Watch out for other anti Bush types that seem "not right"

As one who very early was involved in the Perot movement when there were equal numbers of folk from across the political spectrum, I got to know well many folk who I would never get to know otherwise and was lead into an "Alice through the looking glass" world of John Birchers, anti-tax, Illuminati conspiracy types and a cottage industry of books, schemes, and scams of a sort and level not seen on the left at all.

I met many who would have been Tim McVeigh, had the circumstances fallen their way, and the loose change folks are a natural there. There are two things that distinguish them in any crowd, both aspects of that looking glass.

One is the Right Wing Authoritarian Pathology with its special Illogic that is well described even if there is some dispute as to its qualities and origins. Even when, like loose change, they support ostensively leftist goals, they carry the RWA nature, that still gives real leftists the hives.

The other is the classic Strong Father view of government laid out so clearly by George Lakoff. Often taken in rebellion against the abusive father in the classic Libertarian fashion, they see themselves like the runaway child, in a brutal world where theft or prostitution are the only paths of survival and raw rage fuels the drive to power by any means, never with good results.

Unable to escape the Abusive Father frame, they see Liberals as the mirror side of their own horror, and cannot imagine the Nurturing Parent model that Lakoff gives as the model of actual Liberal Philosophy.

Rather than accept any point of view it is best to really look at what is said and not accept it just because you would like to agree with the speaker that folk you don't like are the enemy

Opposing the Gang Of Pirates

As noted in the comments on my last post it has been a while since I have added to that last post. It has not been do to inactivity, but rather a quest to keep it relevant and important. If I filled the blog with the chaff about Senator Craig's stalling, or each additional needle of GOP corruption in what has become a planetary body of such needles, the better points I could make would be lost among the lesser ones. And besides, I usually make those comments at the site of the news;-)

But Tom Cat was wondering what happened and perhaps others are too, so what started out as a personal response became enough to make it relevant to anyone who might be wondering, and a good place to plea for help in the Good Fight. So this was the letter:

Hi Tom,
I am driven far more by the need to post information I have discovered etc, than the need to discover something to post, That tends to make my blog a bit more pithy but probably less regular than is ideal. I have added a couple of links to my "Basic reading/listening for literacy" list since I wrote about the Gapminder project, but no great revelations that would not be a rehash of previously covered info.

If you Google "Freedem", or occasionally "Freedemm" you will see quite a splash across the web with most of it me, with quite a bit of rehashing, particularly about the Gapminder project of late, in an effort to make actual reality most folks default reality. While I recognize that anyone can have a POV spin, or emphasis based on personal ego or agenda, I really do think that actual reality that is beyond such ego is the only sane basis for discussion, and the only glue that keeps a civilization from disaster.

On the ego, POV, agenda, front a Googling of "Gang Of Pirates" might produce nearly the same list as "freedem", though I would have hoped that would have become more general by now. Much that has been written has focused on Bush, even when it is not him personally at issue, and will be a major issue if he is there or not. By focusing on the GOP and even separating them as not exactly synonymous with Republicans, a whole group of good things happen.

The first is that there is an accurate and descriptive name of a group of folks and ideology that gets great power from not having a name, as only by naming them can they be opposed. By calling themselves Conservatives they cloak themselves in legitimacy they do not deserve, and as pointed out by Orwell, further destroy the language that can define opposition.

The second point is to steal the Initials. The grand ole party meme was based on the delegitimized Democrats as the party of Southern Bigotry and Treason. As all those folk are now Republicans, it is they who have lost legitimacy. If Gang Of Pirates is used enough (with the "Of" capitalized) and with GOP used after referring to the original "Gang Of Pirates" used earlier, then that can become the default thought for all those cases where only the Initials are used, do it enough and even Faux Noise will find that translation in their head every time they use it.

Thirdly it provides a common focus and target for the entire coalition, even though many members would claim to be different, and indeed in fine detail there are some competing agendas. An Atheist Libertarian may well seem to be opposed to a Dominionist Theocrat, and even claim to be a polar opposite, but when the votes are counted for destroying the Commons and disabling the government from helping actual people, while supporting Corporate Welfare, they are both on the same side of treason and kleptocracy, and thus GOP. (though the Gang has many more members beyond those two: Neocon, Plutocrat, Fascist, Skinhead, etc)

Fourth, it fully describes the common ideology and authoritarian mindset. As noted in Generation of Monsters the RWA pathology grants the father figure authority without accountability (often stemming from child abuse when that was the apparent fact) and the Pirate description, like the drunken child abuser description, removes the childhood feeling that their inadequacy was somehow responsible for the abuse, and places the blame and anger (and hopefully eventually justice) where it truly belongs.

