN RECENT YEARS, HARVARD Business School professor Clayton Christensen has gained a reputation for his work on "disruptive innovations"--products or systems that create entirely new markets. His first book, The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Harvard Business School Press, 1997), was named the best business book of 1997 by The Financial Times and Booz, Allen & Hamilton, and remains a stalwart in CIO's Reading Room . Christensen's research explains why established companies--even those competently managed by smart people--have such trouble countering or embracing disruptive innovations that are on the horizon. His theory is that organizations customarily develop mind-sets and processes that revolve around doing what they already know. Once that pattern becomes established, managers have great difficulty justifying to others or even themselves the need to turn their processes upside down to respond to a barely emergent market change. By the time the threat is apparent, however, it's usually too late; upstart companies have seized a substantial lead. Lynn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 20:33:09 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:33:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] new markets In-Reply-To: <200503161958.j2GJw0E03733@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050316203309.73784.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>His theory is that organizations customarily develop mind-sets and processes that revolve around doing what they already know. Once that pattern becomes established, managers have great difficulty justifying to others or even themselves the need to turn their processes upside down to respond to a barely emergent market change. By the time the threat is apparent, however, it's usually too late; upstart companies have seized a substantial lead.<< --Centralized and consolidated power tends to do that, in business or any other field. It's the people on the margins, the alert intuitives, who take advantage of sudden opportunities who leap ahead. One thing about people at the top of hierarchical systems, they tend to develop tunnel vision and ignore information that becomes crucial later on. As Jesus said, "Many who are first will come last." Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 16 23:28:37 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:28:37 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] new markets Message-ID: <01C52A3C.D374AAD0.shovland@mindspring.com> The smartest business people don't waste time trying to wake up old corporations. They do their best to get involved at the innovative firms where they have a chance to grow with the company. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 12:33 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] new markets >>His theory is that organizations customarily develop mind-sets and processes that revolve around doing what they already know. Once that pattern becomes established, managers have great difficulty justifying to others or even themselves the need to turn their processes upside down to respond to a barely emergent market change. By the time the threat is apparent, however, it's usually too late; upstart companies have seized a substantial lead.<< --Centralized and consolidated power tends to do that, in business or any other field. It's the people on the margins, the alert intuitives, who take advantage of sudden opportunities who leap ahead. One thing about people at the top of hierarchical systems, they tend to develop tunnel vision and ignore information that becomes crucial later on. As Jesus said, "Many who are first will come last." Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 17 13:59:37 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:59:37 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Study Reveals New Difference Between Sexes Message-ID: <01C52AB6.81378100.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.nature.com/index.html Although men and women may often act like separate species, scientists have long believed they are really not that different when it comes down to their DNA. But now, researchers have found that the sexes differ more than we thought, particularly when it comes to the genes on one crucial chromosome. Every woman carries a double dose of the X chromosome, whereas men carry one X and a Y. Women don't express both copies of the X chromosome in their cells: in each cell they shut one copy down (the 'inactive' X) and use the other. However, it seems that the inactive X doesn't just sit down and shut up. The first of two research papers on the human X chromosome, both published in Nature, analyses the complete sequence of the chromosome1. The second shows that women still express many genes from their inactive X chromosomes2. What's more, different women express different genes from the inactive X. Taken together, the two papers may eventually explain some of the behavioural and biological differences between individual women, and perhaps, between women and men. It doesn't provide evidence that genes explain the differences between men and women, but it does provide candidates. Laura Carrel Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, Hershey Quietly active Scientists already had an idea that the inactive X chromosome is not completely silenced. But they did not realize just how active it actually is. Hunt Willard of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Laura Carrel of the Pennsylvania State College of Medicine in Hershey, investigated this by designing tags that bind to messages from X-chromosome genes. The tags allowed scientists to pinpoint which genes were escaping inactivation. Using these tags to probe samples from 40 women, Willard and Carrel found that 15% of the genes on the inactive X chromosome were active in every sample. Another 10% of genes from the inactive X were switched on in just some of the samples. Many diseases have been linked to genes on the X chromosome. Click here for details. ? Welcome Trust Medicine Photographic Library Media box "The data are so striking," says Willard. "Every female is expressing a different subset of X-linked genes at different levels." Because the genes expressed from the inactive X are also expressed from a woman's active X, women get a higher dose of these genes than men. So these genes may underlie traits that differ between the sexes. The scientists caution, however, that they have only investigated one type of cell, and that to draw any general conclusions the findings must be repeated in other kinds of cells. "It doesn't provide evidence that genes explain the differences between men and women, but it does provide candidates for such genes," Carrel says. Cancer therapy The X-chromosome sequence, which is now 99.3% complete, has also revealed a few surprises of its own. The international team that assembled the sequence found that about 10% of X genes belong to a family (the 'testis-antigen genes') that has been linked to cancer. These genes are promising targets for potential therapies, because they are only expressed in cancer and in the male reproductive organs. Therapies that knock out tissues expressing the testis-antigen genes should leave patients' other organs intact. Other key findings from the X sequence could help us understand how the chromosome evolved, and how it sends the signals that shut down the inactive chromosome. Investigating these leads will keep scientists busy for a long time to come, says genomicist Jenny Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra. "Having the quantitative picture of the X is absolutely new, and I think this gives us a really good picture of the whole X chromosome," Graves says. From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Thu Mar 17 14:31:44 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:31:44 -0500 Subject: Future of democracy. Was:Re: [Paleopsych] Good vs. evil In-Reply-To: <4236F782.6090500@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <4236F782.6090500@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <423994D0.7060902@uconn.edu> Lynn, We know we disagree on many things but we are closer here. :-) My message was not clear, I'm not saying there must not be a "keeper or order" in the world. But I don't think there must be a country assuming that responsibility on its own because the action of that country will respond to the interests of that population. American cop actions suit american needs. It is like Rio, where the cops only keep the law where the rich and famous live or have business. The world cop must exist but it must be accountable to all people it protects. Therefore, there must be a political structure of accountability to the people of any global armed forces. Up until now, all attempts have been diplomatic and undemocratic, like the UN or NATO. Also, the cop should only work on its jurisdiction. I agree that some places have had conflicts to come to a democracy but not ALL. That is not a historic law. Brazil is democratic and it never had a conflict, similar with Finland that I alluded in another email. Of course, the earlier the democracy probably the more violence you needed because more abstract the concept was and more power the rulers had. One thing that seems usual is the fact that the stronger democracies come when the people are part of the democratic revolution. But the historic argument is also flawed because it dictates that things will always be like they were. If the historic argument always held, it means no change. However, the world advances on change. When democracy first appeared that had never been democracy, and people at that time could pull the historic argument against it. I say we are at a point today where we can more easily do democratic revolution through non-violent means. One way of doing that is through increased information flow. We can start in the US. Now, to say that Iraq is a democracy, that's being too anxious. ;-) Christian Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: > Christian, I am inspired by your hope but dubious of your grasp of human > evil. You know very well there are sections of Rio where no one can go > without extreme risk. There are no cops there, so the good people suffer > at the hands of the evil. World history seems to tell me that without > cops the worst people dominate. Thus, the world needs a cop. > An international "cop?" But the U.N. has failed over and over, from > failure to prevent genocide to corruption in the oil for food scandals. > So how can we hope for something that has never happened? > Democracy, we learn from history, is achieved mostly through force > and warfare. The U. S. democratic republic arose from conflict and is > one of the oldest in the world. England has a democracy that was born of > armed nobility confronting a king. Germany, Japan, Iraq -- all examples > of democracy arising from armed conflict. The Orange Revolution in > Ukraine wouldn't have been possible without Reagan's insistance that we > could afford a military buildup and the Soviets could not. Lebanon > wouldn't have hope without the example of Iraq. Libya is restrained by > force of the American cop on the corner. And, as the joke goes, Bush has > announced how he will withdraw from Iraq: "We'll just go through Iran." > And why must democracy be purchased at the price of our blood? > Psychopaths respond only to firm, quick resistance to their lawless > behavior. Thoughout history, the psychopaths have risen to the top > (consider the French revolution; consider the sad history of Argentina, > my beloved tragic second home). But in the American revolution, the > careful and the accountable became the leaders and have inspired the > world ever since. > Other than that, I have no strong feelings. > Chau, amigo > Lynn > > Christian Rauh wrote: > >>There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >> >>This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. >>I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >> >>Christian >> >>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >> >>>Me too. >>> >>>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>there a new resurrection? >>> >>>Gerry >>> >>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>No world cop. >>>> >>>>Christian >>>> >>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>> >>>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>Gerry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>group security. >>>>>> >>>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>>> >>>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 17 16:16:06 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:16:06 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. Forming consensus and building alliances again work for small groups in which everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that after a few interactions, they will. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Christian Rauh wrote: >Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >(considering the population). There is parlament elected through >proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >(modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method > >They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on consensus >and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability (although >it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). > >That's a good start. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >> >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >>Christian Rauh wrote: >> >> >> >>>There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>> >>>This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and strong. >>>I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>> >>>Christian >>> >>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Me too. >>>> >>>>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>there a new resurrection? >>>> >>>>Gerry >>>> >>>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>No world cop. >>>>> >>>>>Christian >>>>> >>>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you like it >>>>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is US.....not >>>>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>> >>>>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are interested >>>>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>Gerry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>group security. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > From christian.rauh at UCONN.EDU Thu Mar 17 17:42:25 2005 From: christian.rauh at UCONN.EDU (Christian Rauh) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:42:25 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> Gerry, I'm sure that a system that was started in almost 100 years ago can be improved with modern communication systems to handle a larger scale. The European Union parliament is implemented in a similar model but is has a representativeness problem with some of its other political structures that try to keep the national integrity of the members. What alternative you suggest to a global parliament system proportionally elected through a d'hont system? The current situation is the undemocratic rule of the strongest. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in > which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a > townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. Forming > consensus and building alliances again work for small groups in which > everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that after a few > interactions, they will. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > Christian Rauh wrote: > >> Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >> reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >> There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >> (considering the population). There is parlament elected through >> proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >> (modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method >> >> They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >> supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on consensus >> and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >> reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability (although >> it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >> population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >> the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). >> >> That's a good start. >> >> Christian >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >> >>> You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>> model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> >>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>> legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>> People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>>> >>>> This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and >>>> strong. >>>> I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Me too. >>>>> >>>>> Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>> there a new resurrection? >>>>> >>>>> Gerry >>>>> >>>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> No world cop. >>>>>> >>>>>> Christian >>>>>> >>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would you >>>>>>> like it >>>>>>> to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>> dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to gamble at >>>>>>> playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is >>>>>>> US.....not >>>>>>> because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are >>>>>>> interested >>>>>>> in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>> of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>> group security. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>> allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>> are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>> with blather about democracy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve Hovland >>>>>>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> > From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Mar 17 21:59:56 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:59:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] World language change In-Reply-To: <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <4239FDDC.7080604@earthlink.net> Christian, How big is big? What works at a town hall level could actually work for a population the size of Norway. What works for Norway could also be implemented in countries of a similar size. Possibly now that a large number of Americans own computers with access to the internet, we could implement a more individual form of voting and support many political parties, but as far as political groups maintaining their special individuality, this is going to get might rough especially since the differences between Bush's Republicans and Kerry's Democrats isn't that great, at least from my perspective. Maintaining diversity at a local level is very important and this could be done via computer terminal. But how to implement this at a federal level for U.S. boggles the mind and is beginning to resemble the Tower of Babel. Best regards, Gerry Christian Rauh wrote: > Gerry, > > I'm sure that a system that was started in almost 100 years ago can be > improved with modern communication systems to handle a larger scale. > > The European Union parliament is implemented in a similar model but is > has a representativeness problem with some of its other political > structures that try to keep the national integrity of the members. > > What alternative you suggest to a global parliament system > proportionally elected through a d'hont system? > > The current situation is the undemocratic rule of the strongest. > > Christian > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in >> which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a >> townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. >> Forming consensus and building alliances again work for small groups >> in which everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that >> after a few interactions, they will. >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> Christian Rauh wrote: >> >>> Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >>> reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >>> There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >>> (considering the population). There is parlament elected through >>> proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >>> (modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method >>> >>> They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >>> supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on >>> consensus >>> and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >>> reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability >>> (although >>> it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >>> population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >>> the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). >>> >>> That's a good start. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>>> You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>>> model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >>>> >>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>> >>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>>> legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>>> People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>>>> >>>>> This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and >>>>> strong. >>>>> I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>>>> >>>>> Christian >>>>> >>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Me too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>>> there a new resurrection? >>>>>> >>>>>> Gerry >>>>>> >>>>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> No world cop. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would >>>>>>>> you like it >>>>>>>> to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>>> dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to >>>>>>>> gamble at >>>>>>>> playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is >>>>>>>> US.....not >>>>>>>> because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are >>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>> in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>>> of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>>> group security. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>>> allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>>> are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>>> with blather about democracy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve Hovland >>>>>>>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 00:09:32 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:09:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism Message-ID: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. From paul.werbos at verizon.net Fri Mar 18 00:38:46 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:38:46 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] energy In-Reply-To: <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200503151923.j2FJNfE13832@tick.javien.com> <20050315220706.81112.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050317193618.01d5ec00@incoming.verizon.net> In case anyone really cares whether the situation in the Mideast becomes nonsustainable over the next 20-30 years, or even such a small things as whether the Arctic Ice Cap doubles or nothing... see... www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy But we were told that drug use in baseball is far more important to humans than whether they survive or not. Yo ho ho. Something... but we need more than something. Best of luck to us all, Paul W. From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 04:14:56 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:14:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] RE: ieee energy ideas Message-ID: <01C52B2D.FCEC6280.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/electricreliability/index.html IEEE-USA supports passage of federal legislation empowering the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to create a self-regulating reliability organization, the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) with authority to set and enforce mandatory standards for reliability of the North American electric system. At present, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) develops standards, guidelines, and criteria for assuring transmission system security and reliability. Electric company compliance with NERC standards, is voluntary and is not subject to government oversight. IEEE-USA also supports federal R&D investments in electric transmission and distribution related to improving the capacity and reliability of the electric grid. IEEE-USA Position Statements Electric Power Reliability Organization <../../positions/reliability.html> (Nov. 2002) IEEE-USA Press Releases Broad Coalition of Energy Organizations UrgesRestoration of Support for Research on Electric Transmission, Distribution to ImproveReliability, Prevent Future Blackouts <../../../communications/releases/2004/021904pr.html> (19 Feb. 2004) IEEE-USA Recommends Electric Grid Investment, Cooperation and Coordination to Improve Reliabilityand Prevent Future Blackouts <../../../communications/releases/2003/092403pr.html> (24 Sept. 2003) IEEE-USA's Call for Reliability Legislation Underscored by Largest U.S. Power Outage <../../../communications/releases/2003/081503pr.html> (15 August 2003) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Paul J. Werbos, Dr. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:39 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] energy In case anyone really cares whether the situation in the Mideast becomes nonsustainable over the next 20-30 years, or even such a small things as whether the Arctic Ice Cap doubles or nothing... see... www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy But we were told that drug use in baseball is far more important to humans than whether they survive or not. Yo ho ho. Something... but we need more than something. Best of luck to us all, Paul W. _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 04:23:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:23:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Hypomanic: does this fit Bush? Message-ID: <01C52B2F.3A98B1F0.shovland@mindspring.com> 1. inflated self-esteem or grandiosity 2. decreased need for sleep (e.g., feels rested after only 3 hours of sleep) 3. more talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking 4. flight of ideas, or subjective experience that thoughts are racing 5. distractibility (i.e., attention too easily drawn to unimportant or irrelevant external stimuli) 6. increase in goal-directed activity (either socially, at work or school, or sexually) or psychomotor agitation 7. excessive involvement in pleasurable activities that have a high potential for painful consequences (e.g., engaging in unrestrained buying sprees, sexual indiscretions, or foolish business investments) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Fri Mar 18 04:49:38 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:49:38 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423A5DE2.1090808@solution-consulting.com> So is Lawrence Britt a real Dr? See this blog: http://www.genesoc.com/blog1/index.php?p=27 Possibly - well, likely - a hoax. It doesn't have the feel of an academic piece. It sounds more like the typical professional skeptic / humanist piece, with contrived "relationships" designed not to enlighten but to enflame. There is one book on Amazon by a Lawrence W. Britt, no Dr. attached to his name. It is a novel, not a scholarly piece. The novel sounds contrived and forced, and hasn't sold many copies. Have you been had, Steve? Steve Hovland wrote: >Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: > >1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >and in public displays. > >2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > >3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > >4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >service are glamorized. > >5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >institution. > >6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. > >7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >by the government over the masses. > >8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are >diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. > >9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >power elite. > >10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. > >11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. > >12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > >13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >outright stolen by government leaders. > >14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 05:03:18 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:03:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Neuropeptides Message-ID: <01C52B34.BF25B3A0.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.harcourt-international.com/journals/npep/ google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=neuropeptides Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 14:22:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:22:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism Message-ID: <01C52B82.E913F7F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Even if it is fake, does it fit? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:50 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism So is Lawrence Britt a real Dr? See this blog: http://www.genesoc.com/blog1/index.php?p=27 Possibly - well, likely - a hoax. It doesn't have the feel of an academic piece. It sounds more like the typical professional skeptic / humanist piece, with contrived "relationships" designed not to enlighten but to enflame. There is one book on Amazon by a Lawrence W. Britt, no Dr. attached to his name. It is a novel, not a scholarly piece. The novel sounds contrived and forced, and hasn't sold many copies. Have you been had, Steve? Steve Hovland wrote: >Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: > >1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >and in public displays. > >2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > >3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > >4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >service are glamorized. > >5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >institution. > >6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. > >7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >by the government over the masses. > >8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are >diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. > >9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >power elite. > >10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. > >11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. > >12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > >13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >outright stolen by government leaders. > >14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 18 14:29:49 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:29:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nanotechnology's progress and challenges addressed during ACS meeting Message-ID: <01C52B83.E38BB060.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/acs-pa030805.php EACH PAPER EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SAN DIEGO - From promising diagnostic tests to tomorrow's electronics, nanotechnology - the science and technology of the ultra-small - is getting bigger all the time. More than 60 presentations, in symposia ranging from medicine to the environment to business, highlight nanotechnology's progress and challenges during the 229th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society, in San Diego, March 13-17. Highlights from selected symposia and research presentations are highlighted below: Monday, March 14 How do you name a nanomaterial?-When the field of molecular genetics emerged, scientists often found themselves calling a new gene by different names. Nanotechnology researchers now face a similar challenge. What's more, this name game has regulatory importance: Today, the government ev aluates and regulates the toxicity of a named chemical entity without considering different-sized versions of it. But nanoparticles bear unique electronic and mechanical features. Now, to clear up these concerns and more, a researcher at Rice University is leading the call to build a nomenclature for nanotechnology. (IEC 116, Monday, March 14, 4:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency, Room Ford A, during the symposium "Nanotechnology and the Environment.") Growing the business of nanotechnology - Since nanotechnology emerged, dozens of businesses in California have launched big dreams for tiny tools. Illustrating this boom is Nanosys, launched in 2002 in Palo Alto, Calif. Nanosys has built early versions of nano-enabled solar cells, flexible electronics, and nano chips for drug discovery research. Along the way, the company has formed strategic relationships with industry giants such as Intel, Dupont, In-Q-Tel, SAIC, Sharp, and Matsushita. The company hopes its platform technology will find success in renewable energy, defense, macroelectrics, healthcare and information technology. (COLL 121, Monday, March 14, 8:30 a.m., Convention Center, Room 22, during the symposium "Colloid and Surface Chemistry Award Symposium Honoring Paul Alivisatos.") Tuesday, March 15 Bio-barcode may help diagnose Alzheimer's disease in living persons - Alzheimer's is hard to diagnose in living persons and is only definitively diagnosed upon autopsy. Now, in a preliminary study led by noted scientist Chad Mirkin, researchers at Northwestern University have used a "bio-barcode" assay to detect, in the spinal fluid of study participants, a brain protein thought to be associated with Alzheimer's. The bio-barcode assay fixes antibodies to magnetic particles and gold nanocrystals laced with strands of DNA, referred to as bar code DNA. Somewhat like a consumer bar code, these DNA barcodes are identified on a chip designed to sort and measure their concentrations. The assay also holds promise for detecting HIV, cancer and heart problems. It could be available to researchers within a year or two, according to the researchers. (ANYL 331, Tuesday, March 15, 9:50 a.m., Convention Center, Room 29B, during the symposium, "ACS Nobel Laureate Signature Award Symposium: Spectroscopy at the Nanoscale.") Wednesday, March 16 Quantum dots make colorful labels - Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and Quantum Dot Corporation in Hayward, Calif., have created fluorescent semiconductor nanocrystal labels for cells and other biological material. The researchers recently used light-scattering techniques to probe the distance between two gold nanocrystals at the single molecule level. These nanocrystals hold promise as flags of biological reactions in living cells that can serve as probes far longer than current dyes.