The conservatives bedeviling our society do not have wrong ideas. They do not disagree with you. They are not influenced by logic or fact. They live in a world of fearful emotion. When confronted by these contradictions, their huge amygdalas perceive contradictions with normal expectations and cause them to have alarming ideation and fight or flight hormones are secreted.
I have long thought that this country was heading toward violence. The change in partisanship. The viciousness and intolerance of the religious right. Economic polarization. Traumatic feelings of fear about climate change. Destruction of the unions and condemnation of the very idea of social action among labor. The use of "liberal" as a deep and effective slur. The list of intractable influences causing desperation among the working and under class people in our country is long.
When Trayvon Martin was killed and the right celebrated. I felt that the fuse was being lit. When Black Lives Matter was ridiculed and then subverted, I thought that arrogance on the right had become truly dangerous and inflammable. In another thread here on Facebook, I read a guy saying that this is the first time in his life that someone has declared "open season" on police. I have no doubt that he sneered when someone said it was open season on black boys.
After the abusive police response in Fergusson when Michael Brown was murdered, I began to feel even more uneasy. Each step along the way. The tick tock of black boys being killed, now that we bother to notice.
But none of that set me as far on edge as the completely unrepentant attitude of the police, the gun nuts, and the right wing politicians. Instead of seeking to assuage the fear that all of us who are not rich now feel when we see a cop in the mirror, they proudly claim that the kid didn't raise his hands far enough, that the woman wasn't sufficiently respectful. They aren't distressed about police brutality, they celebrate it.
That leaves the oppressed with nowhere to turn. We know that Congress will do nothing. We know that the local authorities are in favor of this police behavior. When the demonstrators in the aftermath of the abuse of Sarah Bland were openly carrying assault rifles and the police were, for a change, not abusive and authoritarian, I thought, "it's begun."
Anyone who failed to notice that the police respect violence more than peace is a fool. Now, you watch, the slippery slope has been engaged. Police are dying. The authorities are going to show their stripes by loudly condemning those deaths where they are silent about black boys.
I don't (necessarily) recommend it, but I hear the drumbeat. The cries of sorrow about Trayvon and Michael and Sarah and the rest are starting to sound like cries of another sort and I think we all have reason to be afraid.
As technology progresses, we are going to need fewer and fewer workers. There are always going to be substantial numbers of people who cannot get jobs.
At the same time, there are people who do not desire to fit into the capitalist paradigm and those who don't. Call them lazy if you like, but there are people who detest the idea of 9-5, working to someone else's priorities, or something else about a job.
Lots of these people are have jobs because they can't survive without them and are doing a lousy, or at least uninspired, job. They are taking work opportunities away from those who feel differently.
Because there are lots of people who like to work. They like being on a team. They like participating in something big. They want more stuff. There are a million reasons. That's where capitalism comes from. And lots of them do not have jobs because some less motivated person was forced to take it.
This disproportionately affects young people because old people, who often lose their motivation as time goes on, are entrenched.
It's my opinion that we should change the idea of welfare to the idea of 'base support' and make it available to everyone. The goal would be to help people who are unmotivated from taking jobs away from those who want them.
Base support would provide a decent life but to avoid civil unrest and other problems, we need to provide activities to avoid boredom and to provide ways for people to gain some luxuries. (Have and have not is a dangerous thing.)
One of the ways I would deal with this is by vastly increasing the amount of educational opportunities and then changing the general concept of society to consider failing to attend university to be a sign of weakness.
Nobody would be able to flunk out (we don't need to ration school seats because we can create infinite amounts of them; they are not connected to market cycles) and for most people it would mainly be entertainment. But, this would also make it so that nobody was excluded. There would be some people who would never have had any education otherwise that would be geniuses and accomplish huge things.
And, in the workforce, people who don't like it would not be taking up space, doing a crappy job, demotivating others, etc. Everyone who was working would be there because they want to accomplish stuff. Productivity and profits would skyrocket. Overall happiness would increase. People would be able to live life in a way that suits their personality and skills.