On a parallel path I have been fighting to put Secular back where it belongs, and take it back from those who would destroy it meaning to further their agenda. As you can see noted in several posts around the web Secular is not Atheist, but rather having no connection to any idea of religion.

Rather Secular Government is like a Chess game, everyone gets the same set of pieces with the same rules. Religion may inform your decisions. You might even sacrifice a chicken to victory, if you believe it will help, just not in a time or location to disrupt those without your beliefs. And just because you are arrogant enough to believe you have found absolute truth, and even if they are called Bishops, you cannot give them any extra powers like teleportation, or invincibility, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else. That is sandbox 101.

The SiCKO truth

Click on image for full scale

The hype is on to counteract Michael Moore's devastating new movie. However,in my surfing about I ran across a new Google gadget that graphs UN data sets. It doesn't have every sort of data you can imagine, but it does have an amazing amount of data, and while one would always want more flexibility, it does have a lot of flexibility.

In this graph I was able to arrange measured Life expectancy, and number of doctors on the x and y axis as a measure of the quality and cost of care and the income per capita for the size of the bubble. I also was able to show the trend as to getting better or worse. (you can click on the image to see full size)

The US is standing still and things are not looking good in Estonia, Jamaica, and Uzbekistan. China and Brazil may be reporting issues to show such great change at that moment but all the excommunist countries seem to be showing a drop in the number of doctors as health care becomes less available.

It is worthy of note that almost all the countries to the right and above the US have Government run health care. A few like the UK, Canada, and Japan, have a bit fewer doctors per person, but all those orange dots above and to the right are pretty much the rest of Western Europe, and all doing better than the US in both health and doctors and continuing to improve.

Thanks to the Gang Of Pirates much recent US data is missing, one supposes that it is not good news. If you do not believe you can pick on the title and go play with the data yourself.

On edit, Playing with the program more I was able to create this graph that is even more telling


As you can see I put child mortality and life expectancy in and managed to label almost every dot to a country. In this graph Cuba ends up very close to the US but the number of doctors per person is so high it was off the chart in the one above. The US (and others) has not published the most recent data but I would not be surprised if Cuba is actually ahead now.

Everyone who can, should print a copy and frame it and put it on the wall of their Congressman and Senator. Emailing a copy to your local pundit wouldn't hurt either.
Update 2
A bit more study of the history shows how the us was ahead of much more of the world in the past, and that Government health care provides benefit even in those cases where it started from a much lower point.
I highlighted China so it would be easy to distinguish from Portugal where progress has been double that in the US, starting way behind and passing us by. Of interest also is what happened in China in 1987 and Costa Rica in 1990 when steady progress suddenly went bad. It would be interesting to look up the history of those times. Russia's experiences with privatization are well known but document well here.

A Cult of Freedom

I am constantly struck by how Christian most Western Atheism is. To quote myself "It is not that Atheists have no god that I have a problem with, many religions have no god, but that they have no religion".

Most religions grew up with "belief" in what was "common knowledge" in their time and culture. The God, or gods resided in the most impressive local landmark, and "religion" was seamless with the rest of existence.

As non western societies grew, their religions grew in place, and great thought was spent in the nature of society and the best way to operate within it.

As Rome was a hodgepodge of such groups, and there was a political class that wished to use Religion as a method of creating power for themselves, religion became something separate from location and culture, and took on the need for enforced "belief" in what could be observationally disproved, or illogical, as well as much that seemed unlikely, and self promoting by those in charge.

Some like "Secular Humanists" have attempted to accomplish an Atheistic Religion, but managed the worst of all cases. The most grievous crime perhaps, of attaching the word "Secular" to a religion, and thus giving Fundies cause to demand equal time with such Secular pursuits as Chess, or Cricket. But also in its antitheist dogmatism, becomes a jihad against other religions and invites the same, but still glosses over those ethics concepts that the Fundies have dodged to keep from accusing themselves.

