Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Pats Dispatch Tebow - Hopefully No More "Tebowing" in Our NFL Future!

 Tim Tebow is now gone from the NFL ranks, at least for now - and let us hope forever. While his Xtianoid groupies may be saddened they'll see no more "Tebowing" - the rest of us are delighted. We had had enough of his sanctimony, and also hypocrisy - thanking the Lord and praising him after a 'W' - but delivering nary a tweet after a loss. What? "Satan" caused your losses?

Robert Kraft, NE Patsies'  owner explained yesterday on CBS Early Show why the kid's time was up. He was diplomatic saying: "Well, we've only really ever used two quarterbacks and we already have them." But the real reason as anyone who's into football knows, is that Tebow - aside from some option tricks- didn't have the ball skills to consistently beat NFL secondaries ....or D-linemen.

The Patriots taking Tebow in the first place was somewhat astonishing, given that back in December, 2011 they laid on a big time butt whuppin'. See the image below of one of the many sacks Tebow took at the Pats' hands:


As I wrote on a blog post back then:

"Patriots 41, Broncos, 23. Praise the Lord and pass the humble pie!"

And recall Dan Shaughnessy's (of The Boston Globe's)  remarks the next day:

"A simplistic, throw-back offense isn't enough to exchange scores or keep pace against Patriots quarterback Tom Brady , a thoroughly 21st century man.
Sorry, Tim Tebow. Your time never arrived."

Indeed! Meanwhile, Tom Brady - a real QB - sadistically picked apart an outmanned Broncos' secondary - almost like a necrotic kid ripping off a fly's wings and legs one by one. Brady completed 23 of 34 for 320 yards, two touchdowns and zero interceptions. And he had a 1-yard rushing touchdown, followed by a menacing spike, in the second quarter that put the Pats up, 24-16 after they had once trailed, 16-7.

At the point of that spike, Brady was heard by many fans in the stadium to scream:

"Take that! You Tebow Maniacs!"

Here he is in mid-Yell:

Let's also get straight that many Denver Broncos' fans were themselves embarrassed by the overt, holier-than-thou baloney coming from Tebow. It so turned some fans off that they actually took the time to pen letters to the Denver Post, averring they were changing allegiance - to the Kansas City Chiefs!

Now, that is a pretty gross downer and state of disappointment. Of course, meanwhile, the Colorado Christians were pumping Tebow's saintliness until it stuck in just about every normal person's craw. Thankfully, at the end of the 2011 season, Tebow was sent packing to the Jets, where he became a media darling of the dumbo set, but never really delivered more than a few offensive tricks as the Jests slid back.

Again, it was strange and odd beyond belief the Pats took Tebow, given what they exposed of his weaknesses two years back. One can only surmise that Bill Belichick thought he could somehow remake the guy into a real pocket passer - but in practices likely discovered it was a lost cause.

A Tom Brady, Joe Flacco or Aaron Rodgers, he ain't.

We do wish Tim well, and hey - perhaps a college coaching job or some other similar gig (HS coach in Gainesville, FL) is in his future. But I am fairly certain no other NFL team will pick him up before the season begins - which is tomorrow,  but technically not until Sunday when most teams face off. While Tebow did win the Heisman, his tricks simply weren't adequate to spell success in the harder hitting, more remorseless NFL. When one of is glorifiers writes his autobiography that's what they ought to keep in mind.



Tuesday, September 3, 2013

PETA to Pregnant Women: "NO BUFFALO WINGS for YOU!"


Grown up guys who scarf down Buffalo wings have to worry too! The cholesterol will wreck your male machinery! According to PETA

PETA - the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - is now in the midst of a new campaign, warning pregnant women to steer clear of Buffalo wings (the favorite finger food fare of football lovers) warning that buffalo wings might harm the physical development of the sex organs of male babies. In other words, if pregnant women are foolish enough to gobble them during a game (like Thursday night's Broncos- Ravens game) they will have males who grow up to have small penises!

Apparently, PETA recently sent a letter to Drew Cerza, who runs the Buffalo Wing Festival in Buffalo, New York, asking him to bar pregnant women from taking part in a wing-eating contest which has been held each Labor Day since 2002. Lindsay Rajt, director of the PETA campaigns, wrote to Cerza saying “consuming poultry while pregnant may lead to birth defects in utero, including smaller-than-average penises for newborn boys.” And, of course, that means they're likely to grow up with smaller than average penises. Rajt added:

"“Chickens may be little animals, but they suffer in a big way before their wings are hacked off for a stupid contest.”

Barring the emotive issue of butchery to do with any animal consumption, how do the health experts at PETA know that consuming Buffalo wings will have the effect they claim?

