[News] The Time Has Come To Suspend Turkey From NATO

The United Nations, the OAS and the EU are all attempts at regional harmony, and represent geographical interests coming together.  All of these bodies pay lip service toward democracy, but all of them routinely behave in undemocratic fashions, though the EU dramatically less so.  The UN was little more than a paper tiger during the cold war and has placed all real power in the hands of five nations that were on the right side of WWII.  The idea that Russia has a permanent vote but Japan, Germany, Brazil and India do not is laughable.  The OAS did nothing to suspend Venezuela during Chavez or dictators before that; only, and quite hypocritically, Cuba.  Even the EU has had issues disciplining its own members when Austria started to go the direction of Right Wing Fasicm....something the EU was set up explicitely to protect them against.

NATO is different.  NATO was set up as a check against the iron curtain and the soviet block.  NATO is an alliance of democracies, any one of which can stop the actions of the others by a simple veto, which seems insane from a policy point but somehow it worked and terrified (and still terrifies) the Kremlin.

And now along comes the tin pot tyrant Edrogan.  He started out well enough...a moderate Islamist, who helped the democratic nature of his country by stopping the Deep State and improving the economy.  But over time, we  have learned the deep skeletons in Edrogan's closet.  We have learned of the intimidation of journalists.  We have learned of corruption and then a mass purge of judges and the police as a result.

But now we see Edrogan trying to steal the internet.  Edrogan is a tyrant. Edrogan proves that there is no such thing as a MODERATE islamist, just as there is no such thing as a moderate nationalist christianist, hinduist or any other religion.  ANY other religion.  A theocracy is a theocracy, not a democracy.

While Edrogan rules with tyrants powers in Turkey, Turkey has no place in NATO and it should move to expunge him immediately.

That will set a precedent to do the same thing when our own Deep State tries to imprison our journalists as "accomplices" to whistleblowing and exposing the truth; tears away net neutrality in the interests of telecoms, and rigs the election with an 'inevitable' neoliberal vs a tea party psyhcopath as a choice.

When that happens to us, *WE* should be suspended from NATO as well.

Someone is Blocking an Interview w. Snowden in the US

And given what we have seen from US authorities on this issue, one has to wonder if it was them.

More details here.

[Phil] TMZ and the use of scandal by the Fascist Right and the Deep State

Let us say that, hypothetically the NSA, CIA and other agencies of the deep state of the American Empire are using evidence of scandal to get law makers to vote in their favor.

What evidence might we have of this?

Well...we know that John Clapper, National Director of Intelligence, lied to congress and has yet to be prosecuted.

We know that the NSA and Obama administration went to extraordinary lengths to get Edward Snowden, even at the potential cost of severe damage to its diplomatic relations.

We know that while there is call for reform in the congress, the intelligence committees have all defended these questionable programs, even though we know they are blatantly illegal.

We live in a scandal culture, where sex sells.  Destroying celebrities is a billion dollar business.  We love to see the powerful fall.  News of Justin Beiber and Britney Spears slags across the screens and we egg them on.

Leaving aside the disgusting things this says about our society, when you spread gossip about politicians and celebrities that isn't about actually EVIL behavior but that is merely scandalous, you increase the leverage that those in power, who monitor everything we do, can use to blackmail politicians.

There will always be scandal, but there are degrees.  In France, for example, it took a long time for politicians to fall due to sex scandals.  Also remember that Scandal Journalism is popular with Ruprect Murdoch and other right wing rags.

When you spread celebrity gossip, you empower the NSA's ability to blackmail.  So maybe you can't join Occupy.  Maybe you don't believe your vote matters.

Maybe it doesn't.

But you can stop contributing to the problem.  Stop spreading or talking about celebrity gossip. You can't stop it, but you can stop making it worse.

The Jefferson Memorial

We finally got to go.    It was a walk away from the mall, round near the frozen lake.  It was a gorgeous marble set of pillars with a giant statue of one of the founders of this country.  A good man though flawed, but on the aggregate good and holy.

Here are the quotes that line the memorial:

"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan."

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. We...solemnly publish and declare, that these colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states...And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

..I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

[Phil] Dogs, the Monkey Sphere and Empathy

So in a bit more of an exposition on my ideas I posted here, I think that perhaps Dogs might be the cause of Liberalism.  Let's define a term a bit more first...the Monkey Sphere, which essentially was a postulate that humans and other primates have evolved finite limits to the number of other people that they can have stable relationships with.  But, at the same time we can form an emotional bond with non entities like corporations, the government, God, etc.