Let me help you out. One of them has already spent eight years in the White House, six years as a Senator and four as Secretary of State. One of them built and ran a solid national organization (her 2008 campaign).Both of them are hated by Republicans. Both of them are much more liberal than either the Congress or the American people. Both of them will face an oppositional Congress that will severely constrain their ability to achieve liberal goals. Consequently, though I think Bernie is more liberal than Hillary, their views will not be the controlling factor, Congress will.
One, if he is enabled to seriously affect this race, might be able to push Hillary far enough to the left that she becomes unacceptable to the independents who she needs to win. Those same independents, however, will never, ever vote for Bernie.
In fact, neither will most Democrats. Bernie is a socialist. You and I and people like us are the tea party of the Democrats. We are the lunatic left that will, if we insist on pushing our agenda, discredit the Democratic party by convincing the general public that the Republicans are right, Obama and the Democrats are radical leftists.
Right now, people generally don't believe it. Everyone knows that the R's are lying idiots but, when Joe Sixpack finds out that an avowed socialist is a serious Democratic candidate, he will.
So, my conclusion is this: Because of Congress, it doesn't matter much which of them is in the White House. But, deciding that your prefer Bernie be in the White House (instead of an incredibly accomplished, prepared, experienced woman) presents the real possibility of getting a president of the kind that can make a real difference, a Republican.
Once again, my wife has had to jump through hoops to deal with the Wells Fargo Bank's failure.
In this case, she triggered an important payment on the 16th of the month. The money was immediately removed from her account. As it promised, on the 23rd of the month it said the payment was "delivered".
On the 30th, she got a notice that her payment was late.
On the 31st, the payment actually got there.
On another occasion, a payment was lost for months because, we eventually learned, of their paperwork problems. In that case, we had to argue with the cable tv company every month to prevent them from turning off our internet, etc. Their computer had no way of dealing with the fact that the banks records had a clear (but mislabeled) record of them receiving the money.
Wells Fargo is, of course, a huge, horrible company. But, I'm accustomed to these sorts of companies being at least marginally competent. I am wrong. Wells Fargo lost the cable tv money for several months. Just lost it and caused a huge amount of hassle. Their Bill Pay service is unreliable. It takes your money. Says it's made the payment but doesn't.
I suggest you avoid Wells Fargo like the plague.
For hundreds of years until just less slightly recently than this, crimes were solved even though cell phones did not exist. Somehow society managed to survive.
The change in police capacity that we experience is not that they cannot get into cellphone data. It is that they can use it to violate our privacy to an unprecedented extent, even without being able to overcome encryption.
"Until very recently, this situation would not have occurred."
To some, the fact that women by substantial margins, choose lesbian and gay porn (according to stats from Pornhub, a large porn website) is surprising or entirely explained by the anti-feminist content of most straight porn.
Years ago (and I wish beyond all measure that I could find the it), I read an NY Times article that talked about a functional MRI study they did of people watching porn. Showing gay and straight porn to gay and straight women they found...
Gay mens brains lit up when they saw gay porn but not straight porn
Straight mens brains lit up when they saw straight porn by not gay porn
Women brains lit up no matter what kind they were shown
The responses were, of course, nowhere near as clearcut as that but, the study concluded that the female response to porn definitely worked along a spectrum while the male response was fairly binary.
I don’t know any more if the article suggested, or I had the idea and have just integrated into the memory, but it seems clear, both from the study and from the responses of women I’ve known, that female sexuality *is* a spectrum thing. That women are, again allowing for all human variation, by and large, neurologically bisexual. For some women the response to other women is so small that they consider themselves hardcore straight and others, well, others are not-only-neurologically bisexual.