Basically, they have disclosed they know little or nothing. In fact, the primo culprit in shrinking or deforming male penises in the womb is the chemical group known as phthalates.  Author Nena Baker (Body Toxic, 2008) observes :

"Researchers have associated high levels of phthalates with lower sperm motility in adult men and one study has correlated phthalates with abdominal obesity and insulin resistance in men"

She also notes:

"Researchers have seen a high association between levels of maternal phthalate metabolites - seen in about 25% of U.S. women - and effects on ASD or ano-genital distance in male offspring"

In the later case, the ASD is decreased - sometimes radically. She also notes increased prevalence of shrunken penises and hypospadia in male fetuses.  And where are these phthalates found? She gives a list of the sources, none of which are buffalo wings:

 personal care products, lotions, soaps, cosmetics etc.

- detergents

-vinyl flooring

- adhesives

-building materials

- plastic bags

- food packaging

-garden hoses

- inflatable recreational toys (including ALL sex toys!)
In other words, just about every single product or thing Americans use.

According to Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., a professor in the department of preventive medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who conducted the research PETA cites:

"I think any link between eating buffalo wings—even by pregnant women—and the size of their son’s genitals is very tenuous,” (Oh, btw, PETA also warns those of us of the male gender not to go wild eating hot wings either, since "the cholesterol in them will clog up arteries and lead to erectile dysfunction." What is all this preoccupation with the operation of the male sexual machinery?)

Of course, PETA has been on the rampage before - about milk, for example. They generated an intense campaign a couple of years ago, including an over the top video ("Milk Gone Wild") featuring gyrating young women equipped with giant udders,  dancing in a club  and  spurting milk all over the place to the delight of delirious males lapping it up. The point they wanted to try to get over is that cow's milk is bad for you and they paired the "Got Milk?" ads via parodies against "Got Prostate Cancer?", "Got Gas?", "Got Pus?" and other high impact PR, imagery.

To see the video - if you can stomach it- locate it here:

http://www.peta.org/tv/videos/vegetarianism-cows/1389647429001.aspx


Don't say I didn't warn you !

Why Young People Are Losing Out on Jobs: Too Many Old Farts Still Working!


Question: In a low aggregate demand environment, where companies continue to sit on over $1.5 trillion in capital, and young people are struggling to find jobs, is it: a) better for the over 60 citizens to work longer, or (b) deliver more generous Social Security and other support benefits (i.e. earlier Medicare) to enable an earlier retirement so young people can get jobs?

Hint: It's not a trick question! The stats presented in a detailed article of the Business section of the Sunday Denver Post show that young people in the age range from 19-24 are being clobbered in the employment game, and because oldsters are staying on longer - presumably because they are (or feel) financially insecure.

According to the Post ('Young, Old Poles Apart in Shrinking Workforce', p. 1K), referring to Colorado (which stats are also shown to be extrapolated to most of the nation):

"Back in 2000, nearly half of 16 to 19 year olds were employed, and 8 of 10 of those from 20-24 worked. But in 2012, fewer than 3 in 10 teenagers worked and only 64.2% of those in their early 20s, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

At the other end of the demographic curve, employment among 55 to 64 year olds went from 60.8 percent to 64.8 percent over the same time period. Among those 65 and older it went from about 12 percent to 18.8 percent in 2012."

The Post piece goes on to note that since jobs bottomed out in 2009, after the financial meltdown a year earlier, "workers age 55 and older have claimed nearly 3 out of every 4 new jobs created in the U.S. according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research."

Wow! Anyone not see a connection here? I do. Let's see what sort of model is this? How about a zero sum game?  Given a limited (or shrinking) number of jobs, then every job claimed or gained by an elder person is a job not attained (i.e. inaccessible)  for a younger person. In general. Yes, there will be some exceptions, mainly is certain elite areas like software engineering where new college grads may have an edge over any oldster. But given that the overall quantity and quality of jobs has decreased in the whole country, it is clear that those employers are more likely to hire the older, more experienced lot than the younger. This means, again - in a shrinking or limited 'pie' of jobs, the young don't have a chance.

Well, not unless we can get the oldsters to retire earlier. But to do that they need to feel more secure about their chances not less secure!  This means more generous Social Security benefits, earlier access to Medicare, and absolutely NO cuts including the 'Chained CPI". Oh, it obviously also means dropping this rot about "working until 70". In that case, look for even more kids sitting in their parents' basements playing SIMS or whatever as they while away their time, interspersed by a few part time gigs if they can get them.

To see the Neoliberal press for working to 70, check out:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100385655

Where one reads:

"Executives of the Business Roundtable are urging Congress to raise the Social Security and Medicare age eligibility to 70, from the current 67, and to adopt means testing for wealthier retirees, in order to keep the entitlement programs solvent longer-term"


Well, if you think that's unique see:

http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2012/07/09/why-you-should-plan-to-work-until-age-70

Quote:

"I think everybody needs to aim to work longer," says Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. "If everybody works about five years longer than they had planned, most people would find themselves with adequate retirement income."

But what is "adequate retirement income"? It isn't defined! (And note most Neoliberal sources - many fueled by the Pete Peterson gang, suggest $1 million needed to retire.)