Confucian thinking is intensely Chinese, and based on an anti Democratic, anti freedom, Imperial mode. It does however offer a glimpse of what a religion can be, that demands no fantasy but an ideal that all humans can aspire to, and methods to make life better for all.

Unfortunately like a Cult that combines celebrating free thought and many opinions, with individual freedom, it is a great challenge to accomplish.

"Fair" tax is very UnFair

Recently there has been a rash of "Fair" tax proposals (as if the label "Fair" would make them so), mostly around the idea of an across the board flat tax on sales, and the elimination of the Income tax, and the abandonment of Corporate taxes. This is a position favored by many on the Right, but also Senator Mike Gravel who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

How far we have come when it was proposed that a Corporate taxes could be raised to the point that income and sales taxes could be eliminated! If the resulting wealth caused demand to rise to pay for the extra tax so be it, if not then the Paris Hiltons of the world could afford the difference.

In any case the point needs to be made-ALL Sales taxes are regressive! You can game the system to make them a bit less so by eliminating them on Food, Rent and perhaps a few other things, but a Poor person paying 5% tax on a $100 car is paying exactly the same PERCENT tax as a rich person paying 5% tax on a $100,000 car. What they are not paying is the same PERCENT of their total income, as the $100,000 car is likely to be a very much smaller percent of income than the $100 car, and there will have to be many more $100 cars as they will not last well or hold value as the very expensive case.

Encourage the Poor or even Middle Class to save? They cannot, rising prices and stagnant wages leaves most struggling on the edge of disaster, while debt of all sorts chews away at the bit of edge they have. Any preference to save or invest will go vastly to those who already have no financial problems.

Collecting a sales tax also involves hugely more paperwork, and/or will be hugely more scammed, as it already is where there is a state sales tax, and mostly by the rich who can get winks as the do so.

How to do you do a fair tax? it is very easy! Everybody gets zero tax on the first $10,000, no matter your total, add 1% on each of the next $10,000 so 20k pays $100 ( 0 + 100), 30k pays $300 (0 + 100 + 200), 100k pays $4,500 ( 0 + 100 + 200 ...+900) still a total rate of only 4.5%. Only those people with incomes larger than most countries would pay huge taxes as the taxes on the smaller amounts would be taxed exactly the same for everyone who made it to that place.

Corporations might have slightly different numbers but would also be similarly taxed according to the size of the total corporation, that way the smaller corporation would have a competitive advantage in taxes to offset the disadvantage of the power that scale confers. (if you think that scale is efficiency and not power, think of efficiency of scale as a ten acre hamburger stand, and power of scale as McDonalds)

There is no magic market, Money provides power and power provides money, it is a one way ticket to a feudal system. Only by Government intervention to act as friction where needed at the top and oil where needed at the bottom can a balance of real civilization be found. Money at the top is power and needs only to be restrained, it will still prosper in spite of restraint. At the bottom is pent up energy that can explode in creativity if only it is enabled, it is the only place that really good ideas come from, they will never come from the self satisfied.

The Generation of Monsters

I have suspected for sometime that Dr Bob's RWA's were more than a statistical anomaly, and perhaps also a pathology not a lot different from depression or schizophrenia, containing a wide range of severity and a somewhat nebulous array of symptoms that, taken together, still have clinical meaning.

Missing from this Idea was specific causes and what mechanics might be involved. I suspected trauma as a place to start, as I had seen Religious cults, and groups that behave as cults zero in on PTSD like sharks smelling blood. What I had missed was the possibility that the biggest pool of recruits was abused, and neglected children. Not just those from obviously dysfunctional families, where the parents have issues with drugs or mental disorders of their own, but also and most commonly from families without such excuses, that deliberately abuse and neglect their children (though they would not call it that) for reasons of religion or ideology, often passing on pathology they themselves were poisoned by.

Alice Miller puts a fine point on the problem

.... However brutally these people were brought up, they showed no immediate signs of the harm done to them. On the contrary. Many of them grew up into seemingly well--adjusted young people. But sooner or later, usually one generation later, when the tormented children had themselves become parents, the former victims did the same with their children as had been done to them, with no feelings of guilt. It was the only thing they knew, after they had repressed and denied their own pain.