There is a series of interesting documentaries on Dogs lately, but they all go back to this experiment run by a Russian exile in Siberia which recreated the evolutionary process by which Dogs were bred from Wolves.   But Symbiosis is a relationship between entities.  What if we didn't merely breed dogs, but they bred us?

What if our ability to have an emotional bond with a non human species was created as a result of selective advantage from tribes with Dogs vs those that didn't?  It's plausible, and more importantly, it would allow us to use the principal of the Monkey Sphere to abstract concepts like "the City" or "The Clan"...that flexibility of abstract thought was absolutely necessary in allowing us to have a larger society than the one we immediately and personally know.

So what if...what if...the problem we have with conservatives is a recessive empathy gene? I've gone over this a number of times, but certain disorders such as Asburger's Syndrome essentially involve a disfunctional part of the brain involving social interaction.  It has already been observed that conservatives have a larger fear center, what if they also don't have as developed a portion of the brain to allow abstract loyalty and/or empathy to people they don't know?

I'd like to take as an excellent example, the most conservative group in America, Libertarians.   There are as many types of Libertarians as there are Libertarians.  But they share a combined dislike for government.  But they also share a sharp dislike for the federal reserve, not JUST because it allows the government to get larger, but also because it is ...abstract.  The idea of non defined currency drives libertarians nuts.  Listen in detail on their discussions on the matter, and you'll find that the reason they like gold is because it is finite.  It is also a reason many of them like Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is deflationary.  There will only be a certain amount of Bitcoins EVER.  A bitcoin, even though it is only a bit of code, is a DEFINED thing.  It is not abstract.  It is not 'loose' and thus in their mind the numbers add up.

I would honestly be really interested to see the political breakdowns by profession of developers, engineers and accountants.  I would also really be interested to see the breakdown by party of those on the Autistic Spectrum, of which Asburger's is a part.  And finally, this will sound truly offensive to some...

I'd be really interested in a genetic examination of manifested recessive traits in libertarians, conservatives and liberals.  If the empathy gene is a dominant gene, purely by the Mendelian population, then it does make sense that roughly 25% of our population would lack it.  Conversely, in certain populations where a large amount of inbreeding as taken place, it makes sense that populations where this has taken place are going to have a lack of empathy and an increase in conservative thinking.

Whether or not that means we should return to the more 'natural' days of non empathy or whether conservatism is a genetic disorder may depend on what your political perspective is...

[Phil] Work Smarter, Not Harder

Scrooge McDuck had it right.  The phrase from Christ, "The Poor will always be with you," recognizes human nature.  Even in a post scarcity utopia, there will still be an economy.  And where there is an economy, there will the rich.  Since democracy is the likely form of most future governments until the state can directly control thought (and desires to do so), then the rich will always, or at least generally always have more influence than everyone else.

Granted, I can't see any future society worth a damn tolerating the level of stratification we have now.  A second gilded age should be all we need...if we have a third we're morons as a species.  But if the rich, and the rich influencing democracy are inevitables...how can we turn a liability (the rampant corruption of our current legislature) into an asset?  Because even in direct democracy, I assure you, there will be flaws in the system, and they will find someone to bribe.  Bribery means corruption.  Corruption means greater stratification.  Stratification means instability...which means war.

How to fix?

Two fold.

1) Change the paradigm by which prosperity is thought of, to what it actual is.  GNP per capita doesn't mean crap.  Inflation reduces its value as a barometer over time.  And in cases of psychotic stratification, you might think that 50,000 per year sounds like a lot right?  Bullshit.  Real people are hurting.  You know it.  I know it.  Change the value of the economy to Real GNP Growth for the Median 80% Per Capita, call it the Prosperity index.  Real GNP means adjusted for inflation, so you can measure good years vs bad years a century ago.  Growth per capita means how much money did you take home?  80% means the middle class in a nice safe hedge...the vast majority of folks.  In other words, regular folks with regular pay checks, how much more did they see in their pockets?

2) Set the highest income tax bracket and adjust it to the prosperity index.  In other words, if the economy does well, so does Draco Malfoy the trustfund baby. Draco isn't going to waste money bribing congress if he can get lower taxes by making jobs.  Do you realize how much money was wasted bribing congress?  How about that money creating good paying jobs.

Tie all the crazy schemes of Draco and Lucius to get rich to how rich the rest of us get.