Then, of course, there's the one percenters' favorite medium, FORBES:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryhannon/2012/07/11/why-you-should-plan-on-working-to-age-70/

"The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College reports in a new study titled: “National Retirement Risk Index: How Much Longer Do We Need to Work?”  that a whopping  85% of households would be prepared to retire by age 70."


The true fact is there'd be no need to demand or insist that the older citizen "work until 70" IF:

1) Congress stopped pilfering Social Security monies and using it for other nefarious purposes, like NSA spy "black budgets", or to appear to lower the amount of military spending

2) Congress paid back what it already pilfered, well over $2 trillion since 1983.

3) Congress ceased using wars and tax cuts as an indirect means to bleed down domestic social insurance.

If all the above were done, then Social Security benefits could be increased, as per the current left-base initiative to do so, e.g.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/313207-liberals-defy-obama-push-to-increase-social-security-benefits

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/increasing-social-securit_b_2659768.html

Also, the potential for offering Medicare earlier - say to seniors aged 63 -64 could be considered. I cite these ages because they highlight the two years many near seniors need health insurance but the private market offers only outrageous choices, such as paying $15,000 a year for a high deductible policy you can't invoke until after you've spent $5,000.

IF these things were done, more seniors would feel comfortable leaving the work force earlier - thereby opening the way for younger adults to get jobs they otherwise wouldn't. In a shrinking jobs landscape, where technology alone is rendering tens of thousands more workers redundant each year, this is the only near solution feasible.

The tragedy is that any such changes, thanks to our bought and paid for (by Peter G. Peterson et al)  austerity politicians, are about as likely to pass as the chance aliens will intervene at the last moment and stop the U.S. from attacking Syria and instigating WWIII. (Yeah, and that attack - along with probably many more - will chew up even more "borrowed" Social Security monies!)

 See also: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/tom-engelhardt/51415/and-then-there-was-one-delusional-thinking-in-the-age-of-the-single-superpower

Monday, September 2, 2013

What's A "Real Job"? Ans: It's A Phony Question!

Today, Labor Day we celebrate the American worker who - let us make no mistake - has become increasingly downtrodden as the Neoliberal idiom has ascended to the extent neither political party even mentions the working class anymore. You'd think everyone was "middle class"  - but that definition (thanks to the free market zealots) is becoming more eroded by the year.

Thanks to the Neoliberal Imperium governing this country - since I don't know- Kennedy was killed 50 yrs. ago and they could replace the Bretton Woods agreement with 'in your face globalization', every American worker is now competing with over a billion Indians, Chinese and others - all eager to work for less. That means more Americans working for less and toiling longer hours merely to keep heads above water. Fail to keep up and there are at least ten others waiting to grab your job. Meanwhile, service workers don't even have enough to pay rent and put bread on the table (e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/08/yes-give-those-fast-food-workers-living.html

and are rightfully protesting their menial, minimal wages which necessitate government dependency via food stamps, or getting Medicaid.


Their hardships provide fertile soil for the  necrophilous personalities (see previous blog) who have attempted to introduce yet another device for separation and rancor in our society. That is, trying to split people up according to who has held, or holds "real jobs" or does "real work" and those that (in their whacko perceptions) have not.  Because their base instincts are socially exclusive, not inclusive, their regressive minds can't see this is a phony issue, spreading a false dichotomy and that ALL jobs are real if done to the best of a worker's ability: that applies to whether one is a teacher, a university prof, a steel worker, a coal miner, a waitress, a fireman or fast food worker. And believe me, all jobs are real to the people that do them.

The necrotic personality isn't satisfied, however, and wants his audience to believe that only a certain subset of jobs are "real", mainly manual. But this is foolishness, especially since when he makes such claims it's doubtful his "universe of jobs actually held" is adequate to even compare one against another in his own experience. Hence, he's talking (or writing) bollocks.

Over some thirty years I've held a variety of  jobs at different times, from manual to totally brain-powered. For example, I have: worked  over a summer as a janitor at a college (to help pay for college expenses upcoming), and this entailed cleaning out messy dorm rooms, community bath rooms after the final term - including hefting 40 gallon trash cans and emptying them. So yeah, I know WTF manual work is like.  I have also worked (2 yrs.) at an oil company, mainly because I needed a break between sophomore and junior years at university. It was interesting and entailed splicing together geological sections, then placing fiduciary markers on them, timing lines, in order to show the depth and location of salt domes - where oil is likely to be found.

It is said that "Peace Corps is the toughest job you will ever love" and I found that to be true. Liberated from worry over the draft for an illegal war (by being classified 1Y by my draft board) I chose to go into Peace Corps after graduating from the University of South Florida with my astronomy degree.