(PHYS 241, Wednesday, March 16, 4:30 p.m., Convention Center, Room 15A, during the symposium "Novel Directions in Photonics: Nanophotonics and Biophotonics.") Thursday, March 17 Building a greener nanotechnology - Researchers with the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) contend that nanotechnology and green chemistry are uniquely compatible. Nanoscience can enable the discovery of greener products and processes. At the same time, the tools of green chemistry can guide nano developments. A University of Oregon chemist, who last year received a patent for a greener method of synthesizing gold nanoparticles, explores this synergy. (I&EC 182, Thursday, March 17, 8:30 a.m., Hyatt Regency, Del Mar A, during the symposium "Nanotechnology and the Environment.") ### ALL PAPERS ARE EMBARGOED UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION IEC 116 Naming nanotechnology: Creating a dictionary for the nanoscale Vicki L. Colvin, Department of Chemistry, Rice University, MS 60, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251, colvin at rice.edu The importance of terminology and nomenclature to chemistry generally ca nnot be overstated. Systems of nomenclature and accurate terminology improve communication, enhance the utility of the scientific literature, and define how we teach subjects to students. The need for terminology in nanotechnology is growing substantially and this talk will address the ongoing efforts in this area. Both at the national and international level early approaches to this large problem will be highlighted. Additionally, this venue will permit ample audience input and commentary on the various emerging strategies for nomenclature systems for nanomaterials. ALL PAPERS ARE EMBARGOED UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION COLL 121 Nanotechnology and business Larry Bock, Nanosys Inc, 2625 Hanover St., Palo Alto, CA 94303, Fax: 858 759 8299, LBock at nanosysinc.com , Phone: 858-759-8693 I will give a non technical, business overview of how Nanosys is attempting to build a leading pure play nanotechnology venture. My presentation will describe how we are building an important platform technology focused on high performance, fully integrated, inorganic semiconductor nanostructures, how we are applying this platform technology in multiple muti-billion dollar industries from renewable energy to defense to macroelectroics (flexible electronics) to healthcare to information technology. I will also describe, how we capitalized the company in under three years with over $75M in equity and non equity capital and formed strategic relationships with such companies as Intel, Dupont, In-Q-Tel, SAIC and Matsushita. ALL PAPERS ARE EMBARGOED UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION PHYS 241 New Nanocrystal assemblies for photonic structures A. Paul Alivisatos, Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Materials Sciences Division, D-43A Hildebrand Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1460, Fax: 510-642-6911, alivis at uclink4.berkeley.edu , Phone: 510-643-7371 This talk will focus on two recent projects relating to applications of nanocrystals in photonics. The first project concerns the use of discrete groups of nanocrystals as novel biological labels. For example, colloidal quantum dot emission can be altered by the placement nearby of Au nanocrystals. Similarly, the distance between two Au nanocrystals can be probed at the single molecule level by light scattering. The second area of interest is in the creation of specific patterns of nanocrystals on lithographically patterned surfaces by capillary force assembly. ANYL 331 Biobarcode assay: PCR-like sensitivity for proteins, nucleic acids, and small molecules Chad Mirkin, Chemistry Dept, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, Fax: 847-467-5123, Phone: 847-467-7302 An ultrasensitive method for detecting protein analytes has been developed. The system relies on magnetic microparticle probes with antibodies that specifically bind a target of interest [prostate specific antigen (PSA) in this case] and nanoparticle probes that are encoded with DNA that is unique to the protein target of interest and antibodies that can sandwich the target captured by the microparticle probes. Magnetic separation of the complexed probes and target followed by dehybridization of the oligonucleotides on the nanoparticle probe surface allows one to determine the presence of the target protein by identifying the oligonucleotide sequence released from the nanoparticle probe. Because the nanoparticle probe carries with it a large number of oligonucleotides per protein binding event, there is substantial amplification and one can detect protein targets in the 500 zeptomolar to picomolar concentration range. Comparable clinically accepted conventional assays for detecting the same targets have sensitivity limits of ~ 3 pM, 6 orders of magnitude less sensitive than what is observed with this method. The assay has been developed for prostrate cancer, HIV, cardiac markers and Alzheimers disease. ALL PAPERS ARE EMBARGOED UNTIL DATE AND TIME OF PRESENTATION IEC 182 Environmentally-benign nanomanufacturing: Merging green chemistry and nanoscience James E. Hutchison, Department of Chemistry and Materials Science Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, hutch at uoregon.edu Nanotechnology promises considerable benefit to society and the environment. However, the products of nanotechnology and the manufacturing processes used to produce these products may pose threats to human health, the environment, worker safety, and security. The challenge will be to develop nanotechnology to provide maximum benefit, while minimizing the hazards. Green chemistry and engineering principles can be adopted to guide the early stages of product and process development to meet this challenge. Discoveries in nanoscience will provide new opportunities for the development of sustainable technologies. In this presentation, I will discuss how green chemistry and engineering principles can guide the responsible development of nanotechnology and how nanoscience can enable the discovery of greener products and processes. Examples of greener materials, processes and applications of nanoscience will be presented, with an emphasis on nanomanufacturing. From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 18 17:11:35 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:11:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came from. 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported even if it twists the facts. 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock stars because crime will automatically disappear. 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific ideology. 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say is intellectually correct. 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers can attain high positions, especially those without any background. 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. Steve Hovland wrote: >Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: > >1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >and in public displays. > >2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > >3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > >4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >service are glamorized. > >5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >institution. > >6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. > >7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >by the government over the masses. > >8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are >diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. > >9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >power elite. > >10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. > >11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. > >12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > >13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >outright stolen by government leaders. > >14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 23:20:40 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:20:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] symbol vs. reality In-Reply-To: <200503181922.j2IJMfE10103@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050318232040.70272.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.<< --This seems to be part of a larger issue that may include members of many opposing groups. Symbols become substitutes for reality, when people consider large-scale issues involving millions of people. It's as if the reality is impossible to hold in mind, so a symbol must replace it. Then, the symbol is elevated to the status of a human being, treated as if it were able to feel pain and could be violated as a human can. The flag becomes a "martyr", or a minor deity, rather than a symbol. Tearing up the word "people" is not the same as tearing up people. Burning a flag is not the same as burning the country. One thing I wonder about: if someone burned a copy of the U.S. Constitution, would it get the same level of outrage? Perhaps the fact that nobody wants to burn it means we all agree on something more basic than the flag. After all, without the Constitution, what would the flag represent? Not freedom. Michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Mar 19 00:26:53 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:26:53 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <01C52B82.E913F7F0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52B82.E913F7F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423B71CD.8070601@solution-consulting.com> No, of course not. Special pleading. This is an old pattern, invent a bunch of "similarities" that have no particular validity, and prove something from it. Or, maybe you are showing some sense of humor. Like the CBS memos: Fake but accurate? Steve Hovland wrote: >Even if it is fake, does it fit? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:50 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism > >So is Lawrence Britt a real Dr? See this blog: >http://www.genesoc.com/blog1/index.php?p=27 > >Possibly - well, likely - a hoax. It doesn't have the feel of an >academic piece. It sounds more like the typical professional skeptic / >humanist piece, with contrived "relationships" designed not to enlighten >but to enflame. There is one book on Amazon by a Lawrence W. Britt, no >Dr. attached to his name. It is a novel, not a scholarly piece. The >novel sounds contrived and forced, and hasn't sold many copies. > >Have you been had, Steve? > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >>Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >>American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: >> >>1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >>constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >>paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >>and in public displays. >> >>2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >>enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >>persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >>"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >>summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. >> >>3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >>are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >>perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >>liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >> >>4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >>problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >>funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >>service are glamorized. >> >>5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >>exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >>are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >>the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >>institution. >> >>6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >>the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >>government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >>Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. >> >>7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >>by the government over the masses. >> >>8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >>nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >>manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >> >> >>from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are > > >>diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. >> >>9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >>of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >>power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >>power elite. >> >>10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >>the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >>eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >> >>11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >>promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >>is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >>arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. >> >>12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >>police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >>often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >>the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >>virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >> >>13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >>governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >>government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >>their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >>for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >>outright stolen by government leaders. >> >>14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >>complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >>against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >>to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >>manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >>judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Mar 19 00:28:11 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:28:11 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <423B721B.1060607@solution-consulting.com> brilliant! I wish I had thought of it. G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining > characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside > down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: > > 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay > homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came > from. > > 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, > think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. > > 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes > scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. > > 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military > serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. > > 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow > support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. > > 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported > even if it twists the facts. > > 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a > laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock > stars because crime will automatically disappear. > > 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific > ideology. > > 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. > > 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. > > 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud > gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as > crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say > is intellectually correct. > > 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form > of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. > > 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers > can attain high positions, especially those without any background. > > 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat > available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. > > > > > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >> (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and >> several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >> characteristics common to each: >> >> 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to >> make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and >> other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols >> on clothing and in public displays. >> >> 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >> enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >> persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because >> of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >> torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >> prisoners, etc. >> 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >> people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >> eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >> religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >> >> 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >> domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of >> government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers >> and military service are glamorized. >> >> 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >> almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional >> gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality >> are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian >> of the family institution. >> >> 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled >> by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly >> controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media >> spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is >> very common. >> >> 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational >> tool by the government over the masses. >> >> 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >> nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >> to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >> common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >> religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >> actions. >> >> 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >> aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >> government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >> business/government relationship and power elite. >> >> 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of >> labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions >> are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >> >> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >> promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and >> academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be >> censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is >> openly attacked. >> >> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >> police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people >> are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil >> liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police >> force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >> >> 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >> are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >> other to government positions and use governmental power and >> authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not >> uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures >> to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. >> >> 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations >> are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >> campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use >> of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >> boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >> typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 19 00:35:54 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:35:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism Message-ID: <01C52BD8.8EEAF3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Good work :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:12 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came from. 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported even if it twists the facts. 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock stars because crime will automatically disappear. 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific ideology. 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say is intellectually correct. 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers can attain high positions, especially those without any background. 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. Steve Hovland wrote: >Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), >Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin >American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: > >1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing >and in public displays. > >2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, >summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > >3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people >are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a >perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; >liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > >4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic >problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government >funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military >service are glamorized. > >5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost >exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles >are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and >the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family >institution. > >6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by >the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by >government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. >Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. > >7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool >by the government over the masses. > >8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to >manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common >from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are >diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. > >9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy >of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into >power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and >power elite. > >10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is >the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either >eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. > >11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It >is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even >arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. > >12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are >often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in >the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with >virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > >13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are >governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to >government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect >their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes >for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even >outright stolen by government leaders. > >14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a >complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns >against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation >to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and >manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their >judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Sat Mar 19 16:18:06 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:18:06 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <423C50BE.7090209@uconn.edu> If it came in a package, which version would you choose? The original or the upside-down? Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining > characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside > down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: > > 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay > homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came > from. > > 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, > think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. > > 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes > scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. > > 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military > serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. > > 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow support > for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. > > 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported > even if it twists the facts. > > 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a > laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock > stars because crime will automatically disappear. > > 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific ideology. > > 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. > > 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. > > 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud > gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as > crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say > is intellectually correct. > > 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form of > punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. > > 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers can > attain high positions, especially those without any background. > > 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat > available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. > > > > > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >> (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and >> several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >> characteristics common to each: >> >> 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >> constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >> paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on >> clothing and in public displays. >> >> 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >> enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >> persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >> "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >> torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >> prisoners, etc. >> 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >> people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >> eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >> religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >> >> 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >> domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of >> government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and >> military service are glamorized. >> >> 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >> almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional >> gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality >> are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian >> of the family institution. >> >> 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled >> by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly >> controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople >> and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. >> >> 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational >> tool by the government over the masses. >> >> 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >> nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >> to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >> common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >> religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >> actions. >> >> 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >> aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >> government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >> business/government relationship and power elite. >> >> 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor >> is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are >> either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >> >> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >> promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. >> It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored >> or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly >> attacked. >> >> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >> police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people >> are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil >> liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police >> force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >> >> 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >> are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >> other to government positions and use governmental power and authority >> to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in >> fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be >> appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. >> >> 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are >> a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >> campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use >> of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >> boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >> typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Sat Mar 19 15:20:47 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] =?windows-1252?q?PLOS=3A_Recent_Origin_and_Cultural?= =?windows-1252?q?_Reversion_of_a_Hunter=96Gatherer_Group?= Message-ID: <423C434F.7010903@uconn.edu> 04-plbi-ra-0485r2_tn *Recent Origin and Cultural Reversion of a Hunter?Gatherer Group* Hiroki Oota, Brigitte Pakendorf, Gunter Weiss, Arndt von Haeseler, Surin Pookajorn, Wannapa Settheetham-Ishida, Danai Tiwawech, Takafumi Ishida, Mark Stoneking Synopsis | Full-text | Screen PDF (123K) The mtDNA analysis revealed something remarkable: all the Mlabri mtDNA sequences were identical. Not only did all of the other hill tribes show ?significantly higher? variation, but this lack of variation hasn't been found in any other human population. The Y-chromosome and autosome analyses revealed the same reduced diversity, indicating a ?severe reduction in population size? for the Mlabri. This reduction likely happened 500 to 800 years ago, Stoneking and colleagues conclude, and at most 1,000 years ago. But how? Since genetic analyses can't distinguish between a population bottleneck and a founding event, the authors used simulations to calculate the amount of population reduction required to completely eliminate mtDNA diversity, arriving at ?not more than two unrelated females? and ?perhaps even only one.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 04-plbi-ra-0485r2_tn.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2276 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Mar 19 17:45:15 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:45:15 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] oops, clarification Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050319123656.01e29d78@incoming.verizon.net> Please forgive me for a gross typo! The URL is: www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt In general -- if we want to discuss aberrations of the human mind, how about the aberration which thinks of problems in the Middle East (oil, war and nuclear proliferation all combined) and high gas prices as a kind of temporary rainshower certain to go away all by itself in a day or two? Freud talks about denial -- but how long can an organism survive if, when its life is threatened, it buries its head either in the sand or in Michael Jackson's crotch or in sniffing noses in baseball lockers? (The main events on TV and in Congressional discussion this week. We did get what people call good attendance on Thursday... but TV was all into other things.) Why is IEEE (and the other folks we partnered with on Thursday at Rayburn) just about the only group on the planet asking in a serious, honest way what we can actually DO to save our lives? (Are engineers the last small minority of people on earth who believe that a real world exists?) Does anyone really care whether we do or not? Do they figure that oh, well, their souls will be saved if they just pray on Sundays to the God of hydrogen and otherwise forget it? And do they expect the god of hydrogen to resurrect their mangled bodies? It really is a central question for psychology how organisms can be so weird. Best, Paul W. From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Sat Mar 19 16:06:51 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:06:51 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] World Political System In-Reply-To: <4239FDDC.7080604@earthlink.net> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> <4239FDDC.7080604@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <423C4E1B.3030205@uconn.edu> Gerry, Big has to be global level. You might need layers of representation and action but that's an empirical question. In a global environment, people should be able to aggreaget themselves in both geographic location and interest groups. When you have a plurarlity of parties then each party can become more distinct from the other. In a two party system the two parties will converge to what is perceived as commonground. People who have a high investment on a non-popular issue will be left with no representation. Computer terminal will definetely play a role in a global scale democratic government, which brings up the issue of access and efficacy to/with technology. One of the first initiatives towards that would be to improve access and efficacy around the world. People make a world political system seem so hard and alien but the fact is that many of our global corporations have information systems and internal political/management structures that support and are very similar to what I'm advocating. The difference is that corporations operate under authoritarian rule and it would have to be democratic. And we all know democracy does have more overhead than authocracy. Christian G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > Christian, > How big is big? What works at a town hall level could actually work for > a population the size of Norway. What works for Norway could also be > implemented in countries of a similar size. Possibly now that a large > number of Americans own computers with access to the internet, we could > implement a more individual form of voting and support many political > parties, but as far as political groups maintaining their special > individuality, this is going to get might rough especially since the > differences between Bush's Republicans and Kerry's Democrats isn't that > great, at least from my perspective. > > Maintaining diversity at a local level is very important and this could > be done via computer terminal. But how to implement this at a federal > level for U.S. boggles the mind and is beginning to resemble the Tower > of Babel. > > Best regards, > Gerry > > Christian Rauh wrote: > >> Gerry, >> >> I'm sure that a system that was started in almost 100 years ago can be >> improved with modern communication systems to handle a larger scale. >> >> The European Union parliament is implemented in a similar model but is >> has a representativeness problem with some of its other political >> structures that try to keep the national integrity of the members. >> >> What alternative you suggest to a global parliament system >> proportionally elected through a d'hont system? >> >> The current situation is the undemocratic rule of the strongest. >> >> Christian >> >> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >>> Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in >>> which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a >>> townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. >>> Forming consensus and building alliances again work for small groups >>> in which everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that >>> after a few interactions, they will. >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> >>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>> >>>> Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >>>> reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >>>> There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >>>> (considering the population). There is parlament elected through >>>> proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >>>> (modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method >>>> >>>> They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >>>> supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on >>>> consensus >>>> and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >>>> reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability >>>> (although >>>> it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >>>> population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >>>> the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). >>>> >>>> That's a good start. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>>>> model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >>>>> >>>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>>> >>>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>>>> legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>>>> People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>>>>> >>>>>> This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and >>>>>> strong. >>>>>> I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>>>>> >>>>>> Christian >>>>>> >>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Me too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>>>> there a new resurrection? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No world cop. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would >>>>>>>>> you like it >>>>>>>>> to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>>>> dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to >>>>>>>>> gamble at >>>>>>>>> playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is >>>>>>>>> US.....not >>>>>>>>> because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are >>>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>>> in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>>>> of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>>>> group security. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>>>> allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>>>> are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>>>> with blather about democracy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steve Hovland >>>>>>>>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 19 21:48:20 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:48:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] bias, fascism In-Reply-To: <200503192046.j2JKjoE01535@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050319214820.83265.qmail@web30809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lynn says to Stephen: >>Or, maybe you are showing some sense of humor. Like the CBS memos: Fake but accurate?<< --I have a question. Using fake memos is most definitely a journalism faux pas and terribly embarrassing. But the President also used forged memos in making his case for the Iraq war. Why is one so much worse than the other? Biased filtering of information is bad no matter who does it, I would think. Good reason to be skeptical of information that confirms one's preconceptions about an issue. It's easy to go on automatic and believe everything that condemns someone you are convinced is evil, or to automatically reject anything that undermines your assumptions and loyalties. Regarding the fascism thread: I think we might look at the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Blue Eyes experiment, and Milgram's experiment, and remember that NOBODY is immune from the kind of abuses that take over in a fascist climate. Humans typically are very skeptical of one side in a polarity and overly trusting in another. It may be hard-wired, and it makes us susceptible to any authority that tells us we're in danger and must trust its view of reality over that of an enemy who must never be listened to or taken at face value. It's not an American thing, not a German thing, it's something all people, including Europeans, Muslims and others who may see all evil in America and none on their own side, must guard against. Polarities distort behavior, on all sides, and nobody is immune from having their mind hijacked by herd perception. It's part of our evolutionary heritage, and getting too proud of being uninfluenced is a mistake, since pride exists on a different level from the automatic, unconscious bias that creeps in when one habitually takes one side in a conflict. It would help if, rather than accusing America of becoming a fascist state, we look at fascist TENDENCIES, in cultures around the globe. Those tendencies can exist in a culture that is democratic and not overtly fascist in political structure. They are found in any group that remains unconscious of its own flaws while accusing other groups of being irreparably flawed. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 19 23:22:52 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:22:52 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism Message-ID: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> Lynn, have you considered the possibility that being a conservative cripples your creativity? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:28 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism brilliant! I wish I had thought of it. G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining > characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside > down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: > > 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay > homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came > from. > > 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, > think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. > > 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes > scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. > > 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military > serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. > > 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow > support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. > > 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported > even if it twists the facts. > > 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a > laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock > stars because crime will automatically disappear. > > 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific > ideology. > > 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. > > 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. > > 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud > gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as > crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say > is intellectually correct. > > 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form > of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. > > 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers > can attain high positions, especially those without any background. > > 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat > available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. > > > > > > Steve Hovland wrote: > >> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >> (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and >> several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >> characteristics common to each: >> >> 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to >> make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and >> other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols >> on clothing and in public displays. >> >> 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >> enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >> persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because >> of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >> torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >> prisoners, etc. >> 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >> people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >> eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >> religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >> >> 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >> domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of >> government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers >> and military service are glamorized. >> >> 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >> almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional >> gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality >> are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian >> of the family institution. >> >> 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled >> by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly >> controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media >> spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is >> very common. >> >> 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational >> tool by the government over the masses. >> >> 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >> nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >> to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >> common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >> religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >> actions. >> >> 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >> aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >> government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >> business/government relationship and power elite. >> >> 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of >> labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions >> are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >> >> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >> promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and >> academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be >> censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is >> openly attacked. >> >> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >> police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people >> are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil >> liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police >> force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >> >> 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >> are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >> other to government positions and use governmental power and >> authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not >> uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures >> to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. >> >> 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations >> are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >> campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use >> of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >> boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >> typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 20 01:27:12 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:27:12 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <423B721B.1060607@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> <423B721B.1060607@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <423CD170.70402@earthlink.net> Dear Lynn and Steve, Thanks awfully for your very kind words. I like to think of these 14 points in two respects. Firstly we have the original set of 14 derived by Dr. Lawrence Britt after examing fascist regimes. Let's call these the "thesis". I then came along and stood the entire set on its head and compiled by own set of 14.....let's call these the "antithesis" . How does my set sound? Mighty scary from a security point of view especially after the 9/11 scare, huh! Yet when anyone complains fascism is WRONG, presenting the opposite is not a secure alternative. If only we could meld thesis with antithesis.... Best regards, Gerry Steve Hovland wrote: Good work :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: > brilliant! I wish I had thought of it. > > G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining >> characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside >> down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist >> regime: >> >> 1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay >> homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came >> from. >> >> 2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, >> think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your >> family. >> >> 3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes >> scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic >> militants. >> >> 4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military >> serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. >> >> 5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow >> support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. >> >> 6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported >> even if it twists the facts. >> >> 7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a >> laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock >> stars because crime will automatically disappear. >> >> 8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific >> ideology. >> >> 9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. >> >> 10. Support and promote Labor Unions. >> >> 11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud >> gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such >> as crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to >> say is intellectually correct. >> >> 12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form >> of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. >> >> 13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers >> can attain high positions, especially those without any background. >> >> 14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat >> available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into >> government. >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve Hovland wrote: >> >>> Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >>> (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) >>> and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >>> characteristics common to each: >>> >>> 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to >>> make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and >>> other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols >>> on clothing and in public displays. >>> >>> 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >>> enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >>> persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because >>> of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >>> torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >>> prisoners, etc. >>> 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >>> people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >>> eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >>> religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, >>> etc. >>> >>> 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >>> domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount >>> of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. >>> Soldiers and military service are glamorized. >>> >>> 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >>> almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, >>> traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and >>> homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the >>> ultimate guardian of the family institution. >>> >>> 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly >>> controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is >>> indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media >>> spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is >>> very common. >>> >>> 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a >>> motivational tool by the government over the masses. >>> >>> 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >>> nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >>> to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >>> common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >>> religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >>> actions. >>> >>> 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >>> aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >>> government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >>> business/government relationship and power elite. >>> >>> 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of >>> labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions >>> are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >>> >>> 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend >>> to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and >>> academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to >>> be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and >>> letters is openly attacked. >>> >>> 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, >>> the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The >>> people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego >>> civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national >>> police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >>> >>> 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >>> are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >>> other to government positions and use governmental power and >>> authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not >>> uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even >>> treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government >>> leaders. >>> >>> 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations >>> are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >>> campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, >>> use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >>> boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >>> typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 20 02:26:10 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:26:10 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: World Political System In-Reply-To: <423C4E12.6050802@uconn.edu> References: <01C528B8.15EE00E0.shovland@mindspring.com> <42364318.5070603@earthlink.net> <42364EE2.3050301@uconn.edu> <42366149.5090600@earthlink.net> <4236E220.5070902@uconn.edu> <42370969.2010705@earthlink.net> <4239912E.2000003@uconn.edu> <4239AD46.3020906@earthlink.net> <4239C181.4070201@uconn.edu> <4239FDDC.7080604@earthlink.net> <423C4E12.6050802@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <423CDF42.4030407@earthlink.net> Big at a global level is warranted but can it be managed? One definitely needs layers of representation ascending the ladder to final voting. As I stated previously, computers could allow voting at a local level in which numerous candidates present their platforms and local (community voters) cast their ballots. As far as having this work at national level, I can't imagine how. Gerry Christian Rauh wrote: >Gerry, > >Big has to be global level. You might need layers of representation and >action but that's an empirical question. In a global environment, people >should be able to aggreaget themselves in both geographic location and >interest groups. > >When you have a plurarlity of parties then each party can become more >distinct from the other. In a two party system the two parties will >converge to what is perceived as commonground. People who have a high >investment on a non-popular issue will be left with no representation. > >Computer terminal will definetely play a role in a global scale >democratic government, which brings up the issue of access and efficacy >to/with technology. One of the first initiatives towards that would be >to improve access and efficacy around the world. > >People make a world political system seem so hard and alien but the fact >is that many of our global corporations have information systems and >internal political/management structures that support and are very >similar to what I'm advocating. The difference is that corporations >operate under authoritarian rule and it would have to be democratic. And >we all know democracy does have more overhead than authocracy. > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>Christian, >>How big is big? What works at a town hall level could actually work for >>a population the size of Norway. What works for Norway could also be >>implemented in countries of a similar size. Possibly now that a large >>number of Americans own computers with access to the internet, we could >>implement a more individual form of voting and support many political >>parties, but as far as political groups maintaining their special >>individuality, this is going to get might rough especially since the >>differences between Bush's Republicans and Kerry's Democrats isn't that >>great, at least from my perspective. >> >>Maintaining diversity at a local level is very important and this could >>be done via computer terminal. But how to implement this at a federal >>level for U.S. boggles the mind and is beginning to resemble the Tower >>of Babel. >> >>Best regards, >>Gerry >> >>Christian Rauh wrote: >> >> >> >>>Gerry, >>> >>>I'm sure that a system that was started in almost 100 years ago can be >>>improved with modern communication systems to handle a larger scale. >>> >>>The European Union parliament is implemented in a similar model but is >>>has a representativeness problem with some of its other political >>>structures that try to keep the national integrity of the members. >>> >>>What alternative you suggest to a global parliament system >>>proportionally elected through a d'hont system? >>> >>>The current situation is the undemocratic rule of the strongest. >>> >>>Christian >>> >>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in >>>>which everyone spoke the same language. It has some overtones of a >>>>townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont. >>>>Forming consensus and building alliances again work for small groups >>>>in which everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that >>>>after a few interactions, they will. >>>> >>>>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>> >>>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some >>>>>reading, it seems that their political system is very representative. >>>>>There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties >>>>>(considering the population). There is parlament elected through >>>>>proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold >>>>>(modifications are to make smaller parties stronger): >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method >>>>> >>>>>They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be >>>>>supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on >>>>>consensus >>>>>and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That >>>>>reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability >>>>>(although >>>>>it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the >>>>>population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through >>>>>the indirect effect of providing such services, of course). >>>>> >>>>>That's a good start. >>>>> >>>>>Christian >>>>> >>>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>You've perked my interest. Could you perhaps elaborate on such a >>>>>>model? Which nordic country are you referring to? >>>>>> >>>>>>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>>>> >>>>>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>There must be a global democratic political structure with executive >>>>>>>legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy". >>>>>>>People should arbitrate their problems through that system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and >>>>>>>strong. >>>>>>>I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Christian >>>>>>> >>>>>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Me too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Do we use the United Nations? That hasn't worked in the past....is >>>>>>>>there a new resurrection? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Gerry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Christian Rauh wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No world cop. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Christian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This is of interest. If US is not world cop, then who would >>>>>>>>>>you like it >>>>>>>>>>to be? The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American >>>>>>>>>>dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to >>>>>>>>>>gamble at >>>>>>>>>>playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace. That is >>>>>>>>>>US.....not >>>>>>>>>>because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are >>>>>>>>>>interested >>>>>>>>>>in Democracy. That's good enough for me. >>>>>>>>>>Gerry >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>When the US can no longer afford the pretense >>>>>>>>>>>of being the world cop, we may move more toward >>>>>>>>>>>group security. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer >>>>>>>>>>>allies. Most of the world is horrified by what we >>>>>>>>>>>are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up >>>>>>>>>>>with blather about democracy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Steve Hovland >>>>>>>>>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>>>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>>>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>>>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Mar 20 16:43:05 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:43:05 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] oops, clarification In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050319123656.01e29d78@incoming.verizon.net> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050319123656.01e29d78@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <423DA819.1040502@solution-consulting.com> Paul, thanks for the link Great info! I sent the link to my congressman and both senators with this letter: I recognize you are very busy. Please have a staffer look at this link: www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt It is a presentation a colleague gave on energy with some very thought-provoking ideas. This would seem to be something both democrats and republicans could agree on, and your leadership could make a difference. Lynn Johnson, Ph.D. I hope I can call you a (virtual) colleague. I suggest if we all sent something like that to our representatives, Paul's concepts could gain some energy (grin) in the legislature. -- You can email your representatives through this linik: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Lynn PS: Paul, I also sent the link to my brother, Karl, at U. Pitt where he is prof of chem eng. He is involved in energy storage studies, and modeled hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes (he found it wasn't practical) so I am sure he will be interested in your work. If you give permission, I would also post the link to some other energy-related sites with a similar message. Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > Please forgive me for a gross typo! > > The URL is: > > www.ieeeusa.org/policy/energy_strategy.ppt > > > In general -- if we want to discuss aberrations of the human mind, how > about > the aberration which thinks of problems in the Middle East > (oil, war and nuclear proliferation all combined) and high gas prices > as a kind > of temporary rainshower certain to go away all by itself in a day or two? > Freud talks about denial -- but how long can an organism survive if, > when its life is threatened, it buries its head either in the sand or in > Michael Jackson's crotch or in sniffing noses in baseball lockers? > (The main events on TV and in Congressional discussion this week. > We did get what people call good attendance on Thursday... but > TV was all into other things.) > > Why is IEEE (and the other folks we partnered with on Thursday at > Rayburn) > just about the only group on the planet asking in a serious, honest > way what > we can actually DO to save our lives? (Are engineers the last > small minority of people on earth who believe that a real world exists?) > > Does anyone really care whether we do or not? Do they figure that oh, > well, > their souls will be saved if they just pray on Sundays to the God of > hydrogen and > otherwise forget it? And do they expect the god of hydrogen to > resurrect their mangled bodies? > > It really is a central question for psychology how organisms can be so > weird. > > Best, > > Paul W. > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 20 19:50:54 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:50:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <01C52D23.2DE90B80.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52D23.2DE90B80.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <423DD41E.4070709@earthlink.net> Hold on a sec, Steve. Wasn't 911 the first time our country was attacked on its mainland with bombings in both New City City AND the Pentagon in D.C.? Whenever measures to improve national security are set forth, we always run the risk of setting up a police state. Take the 14 defining characteristics of Fascism turned into "antithesis"....almost as liberal as maximum security prisons in Sweden were until recently when hard-core immigrants, supposedly from Eastern Europe, infiltrated the system. Now even Sweden must tighten its prison security. And that's what the original 14 characteristics of Fascism clearly presents. We have both extremes presented below. Possibly someone can "synthesize" the two lists into something politically acceptable in today's unsettling times. Best regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller Steve Hovland wrote: >It's a matter of orientation. > >911 has been used as an excuse to enact >laws that have very little to do with improving >our security and quite a lot to do with >establishing a police state. > >The huge deficits in our national budget >represent looting by a criminal regime. > >There is quite a lot conquer-the-world-with-force >nationalism, but very little economic patriotism. > >In religion, there is a great difference between >the faith of those with a deep scientific understanding >of the world and whacko Christian cults who live >in anticipation of the rapture. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: G. Reinhart-Waller [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 5:27 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list; Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.; Steve Hovland >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism > >Dear Lynn and Steve, > >Thanks awfully for your very kind words. I like to think of these 14 >points in two respects. Firstly we have the original set of 14 derived >by Dr. Lawrence Britt after examing fascist regimes. Let's call these >the "thesis". I then came along and stood the entire set on its head >and compiled by own set of 14.....let's call these the "antithesis" . >How does my set sound? Mighty scary from a security point of view >especially after the 9/11 scare, huh! Yet when anyone complains fascism >is WRONG, presenting the opposite is not a secure alternative. If only >we could meld thesis with antithesis.... > >Best regards, >Gerry > > > >Steve Hovland wrote: > >Good work :-) > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > > >Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: > > > >>brilliant! I wish I had thought of it. >> >>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >> >> >>>For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining >>>characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside >>>down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist >>>regime: >>> >>>1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay >>>homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came >>>from. >>> >>>2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, >>>think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your >>>family. >>> >>>3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes >>>scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic >>>militants. >>> >>>4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military >>>serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. >>> >>>5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow >>>support for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. >>> >>>6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported >>>even if it twists the facts. >>> >>>7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a >>>laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock >>>stars because crime will automatically disappear. >>> >>>8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific >>>ideology. >>> >>>9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. >>> >>>10. Support and promote Labor Unions. >>> >>>11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud >>>gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such >>>as crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to >>>say is intellectually correct. >>> >>>12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form >>>of punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. >>> >>>13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers >>>can attain high positions, especially those without any background. >>> >>>14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat >>>available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into >>>government. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Steve Hovland wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >>>>(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) >>>>and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >>>>characteristics common to each: >>>> >>>>1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to >>>>make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and >>>>other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols >>>>on clothing and in public displays. >>>> >>>>2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >>>>enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >>>>persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because >>>>of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >>>>torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >>>>prisoners, etc. >>>>3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >>>>people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >>>>eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >>>>religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, >>>>etc. >>>> >>>>4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >>>>domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount >>>>of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. >>>>Soldiers and military service are glamorized. >>>> >>>>5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >>>>almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, >>>>traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and >>>>homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the >>>>ultimate guardian of the family institution. >>>> >>>>6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly >>>>controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is >>>>indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media >>>>spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is >>>>very common. >>>> >>>>7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a >>>>motivational tool by the government over the masses. >>>> >>>>8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >>>>nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >>>>to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >>>>common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >>>>religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >>>>actions. >>>> >>>>9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >>>>aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >>>>government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >>>>business/government relationship and power elite. >>>> >>>>10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of >>>>labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions >>>>are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >>>> >>>>11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend >>>>to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and >>>>academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to >>>>be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and >>>>letters is openly attacked. >>>> >>>>12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, >>>>the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The >>>>people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego >>>>civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national >>>>police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >>>> >>>>13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >>>>are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >>>>other to government positions and use governmental power and >>>>authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not >>>>uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even >>>>treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government >>>>leaders. >>>> >>>>14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations >>>>are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >>>>campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, >>>>use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >>>>boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >>>>typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 20 16:04:39 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:04:39 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] bias, fascism Message-ID: <01C52D23.77654D00.shovland@mindspring.com> The strict definition of fascism has to do with political control by business interests. We are pretty far gone by that definition. Remember that in order to be effective propaganda has to start with a kernel of truth. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 1:48 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] bias, fascism Lynn says to Stephen: >>Or, maybe you are showing some sense of humor. Like the CBS memos: Fake but accurate?<< --I have a question. Using fake memos is most definitely a journalism faux pas and terribly embarrassing. But the President also used forged memos in making his case for the Iraq war. Why is one so much worse than the other? Biased filtering of information is bad no matter who does it, I would think. Good reason to be skeptical of information that confirms one's preconceptions about an issue. It's easy to go on automatic and believe everything that condemns someone you are convinced is evil, or to automatically reject anything that undermines your assumptions and loyalties. Regarding the fascism thread: I think we might look at the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Blue Eyes experiment, and Milgram's experiment, and remember that NOBODY is immune from the kind of abuses that take over in a fascist climate. Humans typically are very skeptical of one side in a polarity and overly trusting in another. It may be hard-wired, and it makes us susceptible to any authority that tells us we're in danger and must trust its view of reality over that of an enemy who must never be listened to or taken at face value. It's not an American thing, not a German thing, it's something all people, including Europeans, Muslims and others who may see all evil in America and none on their own side, must guard against. Polarities distort behavior, on all sides, and nobody is immune from having their mind hijacked by herd perception. It's part of our evolutionary heritage, and getting too proud of being uninfluenced is a mistake, since pride exists on a different level from the automatic, unconscious bias that creeps in when one habitually takes one side in a conflict. It would help if, rather than accusing America of becoming a fascist state, we look at fascist TENDENCIES, in cultures around the globe. Those tendencies can exist in a culture that is democratic and not overtly fascist in political structure. They are found in any group that remains unconscious of its own flaws while accusing other groups of being irreparably flawed. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 20 03:59:08 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:59:08 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism In-Reply-To: <423C50BE.7090209@uconn.edu> References: <01C52B0B.B567F1D0.shovland@mindspring.com> <423B0BC7.60505@earthlink.net> <423C50BE.7090209@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <423CF50C.20909@earthlink.net> Neither. We need to figure out a way in combining both versions. This is called "synthesis" and that's what is needed. Gerry Christian Rauh wrote: >If it came in a package, which version would you choose? >The original or the upside-down? > >Christian > >G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > > >>For the sake of argument le us counter Dr. Britt's defining >>characteristics of fascist regimes. In turning his 14 points upside >>down, we then have the following characteristics of a non-fascist regime: >> >>1. No nationalism....all members of a given country relate and pay >>homage to all other nations, most especially those their ancestors came >>from. >> >>2. Place "human rights" above security. If someone kills your brother, >>think of the murderer's rights before thinking of protecting your family. >> >>3. Don't label anyone as the enemy....this only promotes >>scapegoat-ism. View all as brothers and friends, even Islamic militants. >> >>4. De-glamorize the military by cutting their funding. The military >>serves no purpose, most especially for domestic problems. >> >>5. Remove males and other fascists from public office and allow support >>for divorce, abortion and homosexuality to thrive. >> >>6. Eliminate all controls of media....free speech must be supported >>even if it twists the facts. >> >>7. Removes all traces of National Security....provide for a >>laissez-faire government in which soldiers and police become new rock >>stars because crime will automatically disappear. >> >>8. Eliminate all forms of religion and replace with a scientific ideology. >> >>9. Eliminate all corporations in favor of "mom and pop" businesses. >> >>10. Support and promote Labor Unions. >> >>11. Allow all artists and academics freedom of expression. Applaud >>gourmet treats such as barbecued dead babies or artistic works such as >>crucifix in urine. Never censure a professor since what he has to say >>is intellectually correct. >> >>12. Provide no controls for crime which in turn eliminates any form of >>punishment. Butterflies are free and so are humans. >> >>13. Eliminate cronyism in government and academe....only strangers can >>attain high positions, especially those without any background. >> >>14. Provide no security for elections. Voting is a special treat >>available only to those with huge funds to buy their way into government. >> >> >> >> >> >>Steve Hovland wrote: >> >> >> >>>Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler >>>(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and >>>several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining >>>characteristics common to each: >>> >>>1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make >>>constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other >>>paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on >>>clothing and in public displays. >>> >>>2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of >>>enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are >>>persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of >>>"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of >>>torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of >>>prisoners, etc. >>>3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The >>>people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to >>>eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or >>>religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. >>> >>>4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread >>>domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of >>>government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and >>>military service are glamorized. >>> >>>5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be >>>almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional >>>gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality >>>are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian >>>of the family institution. >>> >>>6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled >>>by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly >>>controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople >>>and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. >>> >>>7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational >>>tool by the government over the masses. >>> >>>8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist >>>nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool >>>to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is >>>common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the >>>religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or >>>actions. >>> >>>9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business >>>aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the >>>government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial >>>business/government relationship and power elite. >>> >>>10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor >>>is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are >>>either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. >>> >>>11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to >>>promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. >>>It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored >>>or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly >>>attacked. >>> >>>12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the >>>police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people >>>are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil >>>liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police >>>force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. >>> >>>13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always >>>are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each >>>other to government positions and use governmental power and authority >>>to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in >>>fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be >>>appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. >>> >>>14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are >>>a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear >>>campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use >>>of legislation to control voting numbers or political district >>>boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also >>>typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sun Mar 20 13:09:48 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:09:48 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is fascism? In-Reply-To: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> Fascism is a word. Pondering over the true definition of a word tends to be one of the most effective ways to waste time known to the universe. Of course, that's a very familiar ancient problem in philosophy -- the motivation for guys like Ayers to invent the common language or "Anglo-American" school of philosophy. That school has had its own excesses, but their starting point is worth remembering. So perhaps instead one might ask:"What is fascism that we should care an iota about its definition?" Instead of asking "what is fascism?" we might try to formulate a question that actually has some kind of meaning. For example, as a small step... one might ask "What are the distinguishing characteristics of nations that cause extreme unhappiness to their people? Of states which are unlikely to grow into more happiness? Of states which are poised to drop into the toilet?" And one might ask what the empirical evidence is to support any purported answers. But then again, maybe if we really were rational we would notice that our prospects of falling down the tubes right here are quite large... and might even pay some minor attention to preventing that. From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Mar 21 01:53:00 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:53:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is fascism? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <423E28FC.8090802@earthlink.net> Dear Paul, I'll bite and try listing items I might claim could bring extreme unhappiness to people. 1. Inability to secure employment of any kind. 2. Inability to provide food, clothing and shelter for one's family. Once these basics have been offered to citizens, a glimmer of hope is given as well. Yet this is what socialism manages to present to its citizens and at a basic level, a socialist form of government works. Once something more than basics is required by a nation....that's when some states go down the toilet. The ideal political structure for a state to adhere to is one in which the best of socialism merges with the best of capitalism. Synthesizing a political venue shouldn't be thought of as impossible. This synthesis could possibly relieve citizens of their extreme unhappiness. Regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > For example, as a small step... one might ask > "What are the distinguishing characteristics of nations > that cause extreme unhappiness to their people? Of states > which are unlikely to grow into more happiness? Of states which > are poised to drop into the toilet?" > > From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 21 13:56:25 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:56:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] MRI visualizes gene expression in real time Message-ID: <01C52DDA.B79E6A20.shovland@mindspring.com> Carnegie Mellon scientists develop tool that uses MRI to visualize gene expression in living animals PITTSBURGH--In a first, Carnegie Mellon University scientists have "programmed" cells to make their own contrast agents, enabling unprecedented high-resolution, deep-tissue imaging of gene expression. The results, appearing in the April issue of Nature Medicine, hold considerable promise for conducting preclinical studies in the emerging field of molecular therapeutics and for monitoring the delivery of therapeutic genes in patients. "For 20 years it has been the chemist's job to develop agents that can be used to enhance MRI contrast," said Eric Ahrens, assistant professor of biological sciences in the Mellon College of Science at Carnegie Mellon. "Now, with our approach, we have put this job into the hands of the molecular biologist. Using off-the-shelf molecular biology tools we can now enable living cells to change their MRI contrast via genetic instructions." "The new imaging method is a platform technology that can be adapted for many tissue types and for a range of preclinical uses in conjunction with emerging molecular therapeutic strategies," Ahrens said. Ahrens' new approach uses magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to monitor gene expression in real-time. Because MRI images deep tissues non-invasively and at high resolution, investigators don't need to sacrifice animals and perform laborious and costly analysis. To trigger living cells into producing their own contrast agent, Ahrens gave them a gene that produces a form of ferritin, a protein that normally stores iron in a non-toxic form. This metalloprotein acts like a nano-magnet and a potent MRI "reporter." A typical MRI scan detects and analyzes signals given off by hydrogen protons in water molecules after they are exposed to a magnetic field and radiofrequency pulses. These signals are then converted into an image. Ahrens' new MRI reporter alters the magnetic field in its proximity, cau sing nearby protons to give off a distinctly different signal. The resulting image reveals dark areas that indicate the presence of the MRI reporter. "Our technology is adaptable to monitor gene expression in many tissue types. You could link this MRI reporter gene to any other gene of interest, including therapeutic genes for diseases like cancer and arthritis, to detect where and when they are being expressed," Ahrens said. Existing methods used to image gene expression have limitations, according to Ahrens. Some methods cannot be used in living subjects, fail to image cells deep inside the body or don't provide high-resolution images. Other approaches using MRI are not practical for a wide range of applications. Ahrens and his colleagues constructed a gene carrier, or vector, that contained a gene for the MRI reporter. They used a widely studied vector called a replication-defective adenovirus that readily enters cells but doesn't reproduce itself. Ahrens injected the vector carrying the MRI reporter gene into brains of living mice and imaged the MRI reporter expression periodically for over a month in the same cohort of animals. The research showed no overt toxicity in the mouse brain from the MRI reporter. ### Ahrens consulted on aspects of the research with William Goins, a research assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh. The work was funded by the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering. Ahrens is a member of the Pittsburgh NMR Center for Biomedical Research, a joint endeavor sponsored by Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. Established in 1986 and funded continuously since 1988 by the National Institutes of Health, the Pittsburgh NMR Center is dedicated to advancing molecular, cellular and functional imaging in animals. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/cmu-cms031405.php From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 21 13:58:12 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:58:12 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Prefrontal cortex brain waves predict body movement Message-ID: <01C52DDA.F8280560.shovland@mindspring.com> Scientists Discover What You Are Thinking PASADENA, Calif. - By decoding signals coming from neurons, scientists at the California Institute of Technology have confirmed that an area of the brain known as the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vPF) is involved in the planning stages of movement, that instantaneous flicker of time when we contemplate moving a hand or other limb. The work has implications for the development of a neural prosthesis, a brain-machine interface that will give paralyzed people the ability to move and communicate simply by thinking. By piggybacking on therapeutic work being conducted on epileptic patients, Daniel Rizzuto, a postdoctoral scholar in the lab of Richard Andersen, the Boswell Professor of Neuroscience, was able to predict where a target the patient was looking at was located, and also where the patient was going to move his hand. The work currently appears in the online version of Nature Neuroscience. Most research in this field involves tapping into the areas of the brain that directly control motor actions, hoping that this will give patients the rudimentary ability to move a cursor, say, or a robotic arm with just their thoughts. Andersen, though, is taking a different tack. Instead of the primary motor areas, he taps into the planning stages of the brain, the posterior parietal and premotor areas. Rizzuto looked at another area of the brain to see if planning could take place there as well. Until this work, the idea that spatial processing or movement planning took place in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex has been a highly contested one. "Just the fact that these spatial signals are there is important," he says. "Based upon previous work in monkeys, people were saying this was not the case." Rizzuto's work is the first to show these spatial signals exist in humans. Rizzuto took advantage of clinical work being performed by Adam Mamelak, a neurosurgeon at Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena. Mamelak was treating three patients who suffered from severe epilepsy, trying to identify the brain areas where the seizures occurred and then surgically removing that area of the brain. Mamelak implanted electrodes into the vPF as part of this process. "So for a couple of weeks these patients are lying there, bored, waiting for a seizure," says Rizzuto, "and I was able to get their permission to do my study, taking advantage of the electrodes that were already there." The patients watched a computer screen for a flashing target, remembered the target location through a short delay, then reached to that location. "Obviously a very basic task," he says. "We were looking for the brain regions that may be contributing to planned movements. And what I was able to show is that a part of the brain called the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex is indeed involved in planning these movements." Just by analyzing the brain activity from the implanted electrodes using software algorithms that he wrote, Rizzuto was able to tell with very high accuracy where the target was located while it was on the screen, and also what direction the patient was going to reach to when the target wasn't even there. Unlike most labs doing this type of research, Andersen's lab is looking at the planning areas of the brain rather than the primary motor area of the brain, because they believe the planning areas are less susceptible to damage. "In the case of a spinal cord injury," says Rizzuto, "communication to and from the primary motor cortex is cut off." But the brain still performs the computations associated with planning to move. "So if we can tap into the planning computations and decode where a person is thinking of moving," he says, then it just becomes an engineering problem--the person can be hooked up to a computer where he can move a cursor by thinking, or can even be attached to a robotic arm. Andersen notes, "Dan's results are remarkable in showing that the human ventral prefrontal cortex, an area previously implicated in processing information about objects, also processes the intentions of subjects to make movements. This research adds ventral prefrontal cortex to the list of candidate brain areas for extracting signals for neural prosthetics applications." In Andersen's lab, Rizzuto's goal is to take the technology they've perfected in animal studies to human clinical trials. "I've already met with our first paralyzed patient, and graduate student Hilary Glidden and I are now doing noninvasive studies to see how the brain reorganizes after paralysis," he says. If it does reorganize, he notes, all the technology that has been developed in non-paralyzed humans may not work. "This is why we think our approach may be better, because we already know that the primary motor area shows pathological reorganization and degeneration after paralysis. We think our area of the brain is going to reorganize less, if at all. After this we hope to implant paralyzed patients with electrodes so that they may better communicate with others and control their environment." From christian.rauh at uconn.edu Mon Mar 21 14:26:06 2005 From: christian.rauh at uconn.edu (Christian Rauh) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:26:06 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is fascism? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <423ED97E.90301@uconn.edu> Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > > For example, as a small step... one might ask > "What are the distinguishing characteristics of nations > that cause extreme unhappiness to their people? What about causing extreme unhapiness to other people not their own? Christian -- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ~ P E A C E ~ _____________________________________________________________________ ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 19:26:38 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:26:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and language In-Reply-To: <200503211900.j2LJ0gY17487@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050321192638.73632.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Paul says: >>But then again, maybe if we really were rational we would notice that our prospects of falling down the tubes right here are quite large... and might even pay some minor attention to preventing that.<< --Agreed. The problem with using words like "fascism" is that they tend to get a knee-jerk response that says "nonsense! there's no fascism here!" Which is unfortunate, because if it were worded differently, everyone might actually agree on what's going on, at least in the abstract. One encouraging sign is that some columnists on the Left and the Right are occasionally breaking ranks with their party on individual issues. This means there may be less willingness to tolerate "political correctness" on one's own side in order to combat it on the other. More people are approaching the middle, when specific issues are on the table as opposed to lofty abstract principles with capital letters. Make health care or bankruptcy the issue and people suddenly have a lot more diverse positions than if you talk about Freedom, Values, Family, and so on. Statements like "People are becoming more and more intolerant of other points of view" would probably get a lot of agreement. "People are making decisisons that benefit their group at the expense of others" might also work. Or perhaps "political decisions are being made to benefit one group that may eventually be exploited by other groups to do a lot of damage". Even the most conservative Americans might worry if they were reminded that it won't just be Republican administrations that will benefit from new levels of secrecy, erosion of checks and balances, and so on. Once in place, such practices become institutionalized until something goes terribly wrong. People who insist the President is a man of Values, Faith and Integrity who would never consider him an icon of fascism might feel a little less confident when reminded that rule changes and political strategies that benefit the current administration will also be used by future ones, perhaps without the integrity a Bush supporter will swear is stronger than any corrupting influence in the system. Looking at the long term systemic trends rather than short-term tactical wrestling, things are a bit frightening, and I bet everyone can agree on that. So perhaps if we back off the accusations that one side or the other "wants to destroy everything we cherish", and focus on what future administrations might do based on the precedent set by this one, we might actually be able to form some agreement on what can be done about it, regardless of who is on top at any given time. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Mar 21 22:18:44 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:18:44 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and language Message-ID: <01C52E20.E49E7BF0.shovland@mindspring.com> I recently heard that young Evangelicals are thinking more in terms of "protecting God's creation" than they are in terms of "destroying everything to bring on the Rapture." A small ray of hope :-) It's only their parents who are crazy. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:27 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] politics and language Paul says: >>But then again, maybe if we really were rational we would notice that our prospects of falling down the tubes right here are quite large... and might even pay some minor attention to preventing that.<< --Agreed. The problem with using words like "fascism" is that they tend to get a knee-jerk response that says "nonsense! there's no fascism here!" Which is unfortunate, because if it were worded differently, everyone might actually agree on what's going on, at least in the abstract. One encouraging sign is that some columnists on the Left and the Right are occasionally breaking ranks with their party on individual issues. This means there may be less willingness to tolerate "political correctness" on one's own side in order to combat it on the other. More people are approaching the middle, when specific issues are on the table as opposed to lofty abstract principles with capital letters. Make health care or bankruptcy the issue and people suddenly have a lot more diverse positions than if you talk about Freedom, Values, Family, and so on. Statements like "People are becoming more and more intolerant of other points of view" would probably get a lot of agreement. "People are making decisisons that benefit their group at the expense of others" might also work. Or perhaps "political decisions are being made to benefit one group that may eventually be exploited by other groups to do a lot of damage". Even the most conservative Americans might worry if they were reminded that it won't just be Republican administrations that will benefit from new levels of secrecy, erosion of checks and balances, and so on. Once in place, such practices become institutionalized until something goes terribly wrong. People who insist the President is a man of Values, Faith and Integrity who would never consider him an icon of fascism might feel a little less confident when reminded that rule changes and political strategies that benefit the current administration will also be used by future ones, perhaps without the integrity a Bush supporter will swear is stronger than any corrupting influence in the system. Looking at the long term systemic trends rather than short-term tactical wrestling, things are a bit frightening, and I bet everyone can agree on that. So perhaps if we back off the accusations that one side or the other "wants to destroy everything we cherish", and focus on what future administrations might do based on the precedent set by this one, we might actually be able to form some agreement on what can be done about it, regardless of who is on top at any given time. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Mar 21 23:09:55 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:09:55 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What is fascism? In-Reply-To: <423ED97E.90301@uconn.edu> References: <01C52C97.85356500.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050320075802.01e05420@incoming.verizon.net> <423ED97E.90301@uconn.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050321180835.01ccc6e0@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:26 AM 3/21/2005, Christian Rauh wrote: >Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > > > > For example, as a small step... one might ask > > "What are the distinguishing characteristics of nations > > that cause extreme unhappiness to their people? > >What about causing extreme unhapiness to other people not their own? Fair enough. But the key question is the one about DYNAMICS: are our actions and policies making things better or worse? Are people FEELING more freedom of speech in practice, for example, in their everyday lives? Here and elsewhere? >Christian >-- > >????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > ~ P E A C E ~ >_____________________________________________________________________ >????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 22 04:15:07 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:15:07 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? Message-ID: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> "This isn't about Terri Shiavo. This is about looking like we care." -George Bush From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Mar 22 08:30:11 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:30:11 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? In-Reply-To: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:15 PM 3/21/2005, Steve Hovland wrote: >"This isn't about Terri Shiavo. > >This is about looking like we care." > > > -George Bush Please forgive... if I repeat a frivolous set of words I hear "in the void"... "Given a choice between life support for corpses and life support for people paying $3/gallon -- and much more in the future -- why do they all choose the former to pay attention to? Could it simply be that they empathize more with the corpses?" Who is "they?" You have choices... From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 22 14:31:41 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:31:41 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Bacteria act as glue in nanomachines Message-ID: <01C52EA8.CFA4BAB0.shovland@mindspring.com> Prachi Patel Predd Electrodes snare microbes in key sites on silicon wafers. Click here to see video of live bacteria trapped by electric currents. ? The Hamers Group Media box Electric currents are being used to move bacteria around silicon chips and trap them at specific locations. The technique could help to assemble nanomachines from miniature parts, and to create a new generation of biological sensors. Nanodevices are typically built by connecting tiny components. But such a delicate task is not easy. So, many researchers are exploring ways to fix components in place using the binding properties of biological molecules, notably DNA. Robert Hamers and his colleagues from University of Wisconsin-Madison propose using entire microbes instead. The cells have surface proteins that attach to certain biological molecules. Once the cells are placed at specific sites on a silicon wafer, nanoparticles tagged with these molecules can bind to the cells in those locations. This is easier than dragging the nanoparticles themselves to the right spot, because their high density makes them harder to move through fluid media than the less dense living cells. The technique gives one a way to fix components such as quantum dots or carbon nanowires at very precise locations, explains Paul Cremer, a bioanalytical chemist at Texas A&M University in College Station. "That's potentially very exciting," he says. Golden rods The researchers use Bacillus mycoides, rod-shaped bacteria that are about 5 micrometres long. They pass a solution containing the cells over a silicon wafer with gold electrodes on its surface. The charge on the electrodes captures the bacteria, which flow along the electrodes' edges like luggage on a conveyor belt. The electrodes have tiny gaps between them. When a bacterium reaches a gap, it is trapped there by the electric field. It can be released by reducing the field between the electrodes, or permanently immobilized by increasing the voltage enough to break its cell wall. I think of it like catch-and-release fishing. Robert Hamers University of Wisconsin-Madison Cells have been manipulated using electric currents before but it is typically done using larger cells, which are moved around as they are observed under a microscope. Hamers' work is unique because the locations of the bacteria are detected electrically. When a cell bridges the gap between two electrodes, it acts like a wire and increases the current, signalling the bacterium's presence. Hamers presented the work on 17 March at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Diego. ADVERTISMENT "I think of it like catch-and-release fishing," he says. "You can collect the cell, measure it and then if you want you can release the field and let it go again." He believes that electrical detection will allow the method to be used on organisms that are too small to be seen with an optical microscope. It should also help the automation of nanoscale assembly. "You don't want to have to visually inspect every electrode to see what's happening," he says. "You could have a computer detect it electrically." As well as providing the glue for miniature devices, the system could also be used to detect harmful biological agents such as anthrax spores or certain strains of Escherichia coli bacteria. The electrodes on the chip could be coated with biomolecules designed to bind to particular pathogens and hold them in place, and other pathogens would flow away when the electrode voltage was reduced below a certain threshold. From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Mar 22 15:00:43 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:00:43 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Plasmonic computer chips move closer Message-ID: <01C52EAC.DE52AD20.shovland@mindspring.com> Computer chips capable of speeding data around by rippling the electrons on the surface of metal wires just got a step closer, researchers say. Mark Brongersma, at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, US has found a new way to model the three-dimensional propagation of these ripples - called plasmons - in two dimensions. He says the new model is much simpler and more intuitive than existing simulations and will be crucial in the design of plasmonic components for computer chips. Plasmons travel at the speed of light and are created when light hits a metal at a particular angle, causing waves to propagate through electrons near the surface. "Right now, the simulations are so complex that only a few groups in the world can carry them out," says Brongersma. "The new model came out of a desire for much simpler models." Currently the biggest application for plasmons is in gold-coated glass biosensors, which detect when particular proteins or DNA are present - the bio-matter changes the angle at which light hitting the surface produces the most intense plasmons. But scientists would love to use plasmons to ferry data around computer chips because they could operate at frequencies 100,000 times faster than today's Pentium chips, without requiring thicker wiring. Light speed Ordinary light waves can transmit data at similarly high frequencies, but using photons to carry data across a computer chip is currently impossible. This is because the size of the optical fibre that carries the light waves must be about half the wavelength of the light, which is over twice the thickness of the wires in modern chips. "The big advantage of plasmons is that you can make the devices the same size as electrical components but give them the speed of photons," says Brongersma. Plasmon-carrying wires could also be made out of copper or aluminium, like the interconnects on today's computer chips. Brongersma points out that the speed of these interconnects has become a key limiting factor. While transistors have become faster at switching as manufacturers find ways to make them smaller and smaller, the wires that carry the data are not getting any faster. "We need to find new ways to connect transistors together," he says. Design issues To develop the new, simpler model, Brongersma showed that the intensity pattern of a plasmon travelling across the surface of a metal strip was the same as for a light wave travelling through an optical fibre. He says this indicates that traditional "ray-tracer" programs for modelling light waves should work for plasmons too. Such models are necessary if devices that generate and route multiple plasmons are ever to be designed, Brongersma says. He will publish the work in an upcoming issue of Optics Letters. "Any advance that aids design is a good thing," says Harry Atwater of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, US. But he warns that a bigger hurdle to plasmon-based computer chips is finding plasmon sources that are compatible with silicon. "The most important element is not the design tools, it is having the ingenuity to know what to do with them," he says. From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Mar 22 17:46:04 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:46:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <424059DC.6010309@earthlink.net> Drilling for oil in the Alaskan arctic hasn't destroyed the environment when compared to similar drilling by other nations such as Russia. Depleating numbers of natural species because of oil drilling also has NOT occurred.....there is no change in basic numbers. Looks to me like corpses and environmentalists are demanding more than their fair share. Gerry Reinhart-Waller > "Given a choice between life support for corpses and life support > for people paying $3/gallon -- and much more in the future -- why do > they all choose the former to pay attention to? Could it simply be that > they empathize more with the corpses?" > > Who is "they?" You have choices... > > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 20:38:56 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:38:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] evangelicals In-Reply-To: <200503221900.j2MJ0HY27018@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050322203856.41131.qmail@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Steve says: >>I recently heard that young Evangelicalsare thinking more in terms of "protecting God's creation" than they are in terms of "destroying everything to bring on the Rapture." A small ray of hope :-) It's only their parents who are crazy.