07 December 2009

department of no-shit-sherlock government reports

[click image]

Midsta putting all the junk on my newest new machine I came across this startling bit to share:
Historic EPA finding: Greenhouse gases harm humans
By H. JOSEF HEBERT and DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writers – 13 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration took a major step Monday toward imposing the first federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health.

The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency was clearly timed to build momentum toward an agreement at the international conference on climate change that opened Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark. It signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn't act first on its own.

The price could be steep for both industry and consumers. The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment — at a cost of billions or even many tens of billions of dollars — or shift to other forms of energy.

No analysis has been conducted by the EPA on costs of such broad regulations, although the agency put the price tag of its proposed climate-related car rules at $60 billion, with an estimated benefit of $250 billion.

Energy prices for many Americans probably would rise, too — though Monday's finding will have no immediate impact since regulations have yet to be written. Supporters of separate legislation in Congress argue they could craft measures that would mitigate some of those costs.

Environmentalists hailed the EPA announcement as a clear indication the United States will take steps to attack climate change even if Congress fails to act. And they welcomed the timing of the declaration, saying it will help the Obama administration convince delegates at the international climate talks that the U.S. is serious about addressing the problem. Obama will address the conference next week.

But business groups said regulating carbon emissions through the EPA under existing clean air law would put new economic burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up energy prices.

"It will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," declared Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in recent months has been particularly critical of the EPA's attempt to address climate change.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments for formal rulemaking. That marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had refused to issue the finding, despite a conclusion by EPA scientists that it was warranted.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday, "There are no more excuses for delaying," adding that the so-called endangerment analysis from global warming had been under consideration at the agency for three years. After the official finding, she said the agency is now "obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama "still believes the best way to move forward is through the legislative process" — something Obama has expressed on a number of occasions as he has pressed Congress to shift the nation's energy priorities away from fossil fuels and to reduce climate-changing pollution.

The EPA said scientific evidence clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be reduced, if not by Congress then by the agency responsible for enforcing air pollution.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said Jackson.

She rejected claims by climate skeptics that the science of global warming remains in doubt, an argument given additional attention in recent weeks with the disclosure through intercepted e-mails that a British scientist had privately discussed ways to shield certain climate data from public scrutiny.

"The vast body of evidence not only remains unassailable, it has grown even stronger," said Jackson.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a lead author of a climate bill before the Senate, said of the finding: "This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change. ... The message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., also a co-author, said, "The Senate has a duty to act."

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade legislation being considered by Congress. Any regulations from the EPA are certain to spawn lawsuits and a lengthy legal fights.

"Such regulations would be intrusive, inefficient and excessively costly, chill job growth and delay business expansion," argued Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, which also has been critical of the climate legislation before Congress.

"The Clean Air Act can complement legislation," said Jackson. In fact, if Congress were to cap greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA probably would be given the responsibility of implementing the law.

The EPA's involvement in reducing climate-changing pollution, stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision that declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But the court said the EPA would have to determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it could regulate them.
The climate trolls are barking in the distance already....

They're saying it's all a lie, that we've been working on this lie for sixty years and we're just resorting to it now to scare the crap out of people while we tax them to death behind this elaborate conspiracy of liars pumping more hot air than a billion coal plants. They'll hack the EPA and use our corpses for Soylent Green....

high emotional noon

[click image, IT'S COLD TODAY!]

I was reading this post, and those it links, when an email about a psychotic old friend came in. I was in the middle of expressing my agony in response when there was a loud pounding at my door. FedEx with my new replacement computer. Left Shanghai four days ago. Went to Anchorage, Memphis, Sacramento, Eureka and landed here in the middle of me flipping about all this... just about exactly at noon.

So I'm going to be quiet for the next little while, transferring everything to my new machine, but I will be in a hurry about all of it so I can get back online, searching for ways to turn it away from destruction, poring over all cyberspace for the tear in the fabric of delusion through which sense might shine at last.

06 December 2009

my recent apathy toward iran

[click image]

TEHRAN, Iran – Government opponents shouted "Allahu Akbar" and "Death to the Dictator" from Tehran's rooftops in the pouring rain on the eve of student demonstrations planned for Monday. Authorities choked off Internet access and warned journalists working for foreign media to stick to their offices for the next three days. [GOOD.]

The measures were aimed at depriving the opposition of its key means of mobilizing the masses as Iran's clerical rulers keep a tight lid on dissent. Government opponents are seeking, nonetheless, to get large numbers of demonstrators to turn out Monday and show their movement still has momentum.
[DANGEROUSLY STUPID.]