My job, at a school 19 miles from where I lived (which was the most economical situation I could find on a $125 a month stipend) entailed waking up at  5: 30 a.m. each day to have breakfast, shower than be out by 6:30 to catch a bus into Bridgetown, then walk 1.5 miles to another bus stand - where I caught a bus to the school I taught, getting there by 8:30.  I then taught 7 classes, in General Science, Biology and Chemistry - with 35 kids each- including setting up the labs for each. By the end of my first term I was appointed Head of Science Dept.

In that position, and for the next 3 1/2 years I was in charge of ordering all lab equipment for the school, for all lab-based subjects (in other words Biology, Gen. Science and Chemistry), monitoring teacher performance and guiding new teachers, as well as teaching my own 35 classes a week, including marking hundreds of homework papers as well as lab reports (in three subjects) each week. Now, any fool who thinks that's "not a real job" can try it, and let me see if he manages to stay out of an asylum - especially teaching kids from comprehensive schools who are not to be confused with any kid from Harrison College, Eaton, or any U.S. private school.

Each day after my duties, I'd catch what's called a "pickup" - a truck with the rear fitted with wooden row seats on either side, for the 19 mile trip back to Bridgetown, then usually walk the 2.7 miles back to my abode. Once reaching there, do my marking and lesson plans for the next day, turn in by 9 p.m. and start again. (Peace Corps did not permit any Volunteer to own a motor vehicle).

In addition to my Peace Corps teaching assignment, I helped found the Barbados Philosophical Society, and wrote a weekly column for The Barbados Advocate, called 'Discovering the Stars'.

After Peace Corps, yes I taught in Barbados - both at secondary and tertiary level, which also entailed Head of Science positions, designing new courses and the like. At the University of the West Indies, I pursued solar research from a post-graduate grant given by the government of Barbados and wrote a number of academic papers on my findings.  E.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1983JRASC..77..203S

After several more academic positions, including at the University of Alaska and Harrison College, Barbados, I also worked for a radiotherapy software corporation as a technical writer and FDA specialist, mostly preparing large documents (called "510ks") that described the specifics of operation for a number of radiotherapy devices.  Among these were stereotactic radiosurgery software, e.g. to treat brain tumors, for which one had to ensure the 3D virtual coordinates X,Y,Z (say of a patient's) head  fit accurately to the actual 3D head. Even a 1 mm deviation would produce inaccurate targets and deliver radiation to the wrong sites. Preparing a proper 510k therefore had real life consequences!


I present all the above to show that the breadth of my work experience allows me to comment first hand on the nature of a variety of jobs - based on those I actually held- as opposed to blowing smoke out my ass over what I think a "real job" is or isn't - when I don't have enough experience to compare! (Like certain unnamed and semi-educated blowhard necrotics!)

Back to today's workers, being ground under by the Neoliberal market that never rests. As pointed out in an article in yesterday's Denver Post ('In New Culture of Work, the Job is Always At Hand'), it is clear the modern worker is always on a short tether and can never rest even when supposedly on vacation or on off hours.

As the Post notes: "For most people work will never look like it did before smart phones and virtual offices". Why? Well, because they can be called on anytime to appear and perform this or that duty or attend some meeting! No wonder American families are coming apart at the seams. 

According to one researcher from the Families and Work Institute: "It's almost a multi-tasking way of living".  But maybe people aren't cut out for such multi-tasked living which explains why up to 46% of Americans are suffering some form of mental illness and nine million have to take Ambien each night.

The article adds:

"Employers have reduced options that allow employees to spend significant amounts of time away from full time work. For example, companies that allow sabbaticals dropped to 2 percent in 2012 from 49 percent in 2005."

Also cut down is telecommuting, which is the most rational and cost effective way to conserve our energy resources, mainly consumed by commuting back and forth - wasting time in a car (up to one hour a day for many) when one could be working at home. But.....American employers don't seem to trust their employees not to goof off, demanding  "face time" despite the fact the evidence shows telecommuters are more productive.

Oh, employers aren't total Scrooges! They will "allow longer work days so workers can take care of family or personal needs without loss of pay".

In other words, you can put in 13 hours a day - but hey, you will get to spend some time with family!Besides, the problem is having to switch attention and priorities at the drop of a hat. You go to take your kid to a soccer game in the afternoon then by 5.30 p.m. have to report back to work to check email and attend to the assigned tasks. WTF kind of life, or work is that? It's nonsense! Pay the workers properly, let them freakin' OFF by 5: 30 then they can kick back with family for the rest of the evening.  Better yet, have shorter work weeks as they do in France. 32 hours instead of 45 or 50, or 60! A six hour plus day will then allow them to attend kids' soccer games and spend other needed family time - to try to keep families together as opposed to being hostage to an over the top work culture.

But see, all of this is way too rational for American corporate employers who begrudge the very need for human workers as it is, given they have to cough up for health insurance and maybe match 401ks. They don't want to do that and as one corporate honcho put it: "In the ideal company, we have no flesh and blood workers at all, so we have sky high profits!"