<< --I think the children of Evangelicals may be on the forefront of the future progressive movement. It wasn't uncommon for Christians to be found in "hippie" circles in the 60's. The ultra-conservative mindset is more of a backlash than anything inherent in Christianity, and overseas Christians often wonder if our own Christians are a bit loopy. The left Behind mindset can't last very long, certainly not through the middle of this century, as it hinges on the belief that the Rapture will happen within a lifetime of Israel's statehood. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 20:44:12 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:44:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] dynamics In-Reply-To: <200503221900.j2MJ0HY27018@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050322204412.53214.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Paul says: >>But the key question is the one about DYNAMICS: are our actions and policies making things better or worse? Are people FEELING more freedom of speech in practice, for example, in their everyday lives? Here and elsewhere?<< --Agreed. Most people seem to rely on a few basic presuppositions against which all new information is compared. A systems view which updates its goals and means as the system evolves would make more sense. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Mar 22 23:36:45 2005 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Paul J. Werbos, Dr.) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? In-Reply-To: <424059DC.6010309@earthlink.net> References: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> <424059DC.6010309@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050322183415.01d33d48@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:46 PM 3/22/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Drilling for oil in the Alaskan arctic hasn't destroyed the environment >when compared to similar drilling by other nations such as Russia. >Depleating numbers of natural species because of oil drilling also has NOT >occurred.....there is no change in basic numbers. Looks to me like >corpses and environmentalists are demanding more than their fair share. So anyone who doesn't want to pay more than $3/gallon forever is an evil environmentalist and leftist? I suppose that you and Osama may agree on something. But then again, maybe this is an insult to Osama, in this context. He would not be so extreme, and not indulge in stereotypes to such a degree. >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > >>"Given a choice between life support for corpses and life support >>for people paying $3/gallon -- and much more in the future -- why do >>they all choose the former to pay attention to? Could it simply be that >>they empathize more with the corpses?" >> >>Who is "they?" You have choices... >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Mar 23 00:33:46 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:33:46 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What makes this propaganda? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050322183415.01d33d48@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C52E52.ADB4F240.shovland@mindspring.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20050322032802.01e42ac0@incoming.verizon.net> <424059DC.6010309@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.0.20050322183415.01d33d48@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <4240B96A.8030808@earthlink.net> European and most Asian countries pay more than $3/gallon for gasoline. My position is that oil isn't the only energy product available. There are many alternative energies including wind and solar that are presently out there and within an affordable price range. Higher fuel costs for oil aid in making these products more attractive. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: > At 12:46 PM 3/22/2005, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >> Drilling for oil in the Alaskan arctic hasn't destroyed the >> environment when compared to similar drilling by other nations such >> as Russia. >> Depleating numbers of natural species because of oil drilling also >> has NOT occurred.....there is no change in basic numbers. Looks to >> me like corpses and environmentalists are demanding more than their >> fair share. > > > So anyone who doesn't want to pay more than $3/gallon forever is an > evil environmentalist and leftist? > > I suppose that you and Osama may agree on something. But then again, > maybe this > is an insult to Osama, in this context. He would not be so extreme, and > not indulge in stereotypes to such a degree. > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 23 05:24:56 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:24:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] evangelicals Message-ID: <01C52F25.993D6440.shovland@mindspring.com> Most of the left behind crowd will indeed be gone by mid-century. Raptured one at a time :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:39 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] evangelicals Steve says: >>I recently heard that young Evangelicalsare thinking more in terms of "protecting God's creation" than they are in terms of "destroying everything to bring on the Rapture." A small ray of hope :-) It's only their parents who are crazy.<< --I think the children of Evangelicals may be on the forefront of the future progressive movement. It wasn't uncommon for Christians to be found in "hippie" circles in the 60's. The ultra-conservative mindset is more of a backlash than anything inherent in Christianity, and overseas Christians often wonder if our own Christians are a bit loopy. The left Behind mindset can't last very long, certainly not through the middle of this century, as it hinges on the belief that the Rapture will happen within a lifetime of Israel's statehood. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 23 14:44:21 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:44:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Nano-Probes Allow an Inside Look at Cell Nuclei Message-ID: <01C52F73.BF443530.shovland@mindspring.com> Contact: Dan Krotz, (510) 486-4019, dakrotz at lbl.gov BERKELEY, CA - Nanotechnology may be in its infancy, but biologists may soon use it to watch the inner workings of a living cell like never before. Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have developed a way to sneak nano-sized probes inside cell nuclei where they can track life's fundamental processes, such as DNA repair, for hours on end. "Our work represents the first time a biologist can image long-term phenomena within the nuclei of living cells," says Fanqing Chen of Berkeley Lab's Life Sciences Division, who developed the technique with Daniele Gerion of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Their success lies in specially prepared crystalline semiconductors composed of a few hundred or thousand atoms that emit different colors of light when illuminated by a laser. Because these fluorescent probes are stable and nontoxic, they have the ability to remain in a cell's nucleus - without harming the cell or fading out - much longer than conventional fluorescent labels. This could give biologists a ringside seat to nuclear processes that span several hours or days, such as DNA replication, genomic alterations, and cell cycle control. The long-lived probes may also allow researchers to track the effectiveness of disease-fighting drugs that target these processes. "We could determine whether a drug has arrived where it is supposed to, and if it is having the desired impact," says Chen. The first enduring look into the secret lives of cell nuclei comes by way of a strong collaboration between biologists and chemists. For the past four years, Chen and Gerion have worked closely with members of the lab of Paul Alivisatos, a Berkeley Lab chemist in the Materials Sciences Division and Associate Laboratory Director who helped pioneer the development of nano-sized crystals of semiconductor materials. Called quantum dots, these microscopic crystals have shown promise in such wide-ranging applications as solar cells, computer design, and biology. In 1998, for example, Alivisatos developed a way to fashion inorganic nanocrystals composed of cadmium selenide and cadmium sulfide into fluorescent probes suitable for the study of living cells. This technology has been licensed to the Hayward, California-based Quantum Dot Corporation for use in biological assays. More recently, Chen and Gerion wondered if they could get even closer to the genetic action by transporting quantum dots inside cell nuclei. "We took the tool Paul developed and applied it to a problem faced by biologists every day - getting inside the nucleus, a desirable target because the cell's genetic information resides there," says Chen. First, they had to breach the nuclear membrane, which has pores that are only about 20 nanometers wide. To fit through these tiny slits, Chen and Gerion used an especially compact cadmium selenide/zinc sulfide quantum dot coated with silica. Next, they stole a trick from a virus's playbook to smuggle this nanocrystal past the highly selective membrane that guards the entrance into the nucleus. In nature, a virus called SV40 is coated with a protein that binds to a cell's nuclear trafficking mechanism, a ploy that gives the virus an unhindered ride inside the nucleus. Chen and Gerion obtained a portion of this protein and attached it to the quantum dot. The result is a hybrid quantum dot, part biological molecule and part nano-sized semiconductor, that is small enough to slide through the nuclear membrane's pores and believable enough to slip past the membrane's barriers. "We knew we could get quantum dots inside a cell, but getting them through the nuclear membrane is very difficult," says Chen. "So we learned from the virus." These two images portray the movement of the nano-sized probes. On the left, a false-color overlay of fluorescence from a cell taken at four minute intervals reveals the dots moving from the green to the red positions. On the right, a large aggregate of immobile dots is indicated with the red arrow, while the circled stars and arrows indicate dots that move. So far, Chen and Gerion have been able to introduce and retain quantum dots in the nuclei of living cells for up to a week without harming the cell. In addition, quantum dots fluoresce for days at a resolution high enough to detect biological events carried out by single molecules. In contrast, conventional labels such as organic fluorescent dyes and green fluorescent proteins only fluoresce for a few minutes at a high resolution. These labels are also either toxic to cells or difficult to construct and manipulate. In the future, they hope to tailor quantum dots to track specific chemical reactions inside nuclei, such as how proteins help repair DNA after irradiation. They have already visualized the dots' journey from the area surrounding the nucleus to inside the nucleus, a feat that opens the door for real-time observations of nuclear trafficking mechanisms. They also hope to target other cellular organelles besides the nucleus, such as mitochondria and Golgi bodies. And because quantum dots emit different colors of light based on their size, they can be used to observe the transfer of material between cells. "We can have two different quantum dots in two different cells, and watch as the cells exchange their mitochondria," says Chen, adding that their technique paves the way for imaging a host of other long-term biological events. "The toughest part is getting inside the nucleus, and we have already cleared that hurdle." Chen and Gerion's research was published in the 2004, Vol. 2, No. 10 issue of Nano Letters. Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California. Visit our Website at www.lbl.gov . From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Mar 23 15:23:57 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:23:57 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech Message-ID: <42418A0D.1080706@solution-consulting.com> The FEC is now proposing to crack down on bloggers. This amazes me. Where is the ACLU when we really need our rights protected? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458 Lynn From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 23 15:47:06 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:47:06 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech Message-ID: <01C52F7C.83080C00.shovland@mindspring.com> Who appointed the current members of the FEC? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:24 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech The FEC is now proposing to crack down on bloggers. This amazes me. Where is the ACLU when we really need our rights protected? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458 Lynn _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Mar 23 17:20:32 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:20:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Searching for New Drugs in Virtual Molecule Databases Message-ID: <01C52F89.90D21800.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw43/rarey.html by Matthias Rarey and Thomas Lengauer The rapid progress in sequencing the human genome opens the possibility for the near future to understand many diseases better on molecular level and to obtain so-called target proteins for pharmaceutical research. If such a target protein is identified, the search for those molecules begins which influence the protein's activity specifically and which are therefore considered to be potential drugs against the disease. At GMD, approaches to the computer-based search for new drugs are being developed (virtual screening) which have already been used by industry in parts. From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Mar 24 00:47:19 2005 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:47:19 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech In-Reply-To: <01C52F7C.83080C00.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C52F7C.83080C00.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42420E17.30901@solution-consulting.com> Statuatorially they are half republican and half democrat. Read the editorial, it gives more detail. Steve Hovland wrote: >Who appointed the current members of the FEC? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:24 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech > >The FEC is now proposing to crack down on bloggers. This amazes me. >Where is the ACLU when we really need our rights protected? > >http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458 > >Lynn > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Mar 24 02:09:20 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:09:20 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech Message-ID: <01C52FD3.7090F440.shovland@mindspring.com> This may radicalize a whole new group on both sides. Sounds like a good move to me. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:47 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech Statuatorially they are half republican and half democrat. Read the editorial, it gives more detail. Steve Hovland wrote: >Who appointed the current members of the FEC? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:24 AM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: [Paleopsych] McCain-Feingold and free speech > >The FEC is now proposing to crack down on bloggers. This amazes me. >Where is the ACLU when we really need our rights protected? > >http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458 > >Lynn > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 24 19:30:34 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:30:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity In-Reply-To: <200503241900.j2OJ0RY19131@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050324193035.11929.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>This may radicalize a whole new group on both sides. Sounds like a good move to me.<< --Inevitably, if two sides become totally opposed and make decisions based on ideology and partisan posturing, some group in the middle will eventually reject the polarization. In the US, we are not all isolated into ideologically opposed groups. Those who are are not in the mainstream, they live in a world where everyone around them reinforces their views, an echo chamber. But most of us have friends and/or family on both sides. A real dialogue emerges, overriding the bumpersticker mentality of the isolated extremes. It takes a little time (simplistic ideologies have the advantage of certainty at every step, which is also a disadvantage in the long term) but at some point, those in the middle will speak up and renounce the extremes. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 25 01:41:53 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:41:53 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity Message-ID: <01C53098.C503F3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> What I am thinking is that if the FEC cracks down on the bloggers they will be more mad at the FEC than they will at each other... Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:31 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity >>This may radicalize a whole new group on both sides. Sounds like a good move to me.<< --Inevitably, if two sides become totally opposed and make decisions based on ideology and partisan posturing, some group in the middle will eventually reject the polarization. In the US, we are not all isolated into ideologically opposed groups. Those who are are not in the mainstream, they live in a world where everyone around them reinforces their views, an echo chamber. But most of us have friends and/or family on both sides. A real dialogue emerges, overriding the bumpersticker mentality of the isolated extremes. It takes a little time (simplistic ideologies have the advantage of certainty at every step, which is also a disadvantage in the long term) but at some point, those in the middle will speak up and renounce the extremes. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 02:07:32 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:07:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Morality Message-ID: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> Quote from Nietzsche: "Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". Quote from me" "Religion is a basic form of morality". Best wishes, Gerry Reinhart-Waller From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 02:12:35 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:12:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity In-Reply-To: <01C53098.C503F3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C53098.C503F3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <42437393.1060001@earthlink.net> And that's how Revolution begins. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Steve Hovland wrote: >What I am thinking is that if the FEC cracks >down on the bloggers they will be more mad >at the FEC than they will at each other... > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:31 AM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] polarity > > > > >>>This may radicalize a whole new group on >>> >>> >both sides. Sounds like a good move to me.<< > >--Inevitably, if two sides become totally opposed and >make decisions based on ideology and partisan >posturing, some group in the middle will eventually >reject the polarization. In the US, we are not all >isolated into ideologically opposed groups. Those who >are are not in the mainstream, they live in a world >where everyone around them reinforces their views, an >echo chamber. But most of us have friends and/or >family on both sides. A real dialogue emerges, >overriding the bumpersticker mentality of the isolated >extremes. It takes a little time (simplistic >ideologies have the advantage of certainty at every >step, which is also a disadvantage in the long term) >but at some point, those in the middle will speak up >and renounce the extremes. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! >http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > From tramont at iinet.net.au Fri Mar 25 02:26:57 2005 From: tramont at iinet.net.au (Stephen Springette) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:26:57 +0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> References: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a struggle is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists imposed by decree by an unforgiving deity. Stephen At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Quote from Nietzsche: > >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". > >Quote from me" > >"Religion is a basic form of morality". > >Best wishes, >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From tramont at iinet.net.au Fri Mar 25 02:26:57 2005 From: tramont at iinet.net.au (Stephen Springette) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:26:57 +0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> References: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a struggle is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists imposed by decree by an unforgiving deity. Stephen At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >Quote from Nietzsche: > >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". > >Quote from me" > >"Religion is a basic form of morality". > >Best wishes, >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 03:36:37 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:36:37 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> References: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <42438745.8040108@earthlink.net> I prefer: "Morality and religion go hand in hand." The other kind of morality you speak of is something that our world needs to learn more about. Any references? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Stephen Springette wrote: > Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: > > Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a > struggle > is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded > in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists > imposed > by decree by an unforgiving deity. > > Stephen > > At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >Quote from Nietzsche: > > > >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". > > > >Quote from me" > > > >"Religion is a basic form of morality". > > > >Best wishes, > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > >_______________________________________________ > >paleopsych mailing list > >paleopsych at paleopsych.org > >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > > > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor* > ADVERTISEMENT > click here > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Yahoo! Groups Links* > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bigbangtango/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > bigbangtango-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > From tramont at iinet.net.au Fri Mar 25 12:23:47 2005 From: tramont at iinet.net.au (Stephen Springette) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:23:47 +0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <42438745.8040108@earthlink.net> References: <42437264.4000402@earthlink.net> <6.2.0.14.2.20050325102200.039c90e0@mail.iinet.net.au> <42438745.8040108@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050325201630.03170c00@mail.iinet.net.au> Hmmmm. Not too sure I have any "references" so much as my own perspective in semiotics (refer my website below). Also, Buddhism seems to infer something of an appreciation for the plight of all living things, as do some other traditions in mysticism. At 11:36 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >I prefer: "Morality and religion go hand in hand." The other kind of >morality you speak of is something that our world needs to learn more >about. Any references? > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >Stephen Springette wrote: > >>Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: >> >>Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a struggle >>is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded >>in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists imposed >>by decree by an unforgiving deity. >> >>Stephen >> >>At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: >> >Quote from Nietzsche: >> > >> >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". >> > >> >Quote from me" >> > >> >"Religion is a basic form of morality". >> > >> >Best wishes, >> >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >______________________________________________ > >There can be no complexity without simplicity: >http://members.iinet.net.au/~tramont/biosem.html > >Stephen Springette >______________________________________________ From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Mar 25 14:45:11 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:45:11 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Startling Scientists, Plant Fixes Its Flawed Gene Message-ID: <01C53106.324C6780.shovland@mindspring.com> By NICHOLAS WADE Published: March 23, 2005 In a startling discovery, geneticists at Purdue University say they have found plants that possess a corrected version of a defective gene inherited from both their parents, as if some handy backup copy with the right version had been made in the grandparents' generation or earlier. The finding implies that some organisms may contain a cryptic backup copy of their genome that bypasses the usual mechanisms of heredity. If confirmed, it would represent an unprecedented exception to the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century. Equally surprising, the cryptic genome appears not to be made of DNA, the standard hereditary material. The discovery also raises interesting biological questions - including whether it gets in the way of evolution, which depends on mutations changing an organism rather than being put right by a backup system. "It looks like a marvelous discovery," said Dr. Elliott Meyerowitz, a plant geneticist at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. David Haig, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, described the finding as "a really strange and unexpected result," which would be important if the observation holds up and applies widely in nature. The result, reported online yesterday in the journal Nature by Dr. Robert E. Pruitt, Dr. Susan J. Lolle and colleagues at Purdue, has been found in a single species, the mustardlike plant called arabidopsis that is the standard laboratory organism of plant geneticists. But there are hints that the same mechanism may occur in people, according to a commentary by Dr. Detlef Weigel of the Max-Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tubingen, Germany. Dr. Weigel describes the Purdue work as "a spectacular discovery." The finding grew out of a research project started three years ago in which Dr. Pruitt and Dr. Lolle were trying to understand the genes that control the plant's outer skin, or cuticle. As part of the project, they were studying plants with a mutated gene that made the plant's petals and other floral organs clump together. Because each of the plant's two copies of the gene were in mutated form, they had virtually no chance of having normal offspring. But up to 10 percent of the plants' offspring kept reverting to normal. Various rare events can make this happen, but none involve altering the actual sequence of DNA units in the gene. Yet when the researchers analyzed the mutated gene, known as hothead, they found it had changed, with the mutated DNA units being changed back to normal form. "That was the moment when it was a complete shock," Dr. Pruitt said. A mutated gene can be put right by various mechanisms that are already known, but all require a correct copy of the gene to be available to serve as the template. The Purdue team scanned the DNA of the entire arabidopsis genome for a second, cryptic copy of the hothead gene but could find none. Dr. Pruitt and his colleagues argue that a correct template must exist, but because it is not in the form of DNA, it probably exists as RNA, DNA's close chemical cousin. RNA performs many important roles in the cell, and is the hereditary material of some viruses. But it is less stable than DNA, and so has been regarded as unsuitable for preserving the genetic information of higher organisms. Dr. Pruitt said he favored the idea that there is an RNA backup copy for the entire genome, not just the hothead gene, and that it might be set in motion when the plant was under stress, as is the case with those having mutated hothead genes. He and other experts said it was possible that an entire RNA backup copy of the genome could exist without being detected, especially since there has been no reason until now to look for it. Scientific journals often take months or years to get comfortable with articles presenting novel ideas. But Nature accepted the paper within six weeks of receiving it. Dr. Christopher Surridge, a biology editor at Nature, said the finding had been discussed at scientific conferences for quite a while, with people saying it was impossible and proposing alternative explanations. But the authors had checked all these out and disposed of them, Dr. Surridge said. As for their proposal of a backup RNA genome, "that is very much a hypothesis, and basically the least mad hypothesis for how this might be working," Dr. Surridge said. From ross.buck at uconn.edu Fri Mar 25 15:31:55 2005 From: ross.buck at uconn.edu (Buck, Ross) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:31:55 -0500 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality Message-ID: In my view, morality involves a dynamical system of social and moral emotions that arise spontaneously and naturally over the course of normal child development. Social emotions include the four "twins" pride/arrogance, guilt/shame, envy/jealousy, and pity/scorn. A person (P) who is proud/arrogant tends to pity/scorn others who respond with envy/jealousy of P and guilt/shame in comparison with P. Add considerations of equity (P's success is deserved or not), and you get the moral emotions of triumph, humiliation, admiration, resentment, sympathy, and contempt. BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn. (This suggests that conservatives are less psychologically secure than liberals). The whole panoply of liberal-conservative political philosophy is essentially a rationalization for these feelings. Religion also is a rationalization (see Freud's "Future of an Illusion") that if anything builds barriers between people who, left to their own devices, might get along swimmingly. Religion can undercut normal moral-emotional development by carving the world into us and them. Through religion, kids learn that moral rules apply to their own community, and that those outside are not worthy of inclusion. In fact, attacking others can be seen as a sign of love and acceptance within one's own community, as in blowing oneself up in a crowded market, or flying an aircraft into a building. Cheers! Ross Ross Buck, Ph. D. Professor of Communication Sciences and Psychology Communication Sciences U-1085 University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-1085 860-486-4494 fax 860-486-5422 Ross.buck at uconn.edu http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm Reference: Buck, R. (2004). The gratitude of exchange and the gratitude of caring: A developmental-interactionist perspective of moral emotion. In R. A. Emmons and M. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of Gratitude. (100-122). New York: Oxford University Press. -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. Reinhart-Waller Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:37 PM To: bigbangtango at yahoogroups.com; Paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality I prefer: "Morality and religion go hand in hand." The other kind of morality you speak of is something that our world needs to learn more about. Any references? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Stephen Springette wrote: > Gerry, you can also throw my quote into the mix: > > Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a > struggle > is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded > in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists > imposed > by decree by an unforgiving deity. > > Stephen > > At 10:07 AM 3/25/05, G. Reinhart-Waller wrote: > >Quote from Nietzsche: > > > >"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose". > > > >Quote from me" > > > >"Religion is a basic form of morality". > > > >Best wishes, > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > >_______________________________________________ > >paleopsych mailing list > >paleopsych at paleopsych.org > >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > > > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor* > ADVERTISEMENT > click here > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Yahoo! Groups Links* > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bigbangtango/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > bigbangtango-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 20:14:33 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:14:33 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42447129.4080901@earthlink.net> >>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms folded. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Buck, Ross wrote: >In my view, morality involves a dynamical system of social and moral >emotions that arise spontaneously and naturally over the course of >normal child development. Social emotions include the four "twins" >pride/arrogance, guilt/shame, envy/jealousy, and pity/scorn. A person >(P) who is proud/arrogant tends to pity/scorn others who respond with >envy/jealousy of P and guilt/shame in comparison with P. Add >considerations of equity (P's success is deserved or not), and you get >the moral emotions of triumph, humiliation, admiration, resentment, >sympathy, and contempt. > >BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives >is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn. >(This suggests that conservatives are less psychologically secure than >liberals). The whole panoply of liberal-conservative political >philosophy is essentially a rationalization for these feelings. > >Religion also is a rationalization (see Freud's "Future of an Illusion") >that if anything builds barriers between people who, left to their own >devices, might get along swimmingly. Religion can undercut normal >moral-emotional development by carving the world into us and them. >Through religion, kids learn that moral rules apply to their own >community, and that those outside are not worthy of inclusion. In fact, >attacking others can be seen as a sign of love and acceptance within >one's own community, as in blowing oneself up in a crowded market, or >flying an aircraft into a building. > >Cheers! Ross > >Ross Buck, Ph. D. >Professor of Communication Sciences > and Psychology >Communication Sciences U-1085 >University of Connecticut >Storrs, CT 06269-1085 >860-486-4494 >fax 860-486-5422 >Ross.buck at uconn.edu >http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm > >Reference: Buck, R. (2004). The gratitude of exchange and the >gratitude of caring: A developmental-interactionist perspective of moral >emotion. In R. A. Emmons and M. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of >Gratitude. (100-122). New York: Oxford University Press. > > > > > From ross.buck at uconn.edu Fri Mar 25 20:18:43 2005 From: ross.buck at uconn.edu (Buck, Ross) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:18:43 -0500 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality Message-ID: I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... Ross -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. Reinhart-Waller Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms folded. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Buck, Ross wrote: >In my view, morality involves a dynamical system of social and moral >emotions that arise spontaneously and naturally over the course of >normal child development. Social emotions include the four "twins" >pride/arrogance, guilt/shame, envy/jealousy, and pity/scorn. A person >(P) who is proud/arrogant tends to pity/scorn others who respond with >envy/jealousy of P and guilt/shame in comparison with P. Add >considerations of equity (P's success is deserved or not), and you get >the moral emotions of triumph, humiliation, admiration, resentment, >sympathy, and contempt. > >BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and conservatives >is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn. >(This suggests that conservatives are less psychologically secure than >liberals). The whole panoply of liberal-conservative political >philosophy is essentially a rationalization for these feelings. > >Religion also is a rationalization (see Freud's "Future of an Illusion") >that if anything builds barriers between people who, left to their own >devices, might get along swimmingly. Religion can undercut normal >moral-emotional development by carving the world into us and them. >Through religion, kids learn that moral rules apply to their own >community, and that those outside are not worthy of inclusion. In fact, >attacking others can be seen as a sign of love and acceptance within >one's own community, as in blowing oneself up in a crowded market, or >flying an aircraft into a building. > >Cheers! Ross > >Ross Buck, Ph. D. >Professor of Communication Sciences > and Psychology >Communication Sciences U-1085 >University of Connecticut >Storrs, CT 06269-1085 >860-486-4494 >fax 860-486-5422 >Ross.buck at uconn.edu >http://www.coms.uconn.edu/docs/people/faculty/rbuck/index.htm > >Reference: Buck, R. (2004). The gratitude of exchange and the >gratitude of caring: A developmental-interactionist perspective of moral >emotion. In R. A. Emmons and M. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of >Gratitude. (100-122). New York: Oxford University Press. > > > > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Mar 25 20:34:03 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:34:03 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> Show me a full-blooded Lutheran who is open armed and I'll show you a half-breed. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Buck, Ross wrote: >I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... > >Ross > >-----Original Message----- >From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org >[mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. >Reinhart-Waller >Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > > > >>>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and >>> >>> >conservatives >is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> > >Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those >less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms >folded. > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > > > > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 25 22:41:53 2005 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:41:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] religious hypocrisy In-Reply-To: <200503251900.j2PJ0LY15179@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20050325224153.5467.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Stephen says: >>Morality that feels compassion for every being for which life is a struggle is a very different kind of morality to the utilitarian morality grounded in the greatest happiness principle, or the morality of evangelists imposed by decree by an unforgiving deity.<< --Very true. Fundamentalism seems to disable empathy, by conferring the status of the Other onto heretical groups. It's one thing to forgive your enemies, another if you think their refusal to accept your religion means they are unrepentant and undeserving of forgiveness. Christianity pays lip service to the idea that anyone, however fallen, can be saved and reborn as a "new creature in Christ". A rather beautiful belief, in my opinion, one which is utterly ignored when the subject of the death penalty comes up. I've heard politically active Christians who have no problem agitating against gay marriage say "Yes, Christ forgives a murderer who repents, but the state has the right to take life for life and we are to respect the state." Responsibility is passed to the state. How convenient! I like to make a hand-washing motion when I hear that argument. Empathy, plus a systems view of society, seem to make up a pretty decent moral code, but a fundamentalist trusts only those who share his belief and cannot extend empathy much further. When empathy speaks, it must be compartmentalized and kept apart from belief. This makes it easy for authoritarian religious groups to treat "infidels" as objects rather than human beings. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From kendulf at shaw.ca Sat Mar 26 02:50:40 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:50:40 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Sorry, Garry, but I have known Lutherans that were open-armed and damned nearly saintly, and they were no exception either. In fact, I have in my life never quite connected attitude with religion. Anwar Sadat's type of Islam is what I had been acquainted with via Rudyard Kipling. That was, obviously, some time ago. I remember Sadat's angry denunciation of the ayatollahs in Tehran.. and the his assassination at the hand of Muslim extremists. However, back to Martin Luther and his disciples. Luther himself was not self-righteous towards the poor, quite the contrary. He, although a ward of nobility, denounced their callousness towards peasants. And, by golly, he never minced words! (Kein frohlicher Furz kommt aus einem verzagten Arsch! = No happy fart escapes a timid ars!). The German welfare state did not arise from any catholic leanings, but from hard-headed protestants under Bismarck's leadership. I think you did set up a bit of a straw man there. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > Show me a full-blooded Lutheran who is open armed and I'll show you a > half-breed. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > Buck, Ross wrote: > >>I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... >> >>Ross >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org >>[mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. >>Reinhart-Waller >>Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >> >> >> >>>>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and >>>> >>>> >>conservatives >>is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >>sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> >> >>Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those >>less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms >>folded. >> >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 26 04:25:47 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:25:47 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <4244E44B.2040206@earthlink.net> How interesting that all the Lutherans you've known give hugs. I've known quite a few (Germanic through and through) and most of them barely smile. Yet, to each his own. Sadat was assassinated.....guess there were a few who didn't connect with his message. Sad though about his death. Apparently the timing then was incorrect to denounce Iranian ayatollahs. I even doubt if timing would now be correct. Why would Luther or anyone be self-righteous towards the poor....that's like claiming to be emperor of ice cream. Luther could not relate to poverty. The German welfare state will be the downfall of the country.....what with worker expectations of high salary, long vacations, pre-paid benefits, etc. the country can no longer sustain its workers. Regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller Val Geist wrote: > Sorry, Garry, but I have known Lutherans that were open-armed and > damned nearly saintly, and they were no exception either. In fact, I > have in my life never quite connected attitude with religion. Anwar > Sadat's type of Islam is what I had been acquainted with via Rudyard > Kipling. That was, obviously, some time ago. I remember Sadat's angry > denunciation of the ayatollahs in Tehran.. and the his assassination > at the hand of Muslim extremists. However, back to Martin Luther and > his disciples. Luther himself was not self-righteous towards the poor, > quite the contrary. He, although a ward of nobility, denounced their > callousness towards peasants. And, by golly, he never minced words! > (Kein frohlicher Furz kommt aus einem verzagten Arsch! = No happy fart > escapes a timid ars!). The German welfare state did not arise from any > catholic leanings, but from hard-headed protestants under Bismarck's > leadership. I think you did set up a bit of a straw man there. Cheers, > Val Geist > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" > > To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:34 PM > Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > > > Show me a full-blooded Lutheran who is open armed and I'll show you a > > half-breed. > > > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > > Buck, Ross wrote: > > > >>I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... > >> > >>Ross > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org > > >>[mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. > >>Reinhart-Waller > >>Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM > >>To: The new improved paleopsych list > >>Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > >> > >> > >> > >>>>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and > >>>> > >>>> > >>conservatives > >>is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with > >>sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> > >> > >>Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those > >>less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms > >>folded. > >> > >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > paleopsych mailing list > > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Mar 26 19:18:18 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:18:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] FW: Easter Bunny hop Message-ID: <01C531F5.83C91870.shovland@mindspring.com> This is better than the Bunny Hop. An early Happy Easter!! http://www.grayace.com/dex/bunny.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kendulf at shaw.ca Sat Mar 26 18:20:22 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:20:22 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <4244E44B.2040206@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000c01c53230$79bfa930$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Now, now Garry, not all the Lutherans I know are big hugs. Some are religious thugs, extremists every bit as pathetic and pitiful as religious thugs with other labels. However, the worst I only met on this continent, where I first became aware of the Lutheran split into two factions, one truly mindless in its religious zeal. They are as representative of Germans as the Klu Klux Clan is of Americans. A collection of pitiful creatures both and neither of great interest to me. And, yes, the protestant north of Germany does abound in less humor than the Catholic south, where I have most of my contacts, but they do share historically a rich ethnic humor just the same. But again, humor is a wonderful human attribute that transcends ethnicity despite a rich sample of Jewish jokes, Polish Jokes, Newfie Jokes....Come to think of it what I will miss about Communism is the loss of Communist jokes, you know the 25 year, 10 year, 5 year varieties (if you got caught telling the first type: 25 years in jail! ...the second: 10 years in jail.. etc). Nazi and Communist jokes both debunk authority in a juicy fashion, and though I appreciate both, its nice to know that they will be appreciated less and less as time goes on. I am a great fan of Mark Twain (his debunking of the German language is truly priceless, almost as good as his debunking of the writing style of James Fennimore Cooper). I read and re-read - in German translation - Tom Sawyer about 12 times, and got a shock reading it in English: the German translation was funnier! My heroes in humor transcend nationality and I am a fan of all of it. We do not remember heads of states as humorous, but Germany had one, Fredrik the Great, a king who wrote and conversed in French, who wrote 32 books, crossed swords with Voltaire, wrote classical music good enough to be honored by the Toronto symphony with a night of his compositions, adored by Napoleon for his military skills, but remembered best of all for his humor. In the Seven Years War, he first fought at Rossbach against the French and defeated them. A contingent of French officers stood under guard in the evening, clearly not in the best of mood. A lonely horseman approached them, and they recognized the king who had defeated them. Fredrick halted, tipped his hat to the French officers and a hush fell over the dejected crowd. "Gentlemen" the king said. "I was expecting you. But not so many and not so soon". At war with France, and yet he was the rage in Paris! War humor? Maudlin! The humor of this wonderful American, then a youngster marching with Patton's army, moves me to tears. And it moved Patton to white rage who wanted Maudlin court-martialed for his cartoons. This young man saw not the enemy as the evil, but war itself within which friend and foe were caught helplessly, and he had - ongoing! - the courage to portray it as such. The great Will Rogers once said in his cow-boy humor that at all times there is somebody somewhere who does in dead earnest what brings smiles to the faces of the rest of us. Maudlin must have been listening, for he debunked his country's war propaganda....despite his superior's rage! That's what heroism is all about. That kind of humor could not thrive on the other side, alas, but it was present. Germany has a rich history in humor going back to medieval times: Till Eulenspiegel, Simplizius Simplizissimus, Baron von Munchhausen and there is no shortage in the recent. "The Captain of Koperick" a true story debunking the Kaiser's military culture, set as a play by Carl Zuckmayer, a WW I hero decorated with the highest German military honor, the Kaiser's "Pour le Merit", a Jew who had to flee Germany and spent the war in the USA. Humor and tears are not far apart. And it's not because you laugh till you are in tears! After all, the court jester was valued because only he could say the truth to the king! "Weisspferdl" (little white horse) was a wartime humorist on stage in Munich. He appeared one night on stage with three pigs: a boar, a sow and a piglet. "Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce to you the Family Mann! This is Boy Mann, this is Frau Mann, and this" and he pointed to the big, fat boar " is Hermann!". he was promptly hauled off to jail for insulting Hermann Goering. After his jail time he appeared on stage. In trot the three pigs - a turmoil broke out in the audience! "Ladies and Gentlemen, whom have I brought with me?" The audience roared "Die Familie Mann". Quieting the turmoil he shouted "No, No. This is not the Family Mann. These are merely pigs, pigs and nothing else. An this" and her pointed to the boar" is the goddmned fat hog I sat three days in jail for!". Weisspferdl is dead now, but the citizen of Munich erected a small stature of him and he is well remembered. And Germany is a culture that has suffered a lot of suppressed truths, and humor is one way to let it out. Sorry that you had such run in with Lutheran sour pusses. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > How interesting that all the Lutherans you've known give hugs. I've > known quite a few (Germanic through and through) and most of them barely > smile. Yet, to each his own. > Sadat was assassinated.....guess there were a few who didn't connect > with his message. Sad though about his death. Apparently the timing > then was incorrect to denounce Iranian ayatollahs. I even doubt if > timing would now be correct. > Why would Luther or anyone be self-righteous towards the poor....that's > like claiming to be emperor of ice cream. Luther could not relate to > poverty. > The German welfare state will be the downfall of the country.....what > with worker expectations of high salary, long vacations, pre-paid > benefits, etc. the country can no longer sustain its workers. > > Regards, > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > > > Val Geist wrote: > >> Sorry, Garry, but I have known Lutherans that were open-armed and >> damned nearly saintly, and they were no exception either. In fact, I >> have in my life never quite connected attitude with religion. Anwar >> Sadat's type of Islam is what I had been acquainted with via Rudyard >> Kipling. That was, obviously, some time ago. I remember Sadat's angry >> denunciation of the ayatollahs in Tehran.. and the his assassination >> at the hand of Muslim extremists. However, back to Martin Luther and >> his disciples. Luther himself was not self-righteous towards the poor, >> quite the contrary. He, although a ward of nobility, denounced their >> callousness towards peasants. And, by golly, he never minced words! >> (Kein frohlicher Furz kommt aus einem verzagten Arsch! = No happy fart >> escapes a timid ars!). The German welfare state did not arise from any >> catholic leanings, but from hard-headed protestants under Bismarck's >> leadership. I think you did set up a bit of a straw man there. Cheers, >> Val Geist >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" > > >> To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > > >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:34 PM >> Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >> >> > Show me a full-blooded Lutheran who is open armed and I'll show you a >> > half-breed. >> > >> > Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> > >> > Buck, Ross wrote: >> > >> >>I have known many counterexamples to that stereotype... >> >> >> >>Ross >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org >> >> >>[mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of G. >> >>Reinhart-Waller >> >>Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:15 PM >> >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >> >>Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>BTW I think that the root difference between liberals and >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>conservatives >> >>is that liberals tent to respond to the less fortunate with >> >>sympathy/pity and conservatives respond to them with contempt/scorn.>> >> >> >> >>Could be the religious card which determines how people respond to those >> >>less fortunate....Catholics like to hug and Lutherans stand with arms >> >>folded. >> >> >> >>Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > paleopsych mailing list >> > paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 >> > >> > >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Mar 26 22:46:05 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:46:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] FW: Easter Bunny hop In-Reply-To: <01C531F5.83C91870.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C531F5.83C91870.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4245E62D.6000909@earthlink.net> It certain is contemporary! Thanks loads. And he's a link to the same which might work faster. http://i.flowgo.com/greetings/rapeasterbunny/rapeasterbunny.swf Happy Easter everyone! Gerry Steve Hovland wrote: > > > This is better than the Bunny Hop. An early Happy Easter!! > http://www.grayace.com/dex/bunny.html > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Mar 27 05:04:16 2005 From: waluk at earthlink.net (G. Reinhart-Waller) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:04:16 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality In-Reply-To: <000c01c53230$79bfa930$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <4244E44B.2040206@earthlink.net> <000c01c53230$79bfa930$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <42463ED0.4080405@earthlink.net> Hi Vole, I find your explanation of Lutherans fascinating, especially the religious thugs. This is the group I'm intimately familiar with. Yep, I might even compare them to the KKK....they're really scary and clueless. Too bad all the jokes from many of our finer folks have gone the way of podunk. Humor is something I was raised with as a child and something now I never hear. Tis a pity I must say. I know lots of Russian jokes but as far as Communism ones, I can't seem to separate the two. Hmmm, could it be something that Breznev said? Yes. Yes. Maybe a tale about landing on the moon? Both Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were politically incorrect in the 1960s so I'm not surprised you found an unwatered down version reading them in German. Americans hated the word Nigger et. al used by Huck and that started the squabble. Wow....your stream of consciousness is wonderful....so knowledgeable about American Literature. But I must confess......as an English major the only Lit I avoided was Americn. I found it too undisciplied and too WILD for my tastes. So be it. Humor is a wonderful way to express inner feelings only my German inlaws haven't seen the light. Take care, Gerry Val Geist wrote: > Now, now Garry, not all the Lutherans I know are big hugs. Some are > religious thugs, extremists every bit as pathetic and pitiful as > religious thugs with other labels. However, the worst I only met on > this continent, where I first became aware of the Lutheran split into > two factions, one truly mindless in its religious zeal. They are as > representative of Germans as the Klu Klux Clan is of Americans. A > collection of pitiful creatures both and neither of great interest to > me. And, yes, the protestant north of Germany does abound in less > humor than the Catholic south, where I have most of my contacts, but > they do share historically a rich ethnic humor just the same. But > again, humor is a wonderful human attribute that transcends ethnicity > despite a rich sample of Jewish jokes, Polish Jokes, Newfie > Jokes....Come to think of it what I will miss about Communism is the > loss of Communist jokes, you know the 25 year, 10 year, 5 year > varieties (if you got caught telling the first type: 25 years in jail! > ...the second: 10 years in jail.. etc). Nazi and Communist jokes both > debunk authority in a juicy fashion, and though I appreciate both, its > nice to know that they will be appreciated less and less as time goes > on. I am a great fan of Mark Twain (his debunking of the German > language is truly priceless, almost as good as his debunking of the > writing style of James Fennimore Cooper). I read and re-read - in > German translation - Tom Sawyer about 12 times, and got a shock > reading it in English: the German translation was funnier! My heroes > in humor transcend nationality and I am a fan of all of it. We do not > remember heads of states as humorous, but Germany had one, Fredrik the > Great, a king who wrote and conversed in French, who wrote 32 books, > crossed swords with Voltaire, wrote classical music good enough to be > honored by the Toronto symphony with a night of his compositions, > adored by Napoleon for his military skills, but remembered best of all > for his humor. In the Seven Years War, he first fought at Rossbach > against the French and defeated them. A contingent of French officers > stood under guard in the evening, clearly not in the best of mood. A > lonely horseman approached them, and they recognized the king who had > defeated them. Fredrick halted, tipped his hat to the French officers > and a hush fell over the dejected crowd. "Gentlemen" the king said. "I > was expecting you. But not so many and not so soon". At war with > France, and yet he was the rage in Paris! War humor? Maudlin! The > humor of this wonderful American, then a youngster marching with > Patton's army, moves me to tears. And it moved Patton to white rage > who wanted Maudlin court-martialed for his cartoons. This young man > saw not the enemy as the evil, but war itself within which friend and > foe were caught helplessly, and he had - ongoing! - the courage to > portray it as such. The great Will Rogers once said in his cow-boy > humor that at all times there is somebody somewhere who does in dead > earnest what brings smiles to the faces of the rest of us. Maudlin > must have been listening, for he debunked his country's war > propaganda....despite his superior's rage! That's what heroism is all > about. That kind of humor could not thrive on the other side, alas, > but it was present. Germany has a rich history in humor going back to > medieval times: Till Eulenspiegel, Simplizius Simplizissimus, Baron > von Munchhausen and there is no shortage in the recent. "The Captain > of Koperick" a true story debunking the Kaiser's military culture, set > as a play by Carl Zuckmayer, a WW I hero decorated with the highest > German military honor, the Kaiser's "Pour le Merit", a Jew who had to > flee Germany and spent the war in the USA. Humor and tears are not far > apart. And it's not because you laugh till you are in tears! After > all, the court jester was valued because only he could say the truth > to the king! "Weisspferdl" (little white horse) was a wartime humorist > on stage in Munich. He appeared one night on stage with three pigs: a > boar, a sow and a piglet. "/Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce to > you the Family Mann! This is Boy Mann, this is Frau Mann, and this/" > and he pointed to the big, fat boar " /*is Hermann*/!". he was > promptly hauled off to jail for insulting Hermann Goering. After his > jail time he appeared on stage. In trot the three pigs - a turmoil > broke out in the audience! "/Ladies and Gentlemen, whom have I brought > with me?/" The audience roared "/Die Familie Mann/". Quieting the > turmoil he shouted "/No, No/. /This is not the Family Mann. These are > merely pigs, pigs and nothing else. An this/" and her pointed to the > boar" is /the goddmned fat hog I sat three days in jail for/!". > Weisspferdl is dead now, but the citizen of Munich erected a small > stature of him and he is well remembered. And Germany is a > culture that has suffered a lot of suppressed truths, and humor is one > way to let it out. Sorry that you had such run in with Lutheran sour > pusses. Cheers, Val Geist > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" > > To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:25 PM > Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > > > How interesting that all the Lutherans you've known give hugs. I've > > known quite a few (Germanic through and through) and most of them > barely > > smile. Yet, to each his own. > > Sadat was assassinated.....guess there were a few who didn't connect > > with his message. Sad though about his death. Apparently the timing > > then was incorrect to denounce Iranian ayatollahs. I even doubt if > > timing would now be correct. > > Why would Luther or anyone be self-righteous towards the poor....that's > > like claiming to be emperor of ice cream. Luther could not relate to > > poverty. > > The German welfare state will be the downfall of the country.....what > > with worker expectations of high salary, long vacations, pre-paid > > benefits, etc. the country can no longer sustain its workers. > > > > Regards, > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > From kendulf at shaw.ca Sun Mar 27 07:30:41 2005 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:30:41 -0800 Subject: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality References: <424475BB.8080808@earthlink.net> <001001c531ae$98c0f460$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <4244E44B.2040206@earthlink.net> <000c01c53230$79bfa930$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <42463ED0.4080405@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <003d01c5329e$e1c47f60$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Garry, Communist jokes came not only from Russia, but occupied countries as well. A good many are about Russians - understandably. Escapees from the paradise behind the Iron Curtain published books of such. Thanks for the tip about Mark Twain; I need to find an original English copy. I read him in the 1940's and 50's. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" To: "The new improved paleopsych list" ; Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality > Hi Vole, > I find your explanation of Lutherans fascinating, especially the religious > thugs. This is the group I'm intimately familiar with. Yep, I might even > compare them to the KKK....they're really scary and clueless. Too bad all > the jokes from many of our finer folks have gone the way of podunk. Humor > is something I was raised with as a child and something now I never hear. > Tis a pity I must say. > I know lots of Russian jokes but as far as Communism ones, I can't seem to > separate the two. Hmmm, could it be something that Breznev said? Yes. > Yes. Maybe a tale about landing on the moon? > Both Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were politically incorrect in the 1960s so > I'm not surprised you found an unwatered down version reading them in > German. Americans hated the word Nigger et. al used by Huck and that > started the squabble. > Wow....your stream of consciousness is wonderful....so knowledgeable about > American Literature. But I must confess......as an English major the only > Lit I avoided was Americn. I found it too undisciplied and too WILD for > my tastes. So be it. > Humor is a wonderful way to express inner feelings only my German inlaws > haven't seen the light. > Take care, > Gerry > > > > > > > > > > Val Geist wrote: > >> Now, now Garry, not all the Lutherans I know are big hugs. Some are >> religious thugs, extremists every bit as pathetic and pitiful as >> religious thugs with other labels. However, the worst I only met on this >> continent, where I first became aware of the Lutheran split into two >> factions, one truly mindless in its religious zeal. They are as >> representative of Germans as the Klu Klux Clan is of Americans. A >> collection of pitiful creatures both and neither of great interest to me. >> And, yes, the protestant north of Germany does abound in less humor than >> the Catholic south, where I have most of my contacts, but they do share >> historically a rich ethnic humor just the same. But again, humor is a >> wonderful human attribute that transcends ethnicity despite a rich sample >> of Jewish jokes, Polish Jokes, Newfie Jokes....Come to think of it what I >> will miss about Communism is the loss of Communist jokes, you know the 25 >> year, 10 year, 5 year varieties (if you got caught telling the first >> type: 25 years in jail! ...the second: 10 years in jail.. etc). Nazi and >> Communist jokes both debunk authority in a juicy fashion, and though I >> appreciate both, its nice to know that they will be appreciated less and >> less as time goes on. I am a great fan of Mark Twain (his debunking of >> the German language is truly priceless, almost as good as his debunking >> of the writing style of James Fennimore Cooper). I read and re-read - in >> German translation - Tom Sawyer about 12 times, and got a shock reading >> it in English: the German translation was funnier! My heroes in humor >> transcend nationality and I am a fan of all of it. We do not remember >> heads of states as humorous, but Germany had one, Fredrik the Great, a >> king who wrote and conversed in French, who wrote 32 books, crossed >> swords with Voltaire, wrote classical music good enough to be honored by >> the Toronto symphony with a night of his compositions, adored by Napoleon >> for his military skills, but remembered best of all for his humor. In the >> Seven Years War, he first fought at Rossbach against the French and >> defeated them. A contingent of French officers stood under guard in the >> evening, clearly not in the best of mood. A lonely horseman approached >> them, and they recognized the king who had defeated them. Fredrick >> halted, tipped his hat to the French officers and a hush fell over the >> dejected crowd. "Gentlemen" the king said. "I was expecting you. But not >> so many and not so soon". At war with France, and yet he was the rage in >> Paris! War humor? Maudlin! The humor of this wonderful American, then a >> youngster marching with Patton's army, moves me to tears. And it moved >> Patton to white rage who wanted Maudlin court-martialed for his cartoons. >> This young man saw not the enemy as the evil, but war itself within which >> friend and foe were caught helplessly, and he had - ongoing! - the >> courage to portray it as such. The great Will Rogers once said in his >> cow-boy humor that at all times there is somebody somewhere who does in >> dead earnest what brings smiles to the faces of the rest of us. Maudlin >> must have been listening, for he debunked his country's war >> propaganda....despite his superior's rage! That's what heroism is all >> about. That kind of humor could not thrive on the other side, alas, but >> it was present. Germany has a rich history in humor going back to >> medieval times: Till Eulenspiegel, Simplizius Simplizissimus, Baron von >> Munchhausen and there is no shortage in the recent. "The Captain of >> Koperick" a true story debunking the Kaiser's military culture, set as a >> play by Carl Zuckmayer, a WW I hero decorated with the highest German >> military honor, the Kaiser's "Pour le Merit", a Jew who had to flee >> Germany and spent the war in the USA. Humor and tears are not far apart. >> And it's not because you laugh till you are in tears! After all, the >> court jester was valued because only he could say the truth to the king! >> "Weisspferdl" (little white horse) was a wartime humorist on stage in >> Munich. He appeared one night on stage with three pigs: a boar, a sow and >> a piglet. "/Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce to you the Family Mann! >> This is Boy Mann, this is Frau Mann, and this/" and he pointed to the >> big, fat boar " /*is Hermann*/!". he was promptly hauled off to jail for >> insulting Hermann Goering. After his jail time he appeared on stage. In >> trot the three pigs - a turmoil broke out in the audience! "/Ladies and >> Gentlemen, whom have I brought with me?