Studying child abuse confronts us with the astonishing fact that parents will inflict the same punishment or neglect on their children as they experienced themselves in their early lives. But as adults they have no recollection of what they went through. In the case of sexual assault on children, it is quite usual for the perpetrators to have no conscious knowledge of their own early life--history or at the least to be cut off from the attendant feelings aroused by those experiences. It is not until they are in therapy‹always supposing they are given any‹that it transpires that they have been reenacting what they went through as children.

The sole explanation I can advance for this fact is that information on the cruelty suffered in childhood remains stored in the brain in the form of unconscious memories. For a child, conscious experience of such treatment is impossible. If children are not to break down completely under the pain and the fear, they must repress that knowledge. But the unconscious memories drive them to reproduce those repressed scenes over and over again in the attempt (and with the false hope) to liberate themselves of the fears that cruelty and abuse have left with them. The victims create situations in which they can assume the active role in order to master the feeling of helplessness and escape the unconscious anxieties.
...snip...
Why were there people brave enough to risk their lives to save Jews from Nazi Persecution? Much scientific inquiry has been expended on this question.
....snip...
Almost all rescuers interviewed reported that their parents had attempted to discipline them with arguments rather than punishment. They were only rarely subjected to corporal punishment, and if they were it was invariably in connection with some misdemeanor and never because their parents had felt the need to discharge some uncontrollable and inexplicable feeling of rage on them. One man recalled that he had once been spanked for taking smaller children out onto a frozen lake and endangering their lives. Another reported that his father had only ever hit him once and apologized afterwards. Many of the statements might be paraphrased thus: "My mother always tried to explain what was wrong about whatever it was I had done. My father also spent a lot of time talking to me. I was impressed by what he had to say."

What a different picture we get from the reports of the persecutors and hangers--on: "When my father was drunk he took the whip to me. I never knew what I was being beaten for. Often it was for something I had done months before. And when mother was in a temper she tore into anyone who got in her way, including me." ....

So child abuse and neglect produces high RWA's and child protection produces low RWA's, and not surprisingly they translate their ideas born of abuse (or lack of it)into their political philosophy and even religious doctrine.

George Lakoff deals more specifically with these differences and finds it the basis for progressive vs conservative framing.

On the whole, they are defining the conservative position for the current debate about childrearing, as well as for legislation incorporating their approach. Since the ideas in conservative Christian childrearing manuals are fully consistent with the Strict Father model of the family that lies behind conservative politics, it is not at all strange that such fundamentalist groups should be setting the national conservative agenda on family values.

I should say at the outset that virtually all of the mainstream experts on childrearing see the Strict Father model as being destructive to children. A nurturant approach is preferred. And most of the child development literature within the field of developmental psychology points in one direction: childrearing according to the Strict Father model harms children: a Nurturant Parent model is far superior.

In short, conservative family values, which are the basis for conservative morality and political thought, are not supported by either research in child development or the mainstream childrearing experts in the country. That is another reason why the conservative family agenda has been left to fundamentalist Christians.
...snip...
To see more clearly what is at stake in knowing about research on such matters, let us look closely at what some conservative Christian childrearing manuals have to say about how children should be raised. These manuals are clear on many points:

1. Children are inherently sinful and defiant.
2. Only punishment and reward will train children away from defiance and pursuing their sinful desires.
3. The only way a child can be raised properly is for a father to demand absolute obedience to his authority. Any questioning of authority requires swift and painful punishment.
4. Obedience can be taught only through painful corporal punishment-by whipping with belts or beating with switches or paddles.
5. Continued disobedience requires greater beating.
6. Punishment for disobedience is a form of love.
7. Parental authority is a proper model for all authority, and children must learn to obey authority so that they can wield it properly in later life.

Reading the whole link is worthwhile as he details many major Right wing leaders as calling severe damage as good and wholesome support as causing "dangerous dependence"

Many other sources have noted the power wielded even beyond the political boundaries of the far right in recommending these destructive child rearing ideas. Notably this articlewith millions of emails, thousands of newspapers carrying his daily column calling for actions that researchers have shown causes trauma and even brain damage Dobson is paving the way for a new generation of Monsters who will feel nothing as they destroy civilization and murder millions without a thought of concern.

Paul Krugman is late to the party but welcome

While a theocracy has long been a dream of the most extreme religious kooks, actually putting a long term plan into action has been gathering force since the 1970's. Like any real conspiracy, it has inner strife, braggarts, turncoats etc, and while subverting traditional conservative groups is being itself subverted by Moonies, but has still succeeded alarmingly, and is and is much more of a threat than Krugman lets on (or knows?).