One guy quoted in the article claimed his job demands were so tight he even had to "bring his pager and cell phone to the movie theater".

Yeah, well, better not let them go off once the flick starts, or many theaters (e.g. Cinemark) will march you right out. Just saying!

This, despite according to a recent Pew poll 50 percent of working dads and 56 percent of working moms said it was "very difficult to balance work and family".

Can Americans rebel? Hardly! Because the ever present specter of unemployment looms large over them and their remorseless work days. Screw up or slack off and it's to the unemployment lines they go. As the article puts it:

"The employer knows he can set any standard he wants, and often that's not great for the worker"

To put some stats on the issue, the article notes that a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that between 2005 and 2011 the number of households with children under 18 that had at least one parent unemployed increased by 33 percent."

Of course, these stats and the surplus labor pool  (unemployed) that puts employers in the catbird seat, shows why we need to reduce the birth rate. Just remember every single birth represents a future new worker who will need a job but more than likely will increase the surplus labor pool - allowing employers, corporations to dictate any slave terms they want. Want it to change? Start by having fewer kids, or better, none!


Sunday, September 1, 2013

More On The Necrophilous Personality

The ultimate necrophilous personality: Adolf Hitler. His "mama's boy" complex made him necrotic.

We continue now to explore more of what Erich Fromm called the "Necrophilous personality" to try to understand what makes it tick. We owe it to Harvey Hornstein in his book 'Cruelty & Kindness: A New Look At Altruism and Aggression' for elaborating the internal dynamics of this personality and also tying it inextricably to conservative and authoritarian tendencies. For example, noting on page 40 that "conservatives have much greater social responsibility to others of their own kind, than to those different from themselves."


This aspect of negative social exclusivity  is also why you can immediately recognize the necrotic person by his putdowns of all those he considers inferior or weaker than himself.  In most cases he will assert his type is invariably "stronger", "tougher", "more moral", more "law abiding",  "more patriotic" than those "hippies", "libtards", "black apes", "homos", "c*nts", "ragheads", "gooks"  etc.  Look for the model necrotic in Adolf Hitler, who - when Operation Barbarossa began to falter  (because the supply lines were over extended during the Russian winter), resorted to insulting the manhood of his generals,  ordering them not to retreat under any circumstances. Hitler, as Hornstein noted, was actually a "muttersohnchen" ("mama's boy")  though he postured a tough, authoritarian, no nonsense bravado. But he could afford to because it wasn't his life on the line, like those of the Wehrmacht troops starving while on the march in the Soviet Union.


 But where does the hatred present in the present day necrotics'  blogs and images come from? What sort of interior viper's nest hatches them? Hornstein cites (p. 41) Gordon Allport:

"Hate results from the mishandling of frustration and deprivation that have been allowed to disintegrate the very core of the ego. If this view is correct, the development of mature democratic personalities is largely a matter of building inner security. "

  Note what he is getting at here: that there is in this person's life a certain amount of frustration (maybe he's waiting for S.S. disability or something - but hasn't received it) and considers this like a personal deprivation, limiting him maybe to a tight budget and food stamps - when he'd prefer not to go that route. This ongoing deprivation and frustration then triggers an inner rage manifested say in his putdowns and hate scribblings, but which really represents a disintegration of the ego.

 In other words, his self-identity, who he thinks he is. In this light - when ego disintegrates- it's also interesting to see that past behaviors become undone and are no longer practiced, while more virulent ones are. Thus, for example, prior to the ego disintegration he may have been a more or less a religious person: quoting the Bible,  invoking Jesus, God or whatever, but now no longer does so. Indeed, his sermonizing is now replaced by steady hate and more f-bombs and insults per paragraph than Dennis Leary could deliver in a one night monologue. Most unusual, he isn't aware himself of how his persona has toxically mutated - but on reading Hornstein and Fromm we understand that the "worm" was hidden in the core of the apple, rotting it from the inside, all along.  Most of it stemming from an unresolved Oedipus complex.

Hornstein's profile of the necrotic personality (p. 41) is especially chilling:

"(These) intolerant, prejudiced, authoritarian people are ill at ease. The baggage of their youth is filled with inescapable hates and fears. Mistrusting their own impulses, they are wary of others and the impulses they might possess. Their world becomes a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized because it is filled with human beings who harbor the 'evil' that they painfully learned to deny in themselves."

He goes on to note that "socially inclusive people are different". For example, they are more likely to join the Peace Corps for the edification of their fellow man in a constructive social environment, than to  join the military, say to learn the black arts of assassination, at Ft. Bragg, NC or the US Army's 'School of the Americas' (assassin) school in Ft. Benning, Georgia.

The hardened necrotics are also more likely to put down the socially inclusive persons as "fairies", "sissies", or some other  masculine denigrating epithet when they - more than likely (from the psych profiles Hornstein notes) can't get it up, period, so have to use guns as penis substitutes. As comedian George Carlin once put it, in a 1992 appearance at NYC Beacon Theater: "What's a war anyway other than two nations trying to see who has the bigger dick, by firing dick-shaped objects at each other!"