/" The audience roared "/Die >> Familie Mann/". Quieting the turmoil he shouted "/No, No/. /This is not >> the Family Mann. These are merely pigs, pigs and nothing else. An this/" >> and her pointed to the boar" is /the goddmned fat hog I sat three days in >> jail for/!". Weisspferdl is dead now, but the citizen of Munich erected a >> small stature of him and he is well remembered. And Germany is a culture >> that has suffered a lot of suppressed truths, and humor is one way to let >> it out. Sorry that you had such run in with Lutheran sour pusses. Cheers, >> Val Geist >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "G. Reinhart-Waller" > > >> To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > > >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:25 PM >> Subject: Re: [bigbangtango] Re: [Paleopsych] Morality >> >> > How interesting that all the Lutherans you've known give hugs. I've >> > known quite a few (Germanic through and through) and most of them >> barely >> > smile. Yet, to each his own. >> > Sadat was assassinated.....guess there were a few who didn't connect >> > with his message. Sad though about his death. Apparently the timing >> > then was incorrect to denounce Iranian ayatollahs. I even doubt if >> > timing would now be correct. >> > Why would Luther or anyone be self-righteous towards the poor....that's >> > like claiming to be emperor of ice cream. Luther could not relate to >> > poverty. >> > The German welfare state will be the downfall of the country.....what >> > with worker expectations of high salary, long vacations, pre-paid >> > benefits, etc. the country can no longer sustain its workers. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005 > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Mar 27 16:02:15 2005 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:02:15 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Geo-Greening by Example Message-ID: <01C532A3.4AE05100.shovland@mindspring.com> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: March 27, 2005 How will future historians explain it? How will they possibly explain why President George W. Bush decided to ignore the energy crisis staring us in the face and chose instead to spend all his electoral capital on a futile effort to undo the New Deal, by partially privatizing Social Security? We are, quite simply, witnessing one of the greatest examples of misplaced priorities in the history of the U.S. presidency. "Ah, Friedman, but you overstate the case." No, I understate it. Look at the opportunities our country is missing - and the risks we are assuming - by having a president and vice president who refuse to lift a finger to put together a "geo-green" strategy that would marry geopolitics, energy policy and environmentalism. By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and we are financing the jihadists - and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques and charities that support them - through our gasoline purchases. The oil boom is also entrenching the autocrats in Russia and Venezuela, which is becoming Castro's Cuba with oil. By doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are also setting up a global competition with China for energy resources, including right on our doorstep in Canada and Venezuela. Don't kid yourself: China's foreign policy today is very simple - holding on to Taiwan and looking for oil. Finally, by doing nothing to reduce U.S. oil consumption we are only hastening the climate change crisis, and the Bush officials who scoff at the science around this should hang their heads in shame. And it is only going to get worse the longer we do nothing. Wired magazine did an excellent piece in its April issue about hybrid cars, which get 40 to 50 miles to the gallon with very low emissions. One paragraph jumped out at me: "Right now, there are about 800 million cars in active use. By 2050, as cars become ubiquitous in China and India, it'll be 3.25 billion. That increase represents ... an almost unimaginable threat to our environment. Quadruple the cars means quadruple the carbon dioxide emissions - unless cleaner, less gas-hungry vehicles become the norm." All the elements of what I like to call a geo-green strategy are known: We need a gasoline tax that would keep pump prices fixed at $4 a gallon, even if crude oil prices go down. At $4 a gallon (premium gasoline averages about $6 a gallon in Europe), we could change the car-buying habits of a large segment of the U.S. public, which would make it profitable for the car companies to convert more of their fleets to hybrid or ethanol engines, which over time could sharply reduce our oil consumption. We need to start building nuclear power plants again. The new nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than ever. "The risks of climate change by continuing to rely on hydrocarbons are much greater than the risks of nuclear power," said Peter Schwartz, chairman of Global Business Network, a leading energy and strategy consulting firm. "Climate change is real and it poses a civilizational threat that [could] transform the carrying capacity of the entire planet." And we need some kind of carbon tax that would move more industries from coal to wind, hydro and solar power, or other, cleaner fuels. The revenue from these taxes would go to pay down the deficit and the reduction in oil imports would help to strengthen the dollar and defuse competition for energy with China. It's smart geopolitics. It's smart fiscal policy. It is smart climate policy. Most of all - it's smart politics! Even evangelicals are speaking out about our need to protect God's green earth. "The Republican Party is much greener than George Bush or Dick Cheney," remarked Mr. Schwartz. "There is now a near convergence of support on the environmental issue. Look at how popular [Arnold] Schwarzenegger, a green Republican, is becoming because of what he has done on the environment in California." Imagine if George Bush declared that he was getting rid of his limousine for an armor-plated Ford Escape hybrid, adopting a geo-green strategy and building an alliance of neocons, evangelicals and greens to sustain it. His popularity at home - and abroad - would soar. The country is dying to be led on this. Instead, he prefers to squander his personal energy trying to take apart the New Deal and throwing red meat to right-to-life fanatics. What a waste of a presidency. How will future historians explain it? My response: Subj: The Bush crime family doesn't care about real problems They only care about stealing as much as they can for as long as they can. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 18:52:38 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:52:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Schaivo and ... Message-ID: Emerging issues of the right-to-life of chimeras (mice genes placed in humans, or human genes placed in mice, which has already been done in South Korea) or of just experiments manipulating the human genome that cannot live on their own but could be kept alive at great expense are going to be far more important that the instant case of Terri Schiavo. Saying that such creatures should not be conceived or be allow to develop to term does not solve the ethical problem of what happens if they do, any more than what happens when genetically quite normal but socially irresponsible parents give birth to children they cannot support in a reasonable fashion until they have completed schooling. Responsible parents will provide a decent education for their children and take out insurance for death and disability. Irresponsible parents are the source of the greatest negative externalities (public bads) in the country. The rest of us pay for this through public education, welfare, and so on, and have elected politicians to make these provisions. Yet rarely are irresponsible parents punished. ---------------- Below I show how the rhetoric is playing out. There are 50,700 articles as of right now, but 35,400 on Wednesday when I made a count. Now that Lent is over, I'm resuming my postings and will concentrate today on the Schiavo case, sending the best background articles I've come across and those that display the wide range of opinions. This I do to get you to think for yourself but also to drink deeply in the human comedy. As always, I wish we could have heard Mr. Mencken's reactions. I'll put, yet again, a succinct statement of his on American politics, at the end. Expect up to twenty articles on all sorts of subjects if you are on one of my private lists. If you are just in my address book, I'll send just this one article on the Schiavo case. I may, as always, send you things on other subjects at other times. I'll target public lists selectively. ----------------------- My observations on the Schiavo case: 1. Death is a small price to pay for life. We now know from evolutionary biology that death occurs because of sexual reproduction, though the jury is out on which theory or combination of theories explains how sexual reproduction came about in the first place. That the price is small is, of course, a judgment of value, but all such judgments should rest on factual foundations. 2. Human life ceases to be of value when the brain gets below a certain point or when pain greatly outweighs pleasure. At this point, the price of what was once a valuable life should be paid. Michael should have let go of Terri soon after the medical facts became apparent. 3. The law is correct in assigning a strong presumption in favor of the spouse in making end-of-life decisions in case the patient can no longer make them. This is to promote family values, for the greatest purpose of monogamous marriage is to turn cads into dads. The spouse gets to decide, even if going against the express wishes of the patient, when death, the price of life, is to be paid. All this is rebuttable, but nothing in the instant case came anywhere close to making such a rebuttal. 4. When these cases come before courts, it is better to err on the side of death, of paying for the price of life right now, rather than on the side of valueless life. The monies could be better spent on many other things. 5. Though the price of a valueless life should be paid, the spouse should be free to pay, out of his own pocket or to use insurance he paid for out of his own pocket, to withhold paying the price. Michael did so for many years. But no one else should be able to claim the body, and the taxpayers should not have to pay for continued care. (Medicare paid for part of the costs of keeping Terri alive, Michael paid for a lot of it for many years, and the various hospices Terri stayed at picked up part of the tab. Whether, in a country where health care is hugely regulated by governments, this amounts to indirect taxation, I do not know.) I applaud Michael for standing up for his own rights and refusing the offer of a California businessman of $1 million to assign him the power of attorney over Terri. 6. The Evangelical and Roman Catholic response is quite understandable. Unlike their relativist counterparts, they hold to an absolute source of morality. (It's a continuum, really. More some other time. I'll be sending a piece on the various Jewish views later.) This source is their own interpretation of their religion. (There are a few secular believers in what Frank Knight called "relatively absolute absolutes": Larry Arnhart, the late Robert Nisbet, Roger Scruton, probably Gertrude Himmelfarb, and me.) 7. There has been far too much group think among these Christians. The ostensible source of the revealed source of their absolute morals, namely the Bible, is silent on these issues. David Hume noted two centuries ago that the Bible does not prohibit suicide. (Neither does it prohibit abortion.) We would certainly be hearing the relevant chapters and verses if they were there. Instead, we get the constructs of theologians. 8. What the absolutist does is draw a line that must not be crossed. The line can and will be arbitrary. Indeed, state laws are arbitrary and it is the job of lawyers, judges, *and* jurors to decide just exactly what the law is in specific cases. What's important is to understand the necessity for this element of the arbitrary and to abide by the rule of law and not to keep going back to overturn the voter count in Florida in the Presidential election of 2000. 9. I charge the Democrats with gross hypocrisy in the Schiavo case. The notion of a "Living Constitution" is not an absurd one, and Mr. Jefferson was something of a proponent of it. But for the liberals to have suddenly discovered the merits of Federalism is too much! 10. The Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted for the Terri bill were playing it safe. Their votes in favor will be entirely forgotten by the next election. Meanwhile, Republican unity has been damaged by the escalation to the Federal legislative level, whether for good or ill to the Republic, deponent sayeth nothing. 11. The contest became a primate territorial fight, a battle over what Freud called the narcissism of small differences. 12. I had predicted that someone would assassinate Michael in order "to save Terri's life," since custody over Terri would devolve upon her parents. This has not happened so far. Michael, along with Judges George Greer and James Whittemore have received death threats, as has Michael's brother and family, which he has moved to safety. No assassinations yet, but the culture war could escalate this way and into suicide bombings. The Bible does not directly prohibit suicide but it repeatedly praises martyrs. We shall see. 13. My record as a prophet is not a good one. Google News has 35,400 articles on Schiavo, as of Wednesday, March 23. Here's the number that also contain: 44 Hitler 18 Osama 14 Stalin 1 Lenin 0 Mao 0 Pol Pot 0 Ghengis Khan 19 dictator 18 monster 11 saint 1 sinner 54 sin 825 murder 1150 suicide But (no surprise): 15,500 Bush 1,450 Clinton 35 Hillary 25 Lincoln 21 Jefferson 0 Fillmore 0 bathtub And then: 49 Nazi 23 communist 20 genocide 9 racist 7 fascist 1 elitist > From religion: 77 Heaven 81 Hell 21 Limbo (Terri's state between life and death, legal limbo, Terri's own "hellish limbo") 18 Devil 12 Satan 2 Purgatory 2 Paradise 0 Nirvana 60 grandstanding 30 "political advantage" 25 exploit 23 exploiting 2740 tragedy 37 farce 27 disaster 19 comedy 4 calamity And, sadly, only: 48 federalism 12 federalist 80 "states' rights" 28 "state's rights", but 675 "separation of powers" ---------------- On Being an American by H.L. Mencken (from Prejudices, Third Series (1922)) 4 All the while I have been forgetting the third of my reasons for remaining so faithful a citizen of the Federation, despite all the lascivious inducements from expatriates to follow them beyond the seas, and all the surly suggestions from patriots that I succumb. It is the reason which grows out of my mediaeval but unashamed taste for the bizarre and indelicate, my congenital weakness for comedy of the grosser varieties. The United States, to my eye, is incomparably the greatest show on earth. It is a show which avoids diligently all the kinds of clowning which tire me most quickly -- for example, royal ceremonials, the tedious hocus-pocus of haut politique, the taking of politics seriously -- and lays chief stress upon the kinds which delight me unceasingly -- for example, the ribald combats of demagogues, the exquisitely ingenious operations of master rogues, the pursuit of witches and heretics, the desperate struggles of inferior men to claw their way into Heaven. We have clowns in constant practice among us who are as far above the clowns of any other great state as a Jack Dempsey is above a paralytic -- and not a few dozen or score of them, but whole droves and herds. Human enterprises which, in all other Christian countries, are resigned despairingly to an incurable dullness -- things that seem devoid of exhilirating amusement, by their very nature -- are here lifted to such vast heights of buffoonery that contemplating them strains the midriff almost to breaking. I cite an example: the worship of God. Everywhere else on earth it is carried on in a solemn and dispiriting manner; in England, of course, the bishops are obscene, but the average man seldom gets a fair chance to laugh at them and enjoy them. Now come home. Here we not only have bishops who are enormously more obscene than even the most gifted of the English bishops; we have also a huge force of lesser specialists in ecclesiastical mountebankery -- tin-horn Loyolas, Savonarolas and Xaviers of a hundred fantastic rites, each performing untiringly and each full of a grotesque and illimitable whimsicality. Every American town, however small, has one of its own: a holy clerk with so fine a talent for introducing the arts of jazz into the salvation of the damned that his performance takes on all the gaudiness of a four-ring circus, and the bald announcement that he will raid Hell on such and such a night is enough to empty all the town blind- pigs and bordellos and pack his sanctuary to the doors. And to aid him and inspire him there are travelling experts to whom he stands in the relation of a wart to the Matterhorn -- stupendous masters of theological imbecility, contrivers of doctrines utterly preposterous, heirs to the Joseph Smith, Mother Eddy and John Alexander Dowie tradition -- Bryan, Sunday, and their like. These are the eminences of the American Sacred College. I delight in them. Their proceedings make me a happier American. Turn, now, to politics. Consider, for example, a campaign for the Presidency. Would it be possible to imagine anything more uproariously idiotic -- a deafening, nerve-wracking battle to the death between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Harlequin and Sganarelle, Gobbo and Dr. Cook -- the unspeakable, with fearful snorts, gradually swallowing the inconceivable? I defy any one to match it elsewhere on this earth. In other lands, at worst, there are at least intelligible issues, coherent ideas, salient personalities. Somebody says something, and somebody replies. But what did Harding say in 1920, and what did Cox reply? Who was Harding, anyhow, and who was Cox? Here, having perfected democracy, we lift the whole combat to symbolism, to transcendentalism, to metaphysics. Here we load a pair of palpably tin cannon with blank cartridges charged with talcum power, and so let fly. Here one may howl over the show without any uneasy reminder that it is serious, and that some one may be hurt. I hold that this elevation of politics to the plane of undiluted comedy is peculiarly American, that no-where else on this disreputable ball has the art of the sham-battle been developed to such fineness... ... Here politics is purged of all menace, all sinister quality, all genuine significance, and stuffed with such gorgeous humors, such inordinate farce that one comes to the end of a campaign with one's ribs loose, and ready for "King Lear," or a hanging, or a course of medical journals. But feeling better for the laugh. Ridi si sapis, said Martial. Mirth is necessary to wisdom, to comfort, above all to happiness. Well, here is the land of mirth, as Germany is the land of metaphysics and France is the land of fornication. Here the buffoonery never stops. What could be more delightful than the endless struggle of the Puritan to make the joy of the minority unlawful and impossible? The effort is itself a greater joy to one standing on the side-lines than any or all of the carnal joys it combats. Always, when I contemplate an uplifter at his hopeless business, I recall a scene in an old- time burlesque show, witnessed for hire in my days as a dramatic critic. A chorus girl executed a fall upon the stage, and Rudolph Krausemeyer, the Swiss comdeian, rushed to her aid. As he stooped painfully to succor her, Irving Rabinovitz, the Zionist comedian, fetched him a fearful clout across the cofferdam with a slap-stick. So the uplifter, the soul-saver, the Americanizer, striving to make the Republic fit for Y.M.C.A. secretaries. He is the eternal American, ever moved by the best of intentions, ever running a la Krausemeyer to the rescue of virtue, and ever getting his pantaloons fanned by the Devil. I am naturally sinful, and such spectacles caress me. If the slap-stick were a sash-weight, the show would be cruel, and I'd probably complain to the Polizei. As it is, I know that the uplifter is not really hurt, but simply shocked. The blow, in fact, does him good, for it helps get him into Heaven, as exegetes prove from Matthew v, 11: Hereux serez-vous, lorsqu'on vous outragera, qu'on vous persecutera, and so on. As for me, it makes me a more contented man, and hence a better citizen. One man prefers the Republic because it pays better wages than Bulgaria. Another because it has laws to keep him sober and his daughter chaste. Another because the Woolworth Building is higher than the cathedral at Chartres. Another because, living here, he can read the New York Evening Journal. Another because there is a warrant out for him somewhere else. Me, I like it because it amuses me to my taste. I never get tired of the show. It is worth every cent it costs. That cost, it seems to me is very moderate. Taxes in the United States are not actually high. I figure, for example, that my private share of the expense of maintaining the Hon. Mr. Harding in the White House this year will work out to less than 80 cents. Try to think of better sport for the money: in New York it has been estimated that it costs $8 to get comfortably tight, and $17.50, on an average, to pinch a girl's arm. The United States Senate will cost me perhaps $11 for the year, but against that expense set the subscription price of the Congressional Record, about $15, which, as a journalist, I receive for nothing. For $4 less than nothing I am thus entertained as Solomon never was by his hooch dancers. Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey costs me but 25 cents a year; I get Nicholas Murray Butler free. Finally, there is young Teddy Roosevelt, the naval expert. Teddy costs me, as I work it out, about 11 cents a year, or less than a cent a month. More, he entertains me doubly for the money, first as a naval expert, and secondly as a walking attentat upon democracy, a devastating proof that there is nothing, after all, in that superstition. We Americans subscribe to the doctrine of human equality - - and the Rooseveltii reduce it to an absurdity as brilliantly as the sons of Veit Bach. Where is your equal opportunity now? Here in this Eden of clowns, with the highest rewards of clowning theoretically open to every poor boy -- here in the very citadel of democracy we found and cherish a clown dynasty! From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 18:53:33 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:53:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Jewish Ethical Views Differ on Schiavo Message-ID: Jewish Ethical Views Differ on Schiavo The Jewish Journal Of Greater Los Angeles http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/print.php?id=13858 2005-03-25 by Joanne Palmer, Jewish Telegraphic Agency As a federal court considers whether to reconnect Terri Schiavos feeding tube, Jewish scholars are turning to halacha, or Jewish religious law, for guidance on the issue. Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged Florida woman whose parents and husband have been battling in state and now federal courts for more than a decade, is the insensate center of a swirl of emotion and legal action. Religious leaders have been involved as well. Schiavo and her parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, are Roman Catholic, and many of their most fervent supporters are fundamentalist Protestants. The Schindlers want to keep their daughters feeding tube in; Michael Schiavo, her husband, wants it removed so his wife can die a natural death. Jews, like others caught up in the debate, have a range of beliefs, and their understanding of how to apply halacha varies accordingly. Virtually all the rabbis interviewed, though, told JTA that they did not agree with attempts by some conservative Christians to tie Schiavos case to the public debate about abortion. At the traditional end of the spectrum, Rabbi Avi Shafran of the ultra-Orthodox Agudath Israel of America said the Schiavo case is straightforward from a Jewish perspective: The most important point from a halachic standpoint is that a compromised life is still a life. In the Schiavo case, youre not dealing with a patient in extremis, he said, noting that until her feeding tube was removed, Schiavo was not dying. In halacha, there is a category for a person at the edge of death; the rules for such a person, called a goses, are complicated. There are times when certain medical intervention is halachically contraindicated, Shafran said. There may be times when its OK not to shock a heart back into beating, not to administer certain drugs. You do not prolong the act of dying. However, Schiavo was not a goses, Shafran said. Instead, he added, before the tube was removed, she had the exact same halachic status as a baby or a demented person. Like a baby, she was helpless, could not feed herself and was not able to communicate in any meaningful way. But a life is a life. Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, the central arm of modern Orthodoxy, agreed that from a halachic perspective, the Schiavo case is straightforward. Its not permitted to do anything actively that would stop the process of a persons staying alive, he said. In this case, that would be withdrawing a feeding tube, which is tantamount to starving a person to death. Like Shafran, Weinreb said the wishes of the patient or the family are not relevant. It might have a bearing on whether new measures are undertaken, but once a person is on a support system, removing it is not possible, Weinreb said. Doing something to actively interfere with a persons ability to continue to live technically is murder, he said. I cant imagine a scenario that would make removing the feeding tube permissible. Rabbi David Feldman, who had an Orthodox ordination and defines himself as traditional, is rabbi emeritus of the Conservadox Jewish Center of Teaneck, N.J. Theres a dispute here between a husband and parents, but none of that makes any difference as far as halacha is concerned, said Feldman, author of Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law (Schocken, 1975) and the dean of the Jewish Institute of Bioethics. You cant hasten death yourself, with your own hands. If death comes, you can thank God because its a relief, but you cant decide yourself that it has to be done. The only time it would be acceptable to remove a medical device, Feldman said, would be if something worse would happen if leaving it in would cause infection or more pain. You can kill someone pursuing you, you can kill the soldier in the enemy army, maybe very cautiously you can kill if there is a death penalty, but you cant kill an innocent person because of illness, he said. Rabbi Joel Roth is a member of the Conservative movements Rabbinical Assemblys Law Committee. In 1990, when he was the committees chair, the group studied end-stage medical care and accepted two opposing positions on artificial nutrition and hydration. One, by Rabbi Elliot Dorff, would permit withholding and withdrawing the tube; the other, by Rabbi Avraham Reisner, would not. The divide comes from how the tube that provides food and water is defined. If it is seen as a medical device, as Dorff does, it may be removed, Roth said. If it is seen as a feeding device, as Reisner does, it may not be removed. Dorff puts a person dependent on a feeding tube in the halachic category of treifah, which, he argues, is a life that does not require our full protection an animal that is treifah is one that has some kind of physical defect that will prohibit it from having a prolonged life. So he argues that a treifah is a life that does not require our full protection, Roth said. Reisner, on the other hand, treats these people as goses, Roth said. And even in the end stage, he noted, there is the value of chaya shaah, the life of the hour. In other words, Roth said, even when there is very little life left, that life still matters. The Conservative movement accepts both decisions, but Roth, a professor of Talmud and Jewish law at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, sides with Reisner, and with Schiavos parents. She should be kept on the feeding tube, he said. Shes not being medicated, and shes breathing on her own. Rabbi Mark Washofsky teaches rabbinics at the Reform movements Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, and he sits on the movements responsa committee. The movement does not speak with one voice on the issue, Washofsky said, but in 1994 it issued a responsa on the treatment of terminally ill patients. Like the Conservative decisions, the Reform rabbis base their view of whether a feeding tube can be removed on their understanding of the tubes function. We cannot claim that Jewish tradition categorically prohibits the removal of food and water from dying patients, Washofsky said. But we consider food and water, no matter how they are delivered, the staff of life. So what we ultimately do is express deep reservations about their withdrawal, but in the end, we say, nonetheless, that because we cannot declare that the cessation of artificial nutrition and hydration is categorically forbidden by Jewish moral thought, the patient and the family must ultimately let their consciences guide them. Rabbi David Teutsch, director of the Center for Jewish Ethics at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Philadelphia, agrees that the question is how a feeding tube is defined. If it were a form of eating, a position held by a number of more traditional halachic authorities, then youre required to feed those who are hungry, Teutsch said. But if its medicine a position held by Conservative authorities like Rabbi Elliott Dorff, and by me as well then you serve the interests of the patient, which may involve not providing medicine. He believes that a feeding tube is a medical device, and so it can be removed, Teutsch said. Its pretty clear that its closer to regular intervention than to eating, he said. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 18:54:44 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:54:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] WP: Terri Schiavo's Unstudied Life Message-ID: Terri Schiavo's Unstudied Life http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64459-2005Mar24?language=printer The Woman Who Is Now a Symbol And a Cause Hated the Spotlight By Jennifer Frey Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 25, 2005; Page C01 She was a girl who laughed easily at her uncle's lame jokes. A girl so innocent that she wrote to John Denver, asking him to come sing at her wedding, who went to Disney World for her honeymoon and believed that a good life meant that one day she'd be able to vacation there every year with her kids. She was a girl who loved animals and worshiped cute television stars, paying homage to heartthrobs Starsky and Hutch by naming two gerbils after them. She daydreamed about working for a veterinarian when she grew up, or maybe just being a dog groomer. She was a shy girl, always overweight as a child, with big glasses, but shiny hair and perfect skin and a tendency to collapse into fifth-grade giggles. Her first car -- a black-and-gold Trans Am with a T-top roof -- exuded the flash and confidence that she herself never did. She was a girl who married the first man she ever kissed. "She was quiet," says childhood friend Sue Pickwell, who was a bridesmaid the day Terri Schindler married Michael Schiavo. "She didn't like the limelight. How ironic is that?" Terri Schiavo is everywhere. There are pictures of her on the front pages of newspapers, on the Internet, on every news network on TV. A four-year-old videotape of Terri with her mother is played over and over and over again. The fight over her life -- and death -- is being played out, in this Easter week, as a uniquely American Passion play. Congress passed emergency legislation. The president signed it in the middle of the night, in his pajamas, after being awakened. There are picketers, prayer services, angry invective, impassioned appeals. The Vatican has weighed in. The Supreme Court has refused to do so. For seven years now, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers -- primarily, Terri's parents, Bob and Mary -- have been locked in a grueling war, a war over money, over control, and, in the end, over Terri's future. Schiavo wants his wife to be allowed to die. That, he says, was her wish. The Schindlers want someone -- the government, the courts, anyone with any possible authority in this situation -- to restore the feeding tube that was removed, by court order, last Friday. They want their daughter, in whatever state she is, to live. It has been an extraordinary situation, marked by extraordinary efforts and circumstances that have dominated the national consciousness. And all of it, her friends and family say, is about a truly ordinary girl with simple dreams and an uncomplicated life. Who is Terri Schiavo? Again and again, the courts recognize that she is a woman who has been in a "persistent vegetative state" since the day she suffered heart failure 15 years ago. She cannot communicate, she is not cognizant of what is happening around her, her movements are nothing more than neurological tics. The Schindlers argue -- thus far unsuccessfully in courts of law -- that she still gets pleasure from seeing her family, that she might have a chance at some semblance of recovery, that she is still a real person somewhere inside the body she cannot control. But who was Terri Schiavo? That is another question altogether. Teresa Marie Schindler had a purple-and-white bedroom in her family's home in the Philadelphia suburbs. White wicker furniture. Endless stuffed animals. Posters of '70s television stars; she liked David Cassidy more than Shaun. Her brother, Bobby, was two years younger, her sister Suzanne two years younger than that. Her first friend was Diane Meyer. Her dad had been pals with Terri's dad forever. The girls became friends at age 2 and did family celebrations together, took annual summer vacation trips to the same hotels on the Jersey shore. Diane's little brother, Stephen, was best friends with Bobby. The boys tortured the girls regularly, in that little-brother way. Water pistol attacks. Food fights. Obnoxious public behavior designed to embarrass. That made Terri nuts. She hated to stand out. "To those who knew her -- her friends, her family -- she was vivacious, outgoing, funny," Meyer says. "But in a crowd, she was the quiet one." She never sought out friends, but welcomed them eagerly if they made an overture. It was in her seventh-grade classroom that she first bonded with Pickwell; they both broke up laughing over something silly that was said. "I don't remember what it was," Pickwell says, "but everything's funny in seventh grade, I guess." They became fast friends. There was a sleepover almost every weekend. Terri went on Pickwell family outings and vice versa. "There was nothing extraordinary," Pickwell says. "No trying to change the world type of thing. It was your typical teenagers, watching movies, eating junk food, that kind of thing." They were mall rats. The day Pickwell got her driver's license, that's the first place they went. It was, in their vocabulary, huge. Once Terri got her license, she and Meyer -- who went to a different school -- started hanging out frequently. They watched sappy TV movies, especially love stories and anything adapted from romance novelist Danielle Steel, Terri's favorite author. They went to the Magic Pan for crepes. Terri's weight reached more than 200 pounds, and late in her senior year, she went on the NutriSystem diet and lost more than 50 pounds. She continued to live at home and enrolled in Bucks County Community College. On weekends, she took her Trans Am on road trips to visit Meyer, who went away to college at the University of Scranton. Meyer was a sorority sister at Gamma Phi Beta. Terri, she says, was like an honorary sorority member. She'd go to the parties, hang out, make friends. "I don't know if it was the weight loss or maturity or all of it combined, but she started to put herself out there a little bit more," Meyer says. "And once she did, she got more success in social situations. Terri is the kind of person, you meet her, you love her." A few months later, Terri met a guy at school. His name was Michael Schiavo. "Michael was her first everything." Pickwell is keeping her voice neutral. She disagrees vehemently with the decisions Michael has made about Terri's future. But that is now. This was then. She remembers how excited Terri was. How she lit up. Michael was the first boy who ever really looked at Terri. The first boy to ask her on a date. "I remember she called me, and she asked me to come home for the weekend," Meyer said. "She wanted me to be there." The first date was dinner, a movie, and that first-ever kiss. On the second date, Terri took Schiavo to meet Pickwell and her family. Pulling aside Pickwell and her big sister, Terri confided that Michael wanted to marry her. "What? Are you crazy?" Pickwell remembers telling her then. But Terri was giddy with excitement. "Everything happened so fast and it was such a good feeling for her," Pickwell says. "He was good-looking and it felt good to have someone pay attention to her. I think she was overwhelmed." In