Sara Posner has an excellent article on another of the real farm teams that provide the reserves for the Gang Of Pirates to draw from as well as doing great damage in their own right, as does another by her here

Others have spent the effort to see not just how these people are pursuing power, but what they would like to do with it. John Sugg has written in Mother Jones

Gary North, a top Reconstruction theorist, wrote in his 1989 book, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism. “Those who refuse to submit publicly…must be denied citizenship.”
..snip...
The Old Testament—with its 600 or so Mosaic laws—is the inflexible guide for the society DeMar and other Reconstructionists envision. Government posts would be reserved for the righteous, as long as they are male. There would be thousands of executions a year, with stoning a preferred method because it would turn the deaths into “community projects,” as movement theologian North has noted. Sinners in line for the death penalty would include women who commit adultery or lie about their virginity, blasphemers, witches, children who strike their parents, and gay men (lesbians, however, would be spared because no specific reference to them can be found in the Books of Moses). DeMar told me that among Reconstructionists he is considered something of a liberal, because he’d execute gays only if they were caught indulging in sodomy. “I’m happy to just drive them back into the closet,” he said.
...snip...
Besides facilitating evangelism, Reconstructionists believe, government should largely be limited to building and maintaining roads, enforcing land-use contracts, and ensuring just weights and measures. Unions would not exist, and neither would unemployment benefits, Social Security, and environmental protection laws. Public schools would disappear; one of the movement’s great successes has been promoting homeschooling programs and publishing texts used by tens of thousands of homeschooling families.
...snip...
The old left—the Communist Party and its many splinters—used organizing tactics called popular fronts, in which people were recruited through specific causes into a movement tacitly guided by the Party. Reconstruction has married those Leninist tactics to the causes of the right—abortion, evolution, gay marriage, school prayer. Gary North wrote in 1982, in an effort to reach Baptists,“We must use the doctrine of religious liberty…until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.” Nowhere at the Restore America rally did anyone hoist a banner for Reconstruction; those attending came to develop a united front supporting such things as displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings. But they were also introduced—and recruited—to the broader program.
...snip...
“All governments are theocracies,” he (ex-judge Roy Moore) said. “We now live in a secular humanist theocracy. I want to change that to a government with God at its head.”

(as if things like roads, or hospitals, even sports, are atheist inspired if not specifically Christian)

Katherine Yurica also weighs in with a detailed report that includes this list:

1. God’s People Are to be Regents Over the Earth: “Almighty God wants us to recapture the dominion man held in the beginning… Remember, at the time of creation man exercised authority, under God’s sovereignty, over everything. He was God’s surrogate, His steward or regent.
   
   
2. Dominion over Others Originates in the Bible: “The genesis account uses two colorful words to describe this. One… we translate ‘dominion. The word means to ‘rule over’ or ‘tread down,’ as with grapes…
   
   
3. Man Was Told to Subdue or ‘Trample the Earth’: “The other word…is translated ‘subdue.’ Man was told to subdue the earth. The root means ‘to trample under foot,’ as one would do when washing dirty clothes. Therefore… we have in part the concept of separating good from evil by force.
   
   
4. God Gave Man the Power to Govern and the Right to Subdue: “With the first word …God gives man the authority to govern all that is willing to be governed. With the second…He grants man authority over the untamed and the rebellious. In both instances, God gave man a sweeping and total mandate of dominion over this planet and everything in it.
   
   
5. God Intended the World to be Governed and Subdued by the Godly: “….God’s intention was that His world be governed and subdued by those who themselves were governed by God.
   
   
6. God Demands His People to Invest Their Capital: “Despite our preconceived attitudes toward social justice, God’s Law of Use controls the ultimate distribution of wealth. We must be willing to take the world as He made it and live in it to the fullest…
   

Very Scary folk

Foresight

Discovered on the web

"You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bon-fire under her deck...
I have no time for such nonsense."
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

That is why the fewer Deciders there are in any system, the more backwards it becomes, compared to what it could be. It doesn't matter what the system is, Communist, Corportist, Feudal, or Theocratic, no leadership can take the time to understand a new concept, and even though it might save their bacon, will pay attention only to what they have predetermined to be important.