Did Any Of The Reeps Grasp Obama's Message?

It is incredible that so many believe in "the Flynn effect" which insists IQs of average humans today are inexorably increasing when the evidence is all around us that this is a myth. Most people don't even possess the basic thinking skills to parse BS from fact, and too many are misled by screechifying, splenetic idiots into reinforcing their bombastic tropes. WHERE is the evidence for higher IQs? I don't see it!

As a case in point, with all the huff and puff from the Republicans based on braggadocio and playing upon people  with weak minds,  the latter appear to believe there's a Muslim terrorist behind every door and their kills are whoppingly large. The most high profile Reep in this regard is Donald Trump whose "strongman shtick and nonchalance over the beating of a protestor" as well as his "zeal for waterboarding" caused The Economist (Nov. 28-Dec. 4, p. 24) to pronounce Trump:

"giving off an incipient whiff of bouffant fascism".

Couldn't have said it better! I also like that "bouffant' touch given I label him "the Donna".

 The facts, as spelled out in a front page NY Times editorial two days ago,  say the opposite to the hysteria 'the Donna' and his collaborators are sowing, e.g.:

"The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks -- 45 people -- is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies.... And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period.”

Now, any dumbo even with zero math background can surely see that 200,000 >> 45! I mean, how hard can this be? And that greater number was accomplished by high powered weapons and handguns, almost all legally sold with the benediction of the NRA. So don't hand me any bollocks that we are "safer" from terrorists because we can own an AR-15 or Bushmaster .223 when we are fucking killing each other at a rate more than 4,400 times that which the terrorists are!

So why isn't this being processed? There are two possible reasons: 1) Americans are prevented from knowing the facts, the stats and hence don't process the ridiculous difference in threat, and 2) their reptilian brains have taken control and they are being ruled by atavistic emotions more than reason. Well, when you read some of their hysterical, reactionary blogs - or even comments on forums like The Financial Times (in which I was called a "statist traitor troll" yesterday by a dunce nicknamed "Trollbo" for god's sake, for mentioning the loophole in the gun laws permitting those on the no fly list to buy AR-15s).. Don't these jackasses hear in their minds' ears how they sound? Are they mentally tone deaf? This is not a matter of "free speech" - but of being responsible and mature enough to use one's right to free speech in a responsible way!

In respect to (2), I note it was Arthur Koestler in his 'Ghost in the Machine' who first elaborated on the "paleocortex" as the most primitive region of the brain, harboring the most primitive impulses including territoriality, conquest, lust, and tribal demarcations, i.e. explaining the current yen to isolate and ostracize Muslim Americans from the rest of us. It was Carl Sagan, in his 'Dragons Of Eden', who made similar points by referencing the "R-complex". And it was Robert Ornstein in his 'Evolution of Consciousness" who noted the reptilian region of the brain as a regressed "simpleton". This was as part of his general theory of brain dynamics based on the "simpleton" concept, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/secret-lives-of-brain-been-there-done.html

Well, it appears that the response to President Obama's speech last night (on American reaction to  San Bernardino and ISIL) shows a plurality of Americans are operating with their reptilian brains as opposed to their higher brains (the neocortex). The GOP response especially shows that they are either all under the spell of regressive collective simpletons, or the R-complex.

None of them grasped, for example, that part of Obama's speech DID embody security strategy, namely warning us not to treat fellow Americans differently because they are Muslims. Not calling them "ragheads" or using other hateful epithets. Why? Because it simply is stupid and doesn't redound to our national security interests. Indeed, as he explained, "this is just what ISIL" wants. This "cult of thugs" which represents an extreme end of Islam, profits handsomely when it can tell all Muslims living here in the U.S. they are not wanted. This then can pave the way for them to acknowledge it, as when they're called "ragheads" or worse on social media posts, thereby justifying (in their minds ) waging jihad. After all, what are they gaining from living amongst us? Only hate and predjudice.

Neither have these boneheads grasped that dispatching large numbers of Americans into another ground war is not the answer. Yet in a poll presented on CBS Early Show 53 % of Americans want Americans sent in for a ground force invasion.  And some seriously buy that these morons are the beneficiaries of the "Flynn Effect" - which I already dissed in an earlier post, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-flynn-effect-are-we-all-becoming.html

In respect of ground forces being used on ISIS, as I noted in my post of Nov. 16:

"the U.S. should stay out of such a ground war, for various reasons including we've already started enough of them with zero success, the question emerges as WHO should undertake it. (Note when I say 'stay out' I only mean only in terms of dispatching tens of thousands of ground pounders, but support and logistics advisors are a different matter, and perhaps small strike teams such as recently rescued ISIS prisoners in Iraq who were about to be slaughtered).

But the main thrust must come from: the Muslim nations in the region. They'd be fortified by two legitimate "outsiders",   Russia and France - the most recent ISIS victims. (Also their peoples would be most likely to support a ground invasion after what happened to their fellow citizens.)  Other NATO members from the EU may also join in support by invoking a NATO clause that "an attack on one is an attack on all"

The problem with the U.S. mounting a unilateral ground war invasion is that we'd then be seen as marshalling a "crusade" against Islam - and instead of just having the thugs of ISIS against us, we'd have the entire Muslim world and Islam. How hard can this be to drive through the brains of Americans? Well, pretty difficult if they are operating at reptilian brain level.