Why are socially inclusive people more likely to join Peace Corps? Well, as Hornstein puts it (ibid.) they are: "more tolerant of differences, so bonds of WE are more prevalent than barriers of THEY." I mean think of it. The fact the PC volunteer is going to another country - much less developed and with people that likely look much different, including skin color- means one must fit this sort of tolerant profile in order to make it, whether in Barbados, the Phillippines or Africa. Hornstein solidifies this case by observing that:

"A steady stream of evidence has tied persoality traits associated with this behavior (tolerance- open to 'WE' bonds) and social orientation to selfless behavior."

On the other hand, a necrotic, who has to look over his shoulder every ten seconds because he distrusts everyone and isn't secure in his own person - is lost without his  substitute penis Glock-  would never make it. He'd wash out the first week, or first day. The socially exclusive  necrotic is just too aggressive, ready to punch someone out at the slightest provocation, to be of use either in socially constructive volunteering (soup kitchens, Peace Corps, Teach for America, Homeless shelters) or fulfilling the duty of democratically mature citizens, and hence improving the country by making it a more tolerant place.

But this is where the  "democratic maturity" of citizens noted by Allport comes in. If we have only necrophilous personalities then we will have immature and aggressive societies and nations.  We will also have immature politicians and leaders more inclined to solve difficult problems by military response than mature state craft.  We have to be prepared to pull more people into our orbits than the necrotics can get into theirs. Unless we prefer a nation replete with serial killers, war mongers and psychotics.

WHY The Need for so many Military Attacks? It's the Defense Contracts, Stupid!


On the ABC Sunday Morning discussion program with George Stephanopoulos, Mideast  correspondent Martha Radditz noted Obama must proceed cautiously on the Syrian front because he will need another war authorization "in a few months" for an attack on Iran. SAY WHAT?! An attack on Iran? What is this bullshit? How many attacks are we going to be making in the volatile Middle East? Has this country totally lost its fucking marbles?

Actually no, okay let me qualify that! There is method to the madness. The method is that the more conflicts, attacks that can be expedited the more ordinance, bombs, cruise missiles, etc. are destroyed in the process of attacking and hence the more additional ordnance, bombs, cruise missiles etc. have to be manufactured to replace them! Can't have any inventory building up on the defense contractors' shelves, now can we? Oh no! That would mean loss of profits and also, god forbid, that the products already manufactured are sitting there being wasted and unused.  The idea - as with all consumption  - is use, use, USE ....so more have to be manufactured and more paid for!

This is the dirty little secret of our "war" economy highlighted by the key graphic shown above, disclosing how much of the budget the military industrial complex sucks up annually.  Here's another dirty little secret about the "sequester": there are no real cuts to military spending in any absolute terms, but only an estimated "trim down" of roughly 23% in the projected INCREASES in Pentagon spending over the next ten years!

The point here? Contrary to the bloviators' bollocks of "jeopardizing national security", just the opposite is true: the Pentagon base budget will still be larger than it is today by 2021! This necessarily means, given the zero sum resources we have, everyone else will be much poorer. That means an even more shattered and useless infrastructure with crumbling roads, cracking sewer and water mains and collapsing bridges....and a much more likely intolerable domestic environment over all.

Meanwhile, you can just imagine the weapons makers having wet dreams now over this Syria thing. At last a believable excuse has been found in some Youtube images of gassed Syrian civilians to justify firing a thousand Tomahawks at those Syrian bad guys - and letting God sort them out.  He will have to, because there likely will be as much collateral damage - with maybe twice the number as killed in the gas attack, as Syrian forces annihilated.......errrrr.....punished. 

Oh yeah, let's bear in mind it's a "limited strike" maybe a few days at most, maybe 300 or so Tomahawks in all. But what no one is admitting is they will have to go in again if another gas attack takes place, no matter who did it - including al Qaeda operatives trying to snag us into another expensive, long drawn out war. Sounds almost like Oceania in George Orwell's '1984' - endless war, but the purpose of which is not to win...not anything but (in the immortal words of "Goldstein"):

"War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. "

But bear in mind, unstated by Goldstein, is that any kind of war - or even a limited attack as Obama claims he has planned for Syria - has the ancillary purpose of requiring additional stores of munitions, missiles, bombs, etc. to take the place of those destroyed in the attacks - hence means more defense contracts and more profits for the Pentagon-linked parasites who are sucking us all dry. And if more chemical attacks are committed by whatever bad guys? Well, that means we have to go in again and use up more cruise missiles so that when they are blown up, more will need to be made to replace them! And on and on it goes! Since, hell, once in for a penny, we're in for a pound. As long as any sort of "violations of international norms" occur, we will have to come back and bomb the suckers again!