one of his rare interviews, Michael Schiavo talked about how hard he fell for her. "She had this presence, this aura, that just attracted you," he told CNN. "She was shy and outgoing at the same time." He introduced her to his big, boisterous family -- Michael is the youngest of five sons -- at a family birthday party. She hung back at first, but surprised the brothers by engaging in their games of sibling grief. All those years of water fights. All those years of little-brother abuse. "She fit right in," says Scott Schiavo, one of Michael's brothers. "Mike was always a happy kid, but when he met Terri he just perked up tenfold." Terri and Michael were engaged relatively quickly, and Terri began making plans for an elaborate wedding at Our Lady of Good Counsel, the Catholic parish the Schindler family attended. She was still a month shy of her 21st birthday when the big day came. In that interview with CNN, Michael Schiavo said when he first saw Terri come down the aisle, he thought she was "just gorgeous. All I saw was this big smile." Their first dance was to "Tonight I Celebrate My Love," by Peabo Bryson and Roberta Flack. After the wedding, Terri drifted apart from her close girlfriends. She and Meyer had a falling-out and never really spoke again. Terri remained friends with Pickwell, but, Pickwell says, "they were newlyweds. You wanted to give them space." Meanwhile, Terri was folded into the big, tight-knit Schiavo family. Karen Schiavo, a sister-in-law, says that she instantly became one of them, and that Michael and Terri were "deeply in love." A few years later, the Schindlers decided to move to Florida, and Michael and Terri followed. She got an office job at an insurance company, he went to work managing a restaurant. Their hours were opposite -- Terri on days, Michael on nights -- so they didn't see a lot of each other. At work, Terri made friends with some co-workers, including Jackie Rhodes. They went shopping together. Visited Terri's grandmother at a nearby nursing home. Went swimming at the pool where the Schindlers had their condo. Terri loved watching the dolphins in the Intracoastal Waterway. She also started to lose more weight. If she had developed an eating disorder -- medical experts have said that complications from bulimia may have led to her heart failure -- she hid it well. Scott Schiavo remembers sitting next to her when the couple came back to Pennsylvania for a family funeral. Terri was eating a huge plate of food, but she was thinner than ever. "I asked her how she could eat like that and still be so thin," Scott remembers. "She laughed and said she must just have a good metabolism." By 1989, Rhodes says, Terri and Michael were having marital problems. The Schindlers have suggested the same in recent years. The Schiavos dispute that claim. Still, both Rhodes and Michael Schiavo (in an interview with CNN) say that the couple had been trying to conceive a child. Terri went to see a gynecologist to address problems with an irregular menstrual cycle. The last time she spoke to Terri, Rhodes says, she had just gone to get her hair done. Terri was toying with going back to her natural color, so Rhodes called that Saturday to ask what she had decided. Terri, Rhodes says, was in tears; she and Michael had had a fight over the cost of the salon visit. Early the next morning, in February 1990, Terri collapsed in the hallway in her house. Michael heard her fall, found her there. She was 26 years old, weighed 110 pounds and was in heart failure because of a severe potassium imbalance. Inside Woodside Hospice, Michael Schiavo likes to hold his wife's hand, according to his brother Scott. Today will be the seventh day Terri Schiavo has gone without the feeding tube that sustained her. Her husband sits vigil with her most of the day, his brothers Brian and Bill on hand to support him. Michael adjusts Terri's positions, moves her, makes sure there will be no bedsores. And he talks to her -- talks to her the way one talks to the headstone of a loved one at the cemetery. "You know how that is?" says Scott, who calls his brother's cell phone multiple times a day for updates. "How you do it because it makes you feel better, even though you know they can't hear anything you say?" The Schiavos leave the room when the Schindlers come to visit. They, too, take turns trying to make Terri comfortable. They stroke her hands, kiss her hair. And they, too, talk to her. "We talk to her about getting her out and taking her to lunch," says Mike Tammaro, her uncle. "We tell her we're working hard to take her to lunch. The other night, we said, 'We're taking you out to breakfast tomorrow, Terri.' " The family's vigil, Tammaro says, is tense and tearful. They watch carefully for signs of decline. "I believe she's hearing some of this," Tammaro says. "I really do. I don't know how much. I don't know what state her mind is in. It doesn't matter. We just want her alive and home." For Michael, Scott Schiavo says, the days are filled with sadness and frustration and anger at the politicians and their attempts to intervene in what he considers a very personal decision. Michael, Scott says, wanted this to be a private moment. The Schiavos are grieving, too, he says. He says Terri wasn't a sister-in-law to him, she was a sister. He breaks down. "It's so sad that they've turned this wonderful person into a sideshow," Scott says, his voice shaking. "Into a media circus. It's such a shame. It really is. The one that's hurt the most here is Terri. Her memory. They're taking away whatever dignity she had left. They're taking it away. And it really stinks." And so they take turns in the room, two sets of family, each with their own version of who Terri Schiavo is now. Perhaps there will be some last-minute intervention. More likely, her life is coming to an end. In her hospice room, she is surrounded by stuffed animals. The world has fast-forwarded 15 years. Terri Schiavo is 41 years old. But who she was -- a shy little girl, a woman still able to find joy in a simple stuffed bunny -- will forever be suspended in time. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 18:57:00 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:57:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Did Descartes Doom Terri Schiavo? Message-ID: Did Descartes Doom Terri Schiavo? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/weekinreview/27lela.html March 27, 2005 By JOHN LELAND IN the parade of faces talking about Terri Schiavo last week, two notable authorities were missing: Aristotle and Descartes. Yet their legacy was there. Beneath the political maneuvering and legal wrangling, the case re-enacted a clash of ideals that has run through the history of Western thought. And in a way, it's the essential question that has been asked by philosophers since the dawn of human civilization. Is every human life precious, no matter how disabled? Or do human beings have the right to self-determination and to decide when life has value? "The clash is about how we understand the human person," said Samuel Gregg, director of research at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, a conservative policy group. The plea last week to prolong Ms. Schiavo's feeding, against the wishes of her husband or what courts determined to be her own expressed inclinations, echoed the teachings of Aristotle, who considered existence itself to be inviolable. On the other side, the argument that Ms. Schiavo's life could be judged as not worth living echoed Descartes, the Enlightenment philosopher who defined human life not as biological existence - which might be an inviolable gift from God - but as consciousness, about which people can make judgments. For most of history, the conflict between these schools of thought has allowed room for compromise, said Robert Veatch, a professor of medical ethics at Georgetown University who supports the right of patients to suspend treatment. He cited a Roman Catholic judgment from the Middle Ages that if a patient needed to travel 300 miles by donkey cart to a shrine to be healed, that was too much. "The idea that all life is valuable or sacred has in almost all settings been qualified in some way," Professor Veatch said. Yet this idea that all life is sacred has exerted a powerful force in America, said Mark A. Noll, a professor of history at Wheaton College, a prestigious evangelical school in Illinois, and the author of "The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity. " It fueled the abolitionist movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, which insisted on the humanity of slaves, against the prevailing views of social science. In the early 20th century, the same ideal stood up against eugenics, which advocated forced sterilization to prevent the weakest members of society from reproducing. In both battles, Professor Noll said, people who held the sanctity of all human life as a religious conviction triumphed over an Enlightenment contention "that said 'No, we can qualify this value' " - meaning the value of a human life could be determined by scientific thought. As late as 1927, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government could sterilize mentally retarded people against their will. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the court's decision involving a woman mistakenly deemed retarded. In this context, Professor Noll said, "the preference for life has been a protection against the exploitation of little people by big people." The conflict as it exists now began to take shape with the emergence of modern medicine in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, said Gary M. Laderman, an associate professor of religion at Emory University and author of "The Sacred Remains: American Attitudes Toward Death, 1799-1883." Medical breakthroughs that prolonged human life by technological means changed the way Americans could see death and by extension, the ways they defined life. The setting for death shifted from the home to the hospital, where doctors, rather than religious leaders, claimed authority. Medicine lionized the figure of the heroic doctor, and treated death as a kind of failure, Professor Laderman said. Doctors were free not to tell patients that they were terminally ill, claiming for themselves the right to determine what was appropriate. Death became a "medicalized" state, to be determined by human expertise. Like life, it could be treated as a medical option. By the 1960's and 1970's, medical patients began to claim this right for themselves, said Bruce Jennings, a senior research scholar at the Hastings Center, a bioethics research group that has supported patient rights. In this, they conspicuously followed the model of the political and consumer movements of the era, which shifted authority away from experts and institutions to individuals. To adopt Professor Noll's language, they redefined the little people. "This offered a slightly different way to frame the issue: not so much as a conflict between valuing life and the freedom of choice, but a different attitude toward technology itself," Mr. Jennings said. "On the one hand, there's a widespread feeling in the United States that everything can be cured and we don't have to die. But there's another fear of imprisonment by technology in a way that undermines our integrity and dignity. It's claiming freedom from these institutions or technology." The philosophical line in this history, then, is not straightforward, but includes a peculiar American twist: The evangelical revival of the 18th and 19th centuries produced the abolition movement, which gave rise to the women's suffrage movement, which inspired the civil rights movement, which led to the patient's rights movement. But now the patient's rights movement faces off with many 21st-century evangelical Christians in the Schiavo case. At the same time, the scientific legacy of the Enlightenment, which argued that human life resided not in the body but the mind, is now being undermined, as modern neuroscience demystifies elements of thought and personality as heartless biochemical or genetic processes. The mind is simply prisoner to the body's DNA. The ideas at play over this history do not conclude with Ms. Schiavo's case, but feed into arguments over abortion, stem-cell research, assisted suicide, the death penalty and even animal rights. In their competing claims, these ideas are part of what defines America, said Courtney S. Campbell, a professor of medical ethics at Oregon State University who has argued for the rights of patients to pull the plug. "It goes back to the foundations of the Republic - the right to life and the right to liberty in the Declaration of Independence," he said. "It's a deep-rooted conflict that goes to the core of who we are as a people and as a political society, so it's not surprising that it can be polarizing." From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 19:22:47 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:22:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Recorder: The Terri Schiavo Case: Following the Money Message-ID: The Recorder By Jon B. Eisenberg March 4, 2005 Have you ever wondered who is bankrolling the seemingly endless courtroom effort to keep Terri Schiavo's feeding tube attached? During the Watergate scandal, investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were famously advised to "follow the money." In the Schiavo case, the money leads to a consortium of conservative foundations, with $2 billion in total assets, that are funding a legal and public relations war of attrition intended to prolong Terri's life indefinitely in order to further their own faith-based cultural agendas. For the past 12 years, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, have been locked in a bitter dispute over whether to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from Terri, whom the courts have determined is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The Schindlers want the doctors to keep Terri alive; Michael does not. Late last year, in Bush v. Schiavo, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush violated the constitutional separation of powers when he attempted to overturn a court order to remove Terri's feeding tube. A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. I filed an amicus curiae brief in the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights organization opposing the governor's action. Two months later I participated in a public debate on the case at Florida State University. Among the participants supporting Gov. Bush's position were Pat Anderson, one of multiple attorneys who have represented the Schindlers, and Wesley Smith and Rita Marker, two activists whose specialty is opposing surrogate removal of life-support from comatose and persistent vegetative state patients. I found myself wondering: "I'm doing this pro bono; are they?" I did some Internet research and learned that many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable. The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products). I found a Web site called mediatransparency.com which tracks funding for these foundations. Using just that Web site and the Schindlers' own site, terrisfight.org, I learned of a network of funding connections between some of the Philanthropy Roundtable's members and various organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers and supporters, and the lawyers who represented Gov. Bush in Bush v. Schiavo. Here are a few examples: Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation. Wesley Smith and Rita Marker also work for organizations that get funding from Roundtable members. Smith is a paid senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates the teaching of creationist "intelligent design" theory in public schools. Between 1993 and 1997, the Discovery Institute received $175,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Marker is executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia, which lobbies against physician-assisted suicide. In 2001, Marker's organization received $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith Richardson family. Roundtable members also played a role in financing the Bush v. Schiavo litigation. The Family Research Council, which uses its annual $10 million budget to lobby for prayer in public schools and against gay marriage, filed an amicus curiae brief in Bush v. Schiavo supporting Gov. Bush, at the same time its former president, attorney Kenneth Connor, was representing the governor in that litigation. Between 1992 and 2000, the council received $215,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Another amicus brief backing Bush was filed by a coalition of disability rights organizations that included the National Organization on Disability and the World Institute on Disability. The former received $810,000 between 1991 and 2002 from the Scaife Family Foundations, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the JM Foundation; the latter received $20,000 in 1997 from the JM Foundation. These connections may be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no Woodward or Bernstein. I got this information using only the most rudimentary Google skills. I imagine that a thorough search by a seasoned investigator would yield quite a bit more. With this kind of big bucks behind them, it's no wonder the Schindlers and their allies have been able to keep the legal fight over their daughter going for so long. And it's still not over. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene, the Schindlers' lawyers are now trying to prolong the litigation yet again through a series of post-judgment motions which, regardless of their merit, could yield stays that would continue to forestall the removal of Terri's feeding tube. Maneuvers within the past few months have included requests for a new trial based on something the Pope said in a speech criticizing the removal of feeding tubes from persistent vegetative state patients, and on a newly minted claim that Terri was deprived of the right to independent court-appointed counsel. Those maneuvers achieved the desired delay but were ultimately unsuccessful. On Feb. 25, the trial judge, George Greer, ordered Terri's feeding tube to be removed March 18. On Feb. 28, however, the Schindlers struck back by filing 15 written motions and requesting 48 hours of court hearing time. These motions run an extraordinary gamut, from a suggestion that Judge Greer should order Terri and Michael Schiavo be immediately divorced, to a request for "limited media access" to Terri, to a proposal for a 20-hour evidentiary hearing on Terri's "medical/psychiatric/rehabilitative status." The ploy is obvious: still more delay. There is something wrong here. The Florida courts have ruled repeatedly -- based on her doctors' testimony and evidence of statements she previously made about her end-of-life wishes -- that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, would not want her life to be prolonged under such circumstances, and should be allowed to die as the courts have determined she would wish. But the conservative foundations, with their massive funding, have turned the Schiavo case into a war of attrition, where delay is victory. They have met defeat in the U.S. Supreme Court. But they won't give up, and they have the cash it takes to out-gun Michael Schiavo on every front. It is going to take yet more judicial courage to ensure that the rule of law prevails over big money. That will require Judge Greer to reject the latest round of delaying motions, and the Florida Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to back him up. Jon B. Eisenberg is an appellate practitioner based in Oakland. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 22:02:03 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:02:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: How to Save Medicare? Die Sooner Message-ID: Business > Your Money > Economic View: How to Save Medicare? Die Sooner http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/business/yourmoney/27view.html February 27, 2005 By DANIEL ALTMAN THOUGH Social Security's fiscal direction has taken center stage in Washington of late, Medicare's future financing problems are likely to be much worse. President Bush has asserted that the Medicare Modernization Act, which he signed in 2003, would solve some of those problems - "the logic is irrefutable," he said two months ago. Yet the Congressional Budget Office expects the law to create just $28 billion in savings during the decade after its passage, while its prescription drug benefit will add more than $400 billion in costs. So, how can Medicare's ballooning costs be contained? One idea is to let people die earlier. For the last few decades, the share of Medicare costs incurred by patients in their last year of life has stayed at about 28 percent, said Dr. Gail R. Wilensky, a senior fellow at Project HOPE who previously ran Medicare and Medicaid. Thus end-of-life care hasn't contributed unduly of late to Medicare's problems. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the solution. "If you take the assumption that you want to go where the money is, it's a reasonable place to look," Dr. Wilensky said. End-of-life care may also be a useful focus because, in some cases, efforts to prolong life may end up only prolonging suffering. In such cases, reducing pain may be a better use of resources than heroic attempts to save lives. The question becomes, how can you identify end-of-life care, especially the kind that's likely to be of little value? "It's very difficult to predict exactly when a given individual is going to die, in most cases," said David O. Meltzer, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago who also teaches economics. "But there's no question that there are many markers we have of someone who is approaching the end of life." Even with that knowledge, however, Dr. Meltzer warned against putting the brakes on care just as a patient takes an inexorable turn for the worse. Studies of doctors who intervened at that point to stave off unproductive care have found little success in cutting costs, he said. Instead, he recommended that doctors try to prepare patients and families for less resource-intensive care at the end of life. "There is no question, as a clinician, and as a patient and the family members of patients, there are things you can do to make sure that expenditures with little chance of being helpful won't be undertaken," he said. "You explain to people that the goal of medical care is not always to make people live longer." Explaining that principle early on could make a difference in the cases that appear to pose the biggest problem: those in which the patient's health changes suddenly and severely. Dr. Wilensky cited recent research showing that these cases incurred high costs with scant medical benefit. "When someone starts going south, and there was not an expectation that that was going to happen, you probably pull out all the stops," she said. These choices can actually harm patients, contradicting the purpose of the treatment, said Dr. Arnold S. Relman, a professor emeritus of medicine and social medicine at Harvard and former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. "Sometimes, you know that death is inevitable over the next few weeks or few months," he said. "And then there are some doctors, and some families, who just don't want to confront that, and feel that they want to and should invest everything possible - the maximum amount of resources - in fighting the inevitable. That often results in prolonging the pain and discomfort of dying." Dr. Wilensky said these cases often involved an unusual number of specialists and other doctors visiting the patient, as well as a potentially excessive number of tests. Better coordination of care within hospitals and with other providers could curtail these extra efforts, she said. She also suggested that more use of evidence-based medicine, in which care is guided by documented cases and statistics, could discourage doctors from pursuing treatments with little chance of success. Yet teaching doctors and patients to say no could be a losing battle. "It doesn't fit human nature, and it certainly doesn't fit our culture," Dr. Relman said. "Most Americans - and most people who are educated in advanced societies now - believe that each person is entitled to, technically and scientifically, the best medical care that they can get." Introducing gatekeepers, the administrators in health maintenance organizations who choose which procedures patients may undergo, could take the often-emotional decisions about end-of-life care out of doctors' and patients' hands. Indeed, incorporating more of these managed-care-style practices into Medicare is a primary emphasis for the Bush administration, along with greater competition among providers, said Bill Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. But Dr. Relman predicted that the public wouldn't stand for it. "That's exactly why the traditional H.M.O., with the gatekeeper, has given way and is so unpopular and has been replaced by the P.P.O." or preferred provider organization, he said. In order to cut costs, he said, a complete revamping of Medicare's payment system is needed - especially for outpatient care that the government buys on a fee-for-service basis. AN alternative to saying no would be to encourage severely ill patients to choose hospice care, where the emphasis in treatment shifts from cure to quality of life. Patients are made to feel as comfortable as possible, and reducing pain takes precedence over radical procedures. At present, only about 1.6 percent of Medicare benefits pay for hospice care. Despite the less-intensive brand of treatment, hospice care may not be cheaper than hospital care. "The assessment of hospice has not indicated that it's a clear money-saver," Dr. Wilensky said. "It can be, but we don't have very good examples." And that lack of information should be the main target, said Dr. Meltzer, of the University of Chicago. "We just woefully underinvest in health-related research," he said. "The Medicare program has really very, very little money to fund research to help improve itself." He added that the savings from changing doctors' and patients' expectations about end-of-life care could be substantial. Gauging just how substantial, he said, was the most important first step: "Research that helps us better to understand that is going to have an absolutely immense return." From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:10:27 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:10:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Online News Hour: Shields and Brooks Analyze the Terri Schiavo Case Message-ID: Online NewsHour: Shields and Brooks Analyze the Terri Schiavo Case and the Nomination of Paul Wolfowitz -- March 18, 2005 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/jan-june05/sb_3-18.html [Only the Schiavo case is included.] a NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks discuss the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as the new World Bank president, the Terri Schiavo case and baseball's steroid problem. Jim Lehrer JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields & Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks. Mark, is this the kind of business the Congress of the United States should be involved in? MARK SHIELDS: Not this case, Jim, but I think it's a serious enough public question that there ought to be debate and consideration as just to what - you know, what guidelines we have so that each case doesn't become a circus like this. I mean, we're seeing a total role reversal right now. We're seeing conservatives saying "we got to go to the federal courts." They've been attributing -- the champions of states rights. The liberals have always fought for the federal intervention and have said "No, we ought to leave it to the state court." I think there are serious ethical questions here. Is this medical intervention, or is it ordinary treatment? And you get ethicists on both sides of all faiths on that. But if there's one thing that comes through in this, boy, it's every one of us ought to have explicit directives for end-of-life treatment for when and if this happens, I mean, because the tragedy of this is just in human terms, is enormous. JIM LEHRER: But what about the political intervention here, David? Do you support what the Republican leaders of the Congress are doing? DAVID BROOKS: I find myself in complete agreement with what Mark just said. On a case by case basis, I'm a little uncomfortable with Congress going in case by case. But I am supportive of the idea that these life and death issues should be settled politically and not judicially. Judicial or political intervention David Brooks JIM LEHRER: In other words, the judge in Florida should not be resolving this; there should be a federal law of some kind that would resolve this? DAVID BROOKS: Right. And I would say building off the abortion example, I mean, I personally believe if we had settled the abortion issue politically rather than judicially, we would have arrived at some sort of muddled solution, which was not either or and most Americans would be happy with it. And most Americans would regard it as a little more legitimate. And just people would feel happy with the law. And as with that birth issue, I think the same thing is true with this death issue. JIM LEHRER: But, David, this issue involving Terri Schiavo has been going on for seven years and Congress did nothing until issuing some subpoenas today. DAVID BROOKS: That's right. And there's an element of political grandstanding. But there's also an element of sincere belief. I mean, I'm personally sort of in the middle on this issue. I'm muddled. I confess I haven't really come to conclusions about this subject. But I do, just thinking about it, why does there seem to be a presumption toward the death option when the woman's parents are willing to take care of her? Why can't we have a law that says the presumption is toward life unless you sign something and there's something very concrete that's definable in a court of law saying "No, I don't want these measures taken?" To me there should be a presumption toward life but everyone have the right to sign something, which makes it very cut and dry. Mark Shields MARK SHIELDS: Jim, one thing, David used the term "grandstanding," which I think was probably kind. I went back and checked the files; Tom Delay had not spoken on this issue -- the House Republican Majority Leader, until Wednesday of this week. I mean, I think it's a great diversionary tactic for him. I don't think there's any question he identifies himself with Palm Sunday, that there are people of deep religious conviction who believe that this is totally wrong and that somehow he wants to divert attention. I don't think there's any question about it. And the idea of subpoenaing Terri Schiavo is a grandstand. But the issue remains, and I think David is right, a political resolution of the abortion issue would have resolved that. We were headed toward that on a state-by-state basis. Some states were going to legalize it under certain terms, others were going to legalize it totally in New York, and then we short circuited it by going to the courts. And I think this is a mistake here. From checker at panix.com Sun Mar 27 23:21:14 2005 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:21:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Schiavo Case Highlights Catholic-Evangelical Alliance Message-ID: National > Schiavo Case Highlights Catholic-Evangelical Alliance http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24relig.html March 24, 2005 [Another article should deal with the Evangeligal-Zionist alliance. Evangelicals are warm supporters of Israel, and explictly Jewish publications, like Commentary, have published articles questioning evolution. Others, like The Weekly Standard, feature both Evangelical and Zionist authors. Somehow, I suspect that Bill Kristol's dedication to pro-life issues is more tactical than sincere.] By LAURIE GOODSTEIN The powerful outcry over Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose case has provoked a national debate over whether she should live or die, is a testament to the growing alliance of conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals who have found common cause in the "culture of life" agenda articulated by Pope John Paul II. In their fight to keep their daughter alive, Ms. Schiavo's parents, who are Catholics, have been backed by an ad hoc coalition of Catholic and evangelical lobbyists, street organizers and legal advisers like the Rev. Frank Pavone, the Catholic priest who runs a group called Priests for Life and evangelical Protestants like Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, and the Rev. Pat Mahoney of the National Clergy Council. The struggle is only the latest indication of a strengthening religious alliance between denominations that were once bitterly divided. Evangelical leaders say they frequently lean on Catholic intellectuals like Robert George at Princeton University and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things, to help them frame political issues theologically. An increasing number of Catholics hold crucial staff positions in some of the religious conservative groups that lobby Washington. And conservative Catholics and evangelicals meet weekly in Virginia with a broad array of right-leaning lobbyists. "The idea of building a culture that values human life is a Catholic articulation, but it echoes in the hearts of many people, evangelicals and others," said William L. Saunders Jr., director of the Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council in Washington. "It was articulated by John Paul II, who is a great hero to pro-life people, regardless of their church," said Mr. Saunders, who is among the Catholics working at an organization founded by or affiliated with evangelicals. The "culture of life" language has been widely adopted by conservative politicians. President Bush said in a news conference yesterday that government must "err on the side of life" in making every effort to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. The Catholics and evangelicals first joined forces in the anti-abortion movement. And their alliance has now extended to include promoting sexual abstinence education and opposing stem-cell research and euthanasia. It is an array of issues they link under the rubric of "respect for the sanctity of life," whether that life is an "unborn baby" or an unresponsive patient lying in a hospice bed. "Who can judge the dignity and sacredness of the life of a human being, made in the image and likeness of God?" asked the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, on Monday, commenting on the Schiavo situation. "Who can decide to pull the plug as if we were talking about a broken or out-of-order household appliance?" Burke J. Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, said the religious alliance on the Schiavo case had also been given a great boost by disability rights organizations that saw Ms. Schiavo as a disabled American deserving legal protection. Joni Eareckson Tada, a quadriplegic who runs Joni and Friends, an evangelical ministry for disability rights in Los Angeles, said: "When you look at those videotapes, you are unable to rule out that she is in some way conscious or cognizant. When reasonable doubts like that are raised, we who are disabled believe her condition should be exhaustively investigated." Historically, the Catholic and evangelical alliance is very new. Less than half a century ago, Catholics and evangelicals still shared little but a history of mutual contempt and mistrust. When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, evangelical leaders sent out a letter to Protestant pastors asking them to preach against him, arguing that as a Catholic, his true allegiance was to Rome. It was only 11 years ago that a group of evangelical and Catholic leaders and theologians released a groundbreaking statement, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," drafted after a series of unusual meetings. While the document treated primarily theological issues, it said that evangelicals and Catholics could unite on a broad social agenda that included "pro-life" issues, strengthening the family and government support for religious schools. Now the alliance of evangelicals and Catholics is among the most powerful forces molding American politics. Last year, conservative evangelicals cheered when a handful of Catholic bishops said that Senator John Kerry, the Catholic who was the Democratic presidential nominee, should not take communion because of his stance on abortion. Mr. Bush courted evangelical and Catholic voters in 2004 and benefited from their mobilization. But