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi threw his support behind the student demonstrations and declared that his movement was is still alive. A statement posted on his Web site said the clerical establishment cannot silence students and was losing legitimacy in the Iranian people's minds.
[Obviously avid for the return of Western control of Iran.]

"A great nation would not stay silent when some confiscate its vote," said Mousavi, who claims President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the June 12 election victory from him by fraud.
[A baldfaced lie.]

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, accused the opposition Sunday of exposing divisions in the country and creating opportunities for Iran's enemies.
[The truth.] . . .
It has become apparent that Iranians become blinded by insult at certain junctures in any disagreement, whether they are in the right or in the wrong, or there is some amorphous middle zone as yet to be worked out completely. Worse than any other national or ethnic group I have seen in my entire life, Iranians go berserk when they hit this blinding insult patch, and there is NO reasoning with them, and they will NOT budge.

I have been worrying myself sick over them for about three years straight, working my butt off to gain as minute an understanding as possible, to do the best I possibly can to keep my solidarity with the Iranian people. All I can say is: I am relieved the government has yanked their internet again. That's how impostors make it look as though they have a huge movement behind them, or even how they grow a huge movement behind them based on NOTHING more substantive than people's engagement with newfangled gizmos. Pfeh.

And has it ever occurred to any of you that if the Iranian Revolutionary regime were so all-fired backward and bumpkinish, what in the hell are you doing with your computers and internet connections and cell phones and texting and tweeting capabilities? Why do any of you get to travel and go to school and why is your government fighting so hard for state-of-the-art medical technologies not to be denied Iran? Do you ever stop to think about how idiotic that whole complaint really IS?

No.

Fuck you, Mousavi. Fuck you.

the reason too many are bucking a green revolution

[click image]
Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official, said on the eve of the 192-nation conference that despite unprecedented unity and concessions, industrial countries and emerging nations need to dig deeper.

"Time is up," de Boer said. "Over the next two weeks governments have to deliver."

Finance — billions of dollars immediately and hundreds of billions of dollars annually within a decade — was emerging as the key to unblocking an agreement that would bind the global community to a sweeping plan to combat climate change.
They don't want the globalizing finance oligarchs to make another bubble out of this to drive us further into slavery. This means is particularly dreaded because they wouldn't have to even make us want to have something we don't need. They can sit back and watch us enrich them out of desperation not to spoil our whole planet.

THIS DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP RIGHT THIS VERY NOW.

It doesn't mean we have to let the plutocrats have their way either.

IT ISN'T EITHER OR....

the trouble with dendroclimatology — UPDATED

[click image, CROSS-SECTION OF TREE RINGS... (Alaska's very harsh summer of 1783... and not great one of 1780....)]

I have been vexed by all the blather about "climategate" going around, and trying my hardest to pay the least amount of acute attention as possible. The diffuse spray of headlines is quite bad enough. I did take the time out to actually read some of the emails everyone's screaming about, and the gripes about the deniers taking them out of context, but I don't even know whether the guys engaged in the exchange were dendroclimatologists or from some other discipline or guys trying to make all the data from various disciplines line up into a usable model for making predictions of future climate conditions. It matters only if you are interested in discrediting dendroclimatology, hitherto used only for confirming assumptions about the past, as a predictive tool for global mean temperatures, and you don't have to bother with the emails to do that.

I have been pissed off because I'm something like what you might call a lay expert in forestry, and, more loosely, how it bears on climate, macro-climate, conditions. The notion that they can make statements about TEMPERATURES, except in the very broadest strokes, from tree rings is messing with my head big time. A fool's errand. I will state that they might be able to make some really broad predictions based on what they can glean from confirming past events, because, after all, the temperature does have to be, mostly, within a certain range for a tree to stay alive at all, but that's as far as it goes. I don't rule out the possibility that they might even be able to narrow it to something more respectable if they manage to do better than hope the measurement of water isotopes in the wood would act anything acceptably like it does in ice core samples, aka paleothermometers, but, well that is fraught with complications... as you might expect from a life form when put up next to an ice cube. Maybe there are other chemical properties they might someday be able to identify as definitely temperature related, and dendroclimatology can become respectable for purposes of predicting climate change.

Right now, not so much.

Actually, right now, not at all.

Until very recently it has been about archeology, and really can work fine for that, for confirming historical assumptions, though not, as you can see, infallibly. But, if you've read the image-linked pitch, you might see that I have chosen the description that does the best job of making pure wishful thinking sound scientific. This is acceptable on one level because, with a lot of work, and a number of brilliant kids going for PhDs in this new twist on this field, it might turn into something that can actually measure what it wants to say it can measure right now. It seems to be saying it right now, despite the fact that it can't, not even with all this dazzling computing power to synthesize all the staggering numbers of variables one has to have noted upon data collection and cross-checked with records which might exist, vaguely apply and mostly not exist at all for each of those variables... just for ONE tree species, in one general area, let alone a bunch of them.