This fits with of common experience, too. As power dominated as the ‘girls kissing in bars’ thing is, it is hard to imagine a publicly acceptable coercion that would be sufficient to cause most men to tongue kiss another man. Or, three-way sex and the mythology of elaborate rules about ‘crossing swords’ that is absent from situations where women form the majority. Even the differences in casual physical contact, sleepovers, etc, that are apparent in some adult women would seem to fit.
It makes sense, too, when you consider evolution. When we were mere prehistoric beasts, women were smaller and stuck with the babies (oh, how times have changed ;-)). It is easy to imagine that the females who were repelled by huddling under the mammoth hide with the other females got a lot colder and died sooner. Perhaps ones who didn’t socialize properly during such cold spells were at a survival disadvantage and, considering how horny people are in general, it’s easy to imagine there being a sexual component of that, too.
This makes huge sense to me.
Imagine, if you will, that you're alone in a house. A really weird noise happens. You immediately get a cold sweat and worry that something bad is happening. You have instant, negative ideation that highlights the worst case. Nobody hears that noise and thinks, "That is a weird mouse." The alarm is coming from your brain's early warning system, the amygdala. It's job is to inspire defensive reaction to events and does so by adding worrisome ideas to your thoughts.
This is, obviously, almost metaphorical in its simplicity but, it captures the high level consequence of the amygdala's contribution to your life.
So, now imagine a person being faced with a really weird noise in the form of an idea that doesn't fit with their preconceptions (just as the weird house noise doesn't fit with your expectations of quiet or gentle creaking at most). If that person has an enlarged amygdala that is more active, those discordant ideas result in an amygdala contribution and that contribution is alarming ideation.
When you say to a conservative 'abortion', it's disagreement with their already settled view that it is bad gives their amygdala reason to engage. It induces a defensive feeling of being attacked and adds horrible elements to their ideation. Liberals think, saved lives of young, used to be pregnant girls. Conservatives think, immoral whores doing whatever they want. Liberal think, tens of thousands of children who will not grow up unwanted. Conservatives think, dead babies everywhere. Etc.
In addition to the alarming ideation, the defense against attack aspect (useful if a saber tooth tiger is a real possibility, not so much if it's a fellow citizen who disagrees) prevents evaluation of the other ideas. One does not rationalize a threat. One fights it. One's preconceptions are there to be protected. Their potential change is the essential threat being opposed.
So, liberals, due to their experience with brains dominated by the anterior cingulate cortex, are perplexed that conservatives take positions that are counterproductive to their views, fail to understand the essence. Conservatives only care about protecting their preexisting ideas. A policy to minimize abortion is completely unimportant to a person whose fundamental brain motivation is to adjust the environment so that the disapproval of abortion is brought to a level that is consistent with their internal view.
This is important as we move forward into an increasingly partisan world (research shows that political views are an increasing part of mating decisions; if brain structure is a strong contributor to political orientation, we have a population of young people who are breeding purebred partisans). There is no progress to be made addressing conservatives with reason or appeals to the practical consequence of their policies. An approach needs to be devised that appeals to their interest in protecting their world view.
In a simplistic way, what we need to do is figure a way to establish a religion that is consistent with the practicality of the world. An alternative where, say, a national deficit is not seen as violating every precept of self-reliance and integrity, but is, instead, seen as, say, a garden of eden gathering of resources.
That's silly. But the point is that the smart, flexible minds who have made the modern world what it is, need to start to take into account the special needs of conservative minds. Just as we no longer try to teach autistic children using the same techniques as we do other kids, we need to devise new techniques for communicating with conservatives that take into account their enlarged amygdalas.
I know that Hillary has a closer relationship with the conventional sources of power in America than does Bernie. But, I want you to notice something. The total of Bernie's listed donations adds up to as much as the bottom two of Hillary's.
We are not going to win with Bernie's $695k. Repeat after me: We are not going to win with Bernies $695k.
Yes, that's evil, wrong, sad, unAmerican, etc. It's also reality. The Democratic candidate is going to face a Republican who those corporate interests actually like and who will make Hillary's numbers look like a joke.