And then, oh yes, a major assault on Iran lies in our future! Think of how those defense contractors must be having orgasmic spasms right now contemplating the new contract bounty from THAT! Hell, maybe 10,000 bombs and cruise missiles will have to be replaced!  And HEY! Since Iranian underground nuclear facilities are fortified with "ultra-high performance concrete" (UHPC) that means the most expensive bombs (at about $5m each) will have to be used!

These, of course, are the Massive Ordinance Penetrators ("MOPS' ), which can break through 60 m of ordinary concrete, but will not necessarily be a walk in the park. That means that an enormous supply will likely have to be available, and also if all those are used up, maybe 1,000 more will have to be made. Oy! Think of the profits!

Well, it is fairly clear who wins in each of these attack scenarios, and hint, hint, it ain't the American people. It will be the MIC and the defense profiteers.

Meanwhile, the American nation is sped into further decline especially if the debt ceiling isn't properly increased next month, but we face yet another showdown.

 Btw, contrary to what some uninformed dummies assert, the 'Commander in chief' is really only a puppet who ultimately must fulfill the will of the militarists who run the Military Industrial Complex.  Their main agenda is consuming the gross domestic product for military use and they will have it done one way or the other.  Read the book, In The Shadow of War, by Michael S. Sherry. JFK's courageous mistake was to buck the militarists by issuing National Security Action Memorandum 263 (to pull all personnel out of Vietnam by 1965), and he paid the ultimate price.

Can We Avoid the "Herd Mentality" This Time Around? Can We Avoid Committing Rational Evil?


Hillary Mann Leverett, professor at American University, came out swinging with facts and intelligence this morning on Steve Kornacki's 'UP' show, that again- we have no business barging into Syria - which effects would arguably be even more catastrophic and dunning than those from barging into Iraq. And whether we're talking "limited strikes" for "two days" or not.

As Prof. Leverett observed, the current drumbeat is "strikingly similar to the lead up to the war in Iraq" and Prof. Leverett ought to know as she was in the Bush White House and also dealing with Congressional Democrats, and with members of the media. She goes on:

"The herd mentality which took over to buy into the Bush administration's narrative that Saddam had to have chemical weapons of mass destruction and was determined to use them, was something unquestioned. ....it was not only a mistake, it was based on manufactured evidence. Here, no one is asking this basic question except our friends in Moscow: 'What if Assad didn't order this? What if this wasn't a Syrian troop chemical attack. What if this was perpetrated by al Qaeda affiliated oppositionists. The consequences here for going into Syria are even more grave than Iraq. Because if we go into Syria and the al Qaeda groups get away with mass chemical warfare- and that's what happened - and we think they're going to stop there - that's the definition of insanity."

But perhaps the country has been in the throes of national insanity since the 1991 Gulf War and ditching the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome"- which up until then had instilled forbearance in our leaders for taking precipitous military action. After that happened, we got "humanitarian" interventions in Somalia (with disastrous results - merely converting it into a rogue state) and Bosnia, which then led the Clinton cruise missile attack in Sudan - which actually struck a pharmaceutical factory and culminating in the lawless invasion of a sovereign state in Iraq. The latter technically no different from the Nazi  blitzkrieg invasion of Poland in 1939 - which also employed the ruse of Polish terror to justify it.

Maybe people need to read 'The Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein, or the essay by Henry Giroux, 'The Politics of Cruelty - America's Descent Into Madness' . The problem, of course, is if the political structure has descended into a putative madness, there will be only a few citizens with the insight to see it and the spine to point it out. This very probability makes the "herd mentality" referenced by Prof. Leverett an ongoing reality.

Anyway, back to the 'UP' program. Kornacki interrupted at one point to ask:

"What would be the evidence?" and adding, "John Kerry put a lot of evidence on the table."

To which Prof. Leverett responded: "Compared to Colin Powell, it's a joke!"

Prof. Leverett then pointed out that the Russians and Chinese didn't pull their people out but went to the last chemical weapons attack sites in March. What did they find? According to her:

"They did forensics on the ground themselves and found two striking things which have not been covered here in the press at home: One was that the rockets used to deliver those chemicals were home made rockets. Not military or industrially produced. The other thing they found is that the sarin was not military ordnance or industrially produced, it didn't include stabilizers. So maybe the Russians have a point."

Well, I would say that sane people have a point and anyone claiming not to be foolish would again have to ask: 'Cui bono?' WHO benefits? Would it be Assad, or al Qaeda oppositionists, just itching to get the U.S. involved to help them neuter Assad so they can take over. THEN we will have not a few thousand terrorists to confront, but likely hundreds of thousands. And I can just see the last remnants of our civil liberties crumbling before my eyes as the last vestiges of constitutional protections are gutted .....oh, in the name of "national security."

As Prof. Leverett concluded:

"The rest of the world does not believe what we're saying for good reason: we made it up before!"

Adding:

"This gets back to the whole point in the set up (Kornacki's intro) that this is not peculiar to Bush, Clinton, or Obama. These decisions, taken with very little thought, including under Clinton-  to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, and to continuously bomb Iraq, bomb Sudan and bomb other places- these are not clean interventions."

Indeed, any highly intelligent race of outside observers (say aliens from another world) would regard our actions as meeting even their definition of insanity. They'd ask why this particular enclave of humanity is so obsessed with fighting terrorism when it appears committed to creating more terrorists.

Hillary's final point was the one I made when blogging that the U.S. has no moral authority to unilaterally attack anyone:

"The United States has no authority to punish".

Bingo! We are not the cops of the world, nor do we possess the unique moral authority given our own acts and complicity in past dastardly deeds as I noted three blogs ago.  Besides, if we set this up as a precedent what other "villains" will we be prepared to take out given we are already reaching a $16.7 trillion debt limit next month?

In my new book (Beyond Atheism, Beyond God) in the section Practical Reason and Human Evil  in the final chapter, I note that one of the canards circulated about human evil is that it’s irrational. If the person only knew better, or reasoned properly, he’d arrive at the generic good, and we'd all be better off.  I cited philosopher John Kekes who disposes of this myth quite forcefully (The Roots of Evil, p. 156.)  

As Kekes observes, abundant historical examples disclose that people often robustly justify their actions on the basis of a good perceived in their minds, but which in retrospect turns out to be evil. Therefore it’s not the lack of reason or rationality that infuses their actions but instead the false beliefs that supported the reasoning!

As examples of rational evil  one can cite all supposedly "rational justifications" for aggressive national policy, including military occupations of sovereign states, targeted military attacks, and the implementation of economic evil such as austerity policies- which harm millions.

A case in point for the first is George W. Bush’s “war on terror”, begun after 9/11. Launched after that horrific event nearly twelve years ago, it had been driven with all the best intentions to find and kill all those responsible for the deed that left nearly 3,000 dead in the World Trade Center. But in the aftermath what did we actually see? Well, an invasion of a sovereign state (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11, and which left nearly 600,000 Iraqis dead according to World Health Organization statistics. Added to that, the widespread use of the most debasing torture methods (used by the CIA) to extract information including on bin Laden’s hiding place. The combined American occupations, unpaid for in additional taxes, left the U.S. with nearly $4 trillion in deficits that have now come back to haunt us. These have the nation facing the specter of even more draconian cuts to the most vulnerable citizens under the specious rubric of “sequestration."


Bush and his minions truly believed they were doing good at the time they demanded congress vote on The Iraq War Resolution in 2002, never mind what we later discovered[1]. Bush’s aggressive foreign policies also exposed unsavory aspects about the U.S. as a nation.  For example, one willing to violate Nuremberg Article VI to actually launch a pre-emptive war by invasion as the Nazis did when they invaded Poland. The rich humor of it all is that at the time the Bushies actually compared Saddam to Hitler! Never mind that Saddam was the one being pounded by the most devastating shock and awe attack since the Blitzkrieg launched by Hitler on Poland in 1939.

But this sort of human evil had been strenuously reasoned and formally justified by Bushie Neocons like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney! In addition, the U.S. corporate media acted as a willing accomplice, fully complicit in spreading the hysteria that led to the Iraq invasion on March 15, 2003.  Hence each and every one of these actors, agents share blame in manifesting human evil, including the devastating costs exacted on Iraqi civilians.

 
Far from malignant human evil emerging without rationality or reason, it instead erupted as if from multiple cancerous cells becoming malignant. We the citizens also played along by being cowed, afraid to speak out lest we be deemed unpatriotic or even terrorist sympathizers.  Many of us also allowed ourselves to be too uninformed, even ignorant of the issues, thereby allowing ourselves to be played. Susan Jacoby, for example, references “two thirds of us can’t find Iraq on a map and many members of Congress don’t know a Shiite from a Sunni[2]”  In a nutshell, too many Americans have “become too lazy to learn what we need to know to make sound public decisions."

 
This is tragic, because if Americans can’t or won’t exercise their minds to think critically, especially concerning our national history and consequences of our actions, then we stand to be led into more reckless wars. This is why Obama's rhetoric that this proposed strike will be "limited" is bollocks. What if, after his "2- day" strike,  another nerve gas attack happens a month later and kills more than 1,429? What then? Obviously, having gone in once under this 'humanitarian" pretext, Obama will have to go in again... and again.....and again! There will be no end especially as he has no intentions of actually removing Assad (which itself would be as reckless as what we did with Saddam).

 
Enough "red lines". Remember one thing and one only: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
 
Hackneyed, but as true as ever. Let us have no more rational evil expedited with the best intentions! Under Obama, or anyone else.
 
 See also: http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/1934



1] We now know an Iraqi (codename ‘curveball’) made the whole WMD baloney up in order to trigger regime change to replace Saddam, oblivious to the human costs.
2] Jacoby, op. cit., 310.