Watch our economy bloom.  Simple.  And I guarantee it would work.

[Phil]Conservatism = A Philosophy of Lying

This treatise is not about the morality (or lack thereof) of American Conservatism that pretends to be about small government, but rather about the inevitability of global conservatism as a whole to embrace lies and lying.  It is not a postulate in this work that liberalism (new ideas) is inherently superior to conservatism (resistance to change); though it is my personal observation that this often seems to be the case.  Rather, it is a basic observation of human nature and the consequences thereof.

Humans are tribal; we divide ourselves into groups.  Within groups, there are sub groups.  One of the most common divisions in all human spectra is old vs new.  All races, creeds, colors, religions, parties, nations and philosophies have their own individual internal spectrum of folks who embrace change and those who hold to traditions of the past.

Humans are imperfect.  Humans do good and bad.  No one, generally, considers themselves evil.  However, people do have vastly different ideas about the good of the individual vs the good of the whole or group; and expectations vary widely within each group as to what the expected  norm is to be.  Lying is a universal human trait and tactic; everyone is tempted to do it, and nearly everyone succumbs to that temptation.

Lying, as a rule, is usually only effective in limited doses, unless everyone wants to share in the lie.  If people care more about the truth more than they care about a lie, then they avoid lying.  Generally, moreover, if people do not have a reason to want to believe a lie, they will take offense to being lied to.

In most groups, the dynamics of the group form a bell curve between extremes.  That is, in the embrace of the new or the old; both ends try to convince the center that they should go in their direction (or lack thereof).  People often resist change.  Nostalgia for the past is universal; and not usually logical.  Even those from horrific pasts will generally find something there that they embrace, sometimes that simply isn't true.

Thus, the burden on those with new ideas is heavier.   They must do more to convince the middle to embrace their idea than give up the old ways. As such, over the long run, a lie told by a liberal is more likely to be found out, with the new idea rejected.  For a conservative, however, a lie might live a long time.  Indeed, a culture might grow so accepting about lies woven from nostalgia that it is accepted, and a drastically different standard of truth is applied to liberals than to conservatives.

This is a nice theory, but what about proof?

In Japan, conservatives are rewriting textbooks...again...to declare that the Rape of Nanking never happened and that "comfort women" were happy in their role.

In Saudi Arabia, conservative clerics are announcing that women driving hurts their babies.

A conservative president in Iran stated that there were no LGBT individuals in Iran. He also said the holocaust didn't happen.

Conservatives in Europe say the holocaust didn't happen.

Chinese conservatives are pretending nukes don't exist as they extend their sphere of influence to the South China sea.

In Texas, conservatives try to rewrite textbooks to say slavery didn't happen and that evolution doesn't exist.

In Europe, conservatives are pretending austerity measures are good for the economy.

In Malaysia, conservative native parties deny more liberal groups rights by making up lies about crimes that do not exist.

In Pakistan, conservative Taliban try to prevent women from getting a proper education and lie about every agreement or treaty they ever make.

And American conservatives?  Lie after lie after lie.

They elected Mitt Romney, the most dishonest politician in generations as their champion to represent their ideals; until he was defeated, in which case many of them claimed they never supported him.  I could post a thousand lies but anyone not a conservative or a meembly bother knows how much they lie, so no need to rehash tht.

It isn't that liberals don't lie.  They do.  In the Falklands, Argentina is claiming sovereignty over islands they haven't owned for 200 years but at the same time claim to believe in democratic self determination. And all of South America is behind them because it costs them little to do so.  There are plenty of examples.

But conservatives have human nature behind them.  Conservatives get away with lying so easily that it becomes second nature to them.  In fact, sometimes, it becomes so big that even they believe their own lies.  In the soviet union, the conservative old guard thought themselves invulnerable and lost to the liberals that toppled them.

The lesson here for conservatives is that you need to work twice as hard to find the truth because those around you will lie, and due to loyalty and tribalism you're going to work twice as hard to believe your friends who are probably lying.

The lesson here for liberals?  Don't think victories earned by conservatives shooting themselves in the foot forever due to lying will last forever.  No one likes to lose, and enough losses will cause conservatives to be honest....for a while....

Oh and Libertarians?  What is more conservative than believing in 200 year old ideas? Gold? Conservative.  Enlightenment ideals? Conservative.  Anarchy?  Back to caveman times.  Conservative.  Libertarians are the most conservative group in America...and the most dishonest.