I am infinitely more liberal than Hillary. It's very likely that I am way more liberal than Bernie. Were I king of the world, I'd have Noam Chomsky be president.
Between Bernie and Hillary, he is, rhetorically, probably closer to me than is Hillary. However, that's only part of the equation.
There is no one who doesn't lament some of the lost opportunities because Barack was relatively inexperienced as he entered the White House. I am 100% confident that of all the people who have ever run for president, Hillary is the most ready to make a quick, effective start. She will be able to use her entire term, from the first day, to maximum effect. She would not, for example, be rolled over to give up on single-payer health care.
The experiences that put her in this position add other specific skills. I focus on having run several (hers and Bill's) national campaigns, what is said to have been a very effective time in the Senate, and having been Secretary of State.
She is a hard core power broker and, for good measure, will be a woman who wants to avoid being seen as weak. I expect we will see awesome compensation behavior as she kicks Republican ass.
Bernie has been a great Senator and I love him but his experience is as a Senator. That's great, but it just doesn't compare.
But, say it did. While he was doing his Senator thing and then deciding to run for president, Hillary was actually running for president.
Unlike Bernie, Hillary already has a national organization. She already has a huge amount of money. She has policies that are polished through her first campaign and the intervening years, including four working at the White House. She has presented herself to voters and refined her appearance and message.
She has not only earned her "inevitability" but she is like a suitor coming to ask for our hand bearing an incredibly huge dowry that includes just the things we need to win the war.
Bernie is a nice guy, but he doesn't have the fucking dowry.
So, if Hillary is farther from my policy views than Bernie (or Noam), why not go for the gold?
Because there isn't any gold to be had. If Hillary had all of her skills and resources *and* was as liberal as Noam, it would make no difference. The next president will govern in the same context as does Barack. There will be gridlock and bitter, partisan opposition. The nation is, though it makes me sick to say, fifty fifty divided between decent people and hideous, right-wing reprobates. Bernie will no more be able to, say, revitalize the labor movement than fly.
Whether they are beating back Bernie's 100% awesome policies or Hillary's 80% awesome policies, the fact is, the difference is going to be minor. In either case, they will be pushing policies that are consistent with our values and they will only get a tiny amount of that enacted.
So, Bernie proposes that we should take him seriously. I think, actually, that that very view is a point against him. For him to fail to see the practical advantages of having Hillary run and pretend that his policy accomplishments would be significantly different than hers, indicates a lack of insight that is, for me, very disappointing.
All this, of course, leaves out the elephant in the room. The American people would sooner vote for an atheist than a socialist. They would vote for a French person before they would vote for a socialist. They would vote for a dumbass, recovering alcoholic before they would vote for a socialist.
This is a good season for Democrats. Obama's done a good job and people are finally starting to feel it. Democrats are polling better and the Republicans are polling like the traitors that they are. While local elections continue to be rough going for Democrats, the presidential election looks pretty good.
Unless Bernie gets the nomination.
It's my opinion that this topic has become a 'thing' as a replacement for previous anti-feminist topics as denigrating a women because her breasts aren't big enough, she's not wearing sufficiently sexual clothing, she's too assertive, etc.
Decent people understand that deriding a woman's sex and behavior characteristics is bad. So, now we innocently observe, "I'm not saying you 'are' a bitch or bad person, I'm making a technical observation."
But, I think it's more of the same. People (including other women) can't stop themselves from interpreting women relative to their own desire. Nobody feels compelled to take a stern expression on a man's face personally. But, if it's a woman, people feel like she should change to make them more comfortable. "Smile, honey."
Well fuck that. I hereby declare war on the whole idea of 'resting bitch face'. It is anti-feminist and denigrating. Women have faces of all sorts. If they aren't talking to you, what they are thinking is none of your business.
Fortunately, this NY Times article mostly says this...
"We don’t inherently judge the moodiness of a male face. But as women, we are almost expected to put on a smile. So if we don’t, it’s deemed ‘bitchy.’ "