People need to force their brains to act in accord with their higher cognitive centers in this time of terror hype and ramped up hysteria over remote risks, and not allow themselves to be pawns for demagogues or histrionic bloggers. This means that reason must be in the forefront of how we deal with the world today, and that includes processing that we are slaughtering far more of each other with easily purchased lethal weapons than the radical Muslims are.

That means, btw, that the probability of being shot and killed by a fellow American is far greater than being killed in an Islamic massacre such as happened in San Bernardino! People need to bear that in mind before allowing their reptilian brains to seize control and go ballistic.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/65150/gutless-wonders-america-gladly-thrusts-its-neck-under-the-jackboot

'Al Jazeera America' - Will 'Muricans Be Too Spooked by the Name to Watch?

'Al Jazeera'- the very name probably dredges up fear and loathing in most of the American population who exhibit suspicion about anything remotely Muslim-sounding, especially a news network. And especially since 9/11. The aftermath of the fear and paranoia meme still looms large.

And so it was as we tuned into the first news broadcast last night, wifey sat in her recliner with a certain amount of trepidation. While her knuckles weren't white, she did express reservations: "Why are YOU watching that station? Why can't we just stick with ABC and Diane Sawyer?" Well, uh, because I want to get a different slant and emphasis on the news, not just the corporate brainwashing.

This isn't new! It's also why I often tuned into the Russian news while in Germany. You got a more balanced perspective, and you saw things the American broadcast networks left out. Like the huge anti-fracking demonstrations, protests around the world. But coddled, brainwashed Americans at home probably believed there were hardly any protests at all. They might even believe based on network news broadcasts from ABC, NBC, CBS that most of the world accepts it.

Anyway, as the news came on, Janice might have half expected a raving Muslim madman named Ali Abu Akhbar to pop onto the screen and begin screaming anti-American epithets and propaganda. She held her breath, I didn't hold mine because I knew the network - despite the name-  wasn't as the lamos and numb nuts portrayed it.

And so who appeared on the screen? Was it Ali Abu screaming his head off 'Death to America!'?

Nope. It was John Siegenthaler, former long time NBC and MSNBC  news host and now the anchor for Al Jazeera America.  The lead off segment? A piece on how cheap clothing being made in places like Bangladesh is undermining the welfare of people living in such poor nations. This was followed by a segment on the fires being fought in Idaho and Calif. and then the cut off of military aid to Egypt. Later an in depth piece on force-feeding prisoners in California and the excessive use of solitary confinement.

No screaming propaganda, just more in depth reporting and taking longer for each segment, as opposed to the facile, sound bite 2 minutes allotted on corporate American network news. Which, frankly, I believe contributes to Americans' shrinking attention spans.

Most segments were also followed by more in depth discussion to allow better insight. For example, following the Egypt segment Siegenthaler interviewed a prof from Brooklyn College who stated emphatically aid should be got off because too much was going to "American defense corporations".

Also, the Egyptian military didn't warrant such aid after what it had done, already killing over a thousand Egyptians.

Even better, the irritating advert frequency that drives one to distraction on the regular corporate networks wasn't noticeable at all.  One ad (mainly for 'AJ America' itself) every 20 minutes, as opposed to every 6 minutes. And Lordy! NO prescription DRUG ads! No Cialis! No Viagra! No whatever.....

It was refreshing to say the least. On the next program, 'Considering This' we saw how cholera deaths continue in Haiti, with 8, 000 this year so far. And up to now the UN has not admitted any responsibility, thereby delaying monetary assistance, despite the evidence being overwhelming that Nepalese peace keepers brought it with them - since the disease had never been widespread in the country before. See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/11/haitian-cholera-outbreak-of-nepalese.html

Then on 'Real Money'   one learned of the problems to be faced by those living in poorer states such as Mississippi (which ranks 50th in obesity control, and 50th in infant morality) when the Affordable Care Act (ACA or 'Obamacare') comes on stream.  The primary problem? Too few doctors! In fact, by 2020 the nation will have 45,000 fewer family primary care physicians with the shortage worst in states like MS.

The only alternative the people living in the Mississippi  Delta have is to rely on medics returning from Iraq, Afghanistan. As one MS official noted, no professional who studied years to get a medical education would want to come to such a state.

As for insurance premiums, they are likely to rise for a majority of Americans since Obamacare actually cuts back on federal support for insurance companies, i.e. in treating less healthy folks, figuring that enough people will sign up to pay for all. But this is doubtful. With all the anti- ACA propaganda out there, it is more likely too many will opt out. Also the penalties for opting out are way too low.

Al Jazeera America deserves a fair chance and hopefully more Americans will check it out. As its broadcast motto goes:

"More viewpoints, more stories, more of what Americans want to know."

Oh, and fewer commercials!

Al Jazeera America bought out Al Gore's 'Current TV' and is now on that channel (358) on Direct TV. Readers will have to check their own cable or Dish TV offerings to locate it.