Hell, the tap root length for each tree alone would throw you wildly off from stand to stand.

Have I been clear? You can't separate out tree growth factors from ring size, or density, except in the broadest, too broad for temperature predictions, terms. You can see where the wet years and dry years were. You can see where fires were. You can't say anything about the temperature effects on the growth rings except, possibly, if you have the most minutely detailed records of prevailing conditions in a stand, down to the smallest clump of trees in each stand where you are measuring. The topography features and soil conditions vary hugely in just one stand, and these affect the hardiness of each tree and what is reflected in its rings in relation to its neighbors. Nothing about those rings that we know, or even yet conceivably might be able to come to know, comes from something distinctly measurable from the material itself, except as I've stated. It doesn't show how much sunlight the tree got in any given year of its life. It doesn't talk about the soil nutrients. It doesn't talk about the soil types, which can vary even more than the nutrient load in any given stand. It doesn't account for the variations in nitrogen fixing commensals. It doesn't talk about the individuals' varying ability to get enough water in dry years. It doesn't say anything about how much carbon dioxide the tree breathed in from year to year.

And here we need to stop and take in the folly of using a CO₂-breathing organism as gauge for climate predictions made urgent precisely by the very noticeable increase in anthropogenic CO₂ production globally. What's wrong with this picture?

Maybe you can extrapolate loosely the total CO₂ deposition, the sink, from each given annual growth ring?

So I hope I've given you a vague idea of how preposterously difficult it has to be to do all the statistical manipulations and analysis even to come up with information that almost certainly says nothing approximating what you started out hoping to say. They're not giving up... and goofy as they sound to me, I'm glad of that, because there MIGHT be a way, now that we have such astonishingly good computational power, even though we literally dirt certainly do not have the records to produce SCIENCE from this mêlée right now.

Their best shot at turning this archeological discipline into a predictive tool is NOT from taking [dangerous to trees] ring samples from ancient and pristine stands, and trying to extrapolate forward. Au contraire, mes amies. They should be measuring from trees grown in controlled conditions, but failing the time needed to sort that all out, they should be doing things like measuring from young douglas fir at the extremes of their range in places like industrial tree farms in the north and people's yards in the south, etc. They HAVE to start with trees where there exists the absolute best information about the conditions of their growth so as to be able to separate out even sort of plausibly for all the other factors beside temperature that have an effect on annual growth. Of all of them, temperature is likely to be the LEAST important, the needle in that haystack, and only remotely conceivably something that can eventually be shown through the application of chemistry to the discipline.

In fact, this whole polemic has grabbed the global population because this "science", they say has held beautifully for every past year up until 1960, veered off at that point and they don't know why. This isn't a secret. Nobody's trying to fool anybody about this 1960 boil on the face of all this wishful thinking... maybe just hoping it will go unnoticed till they can rectify the numbers... but the numbers don't hold after 1960 and they do not know why.

I know why. It didn't hold for the past. It got made to conform to the past by scientists looking in the mirror instead of at the trees. This is completely evident on the face of it if you know about trees, and, obviously, pretty opaque if you know about statistics and math but not the trees. Talk to some foresters, you idiots!

To conclude, climategate is only horrible if the scientists involved were trying to fudge the data to make dendroclimatology look predictive, but it seems they might not have been doing that. It seems they were merely trying to enhance the accuracy of interdisciplinary climate modeling by substituting the known accurate temperatures in from 1960 forward. This STILL leaves the gaping wound of the data purporting to tell the temperatures from years before thermometers were recording, but since scientists are so science-centric and pressed to perform on the climate crisis, this probably isn't anything they would have figured out before some forester reads this crap and goes and beats them over their egg heads.

We know there's suddenly intense pressure on this once-sleepy little discipline, but, er, however laudably you are trying to oblige, this isn't obliging. It's dangerous.

JUST KICK OUT THE DENDROCLIMATOLOGY RESULTS FROM THE OVERALL MODELING AND YOU'RE BACK TO DEALING WITH SOMETHING MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATING ACTUALITY.

Simple as that.

Won't even necessarily mean the discipline loses funding because it still MAY get to the point where it can do this to within acceptable margins for error. But for right now, pfeh, get out of here! Quit screwing with us. This is an emergency. This is not a drill!

=====================================

UPDATE, 10pm Pacific: IT SEEMS THE CLIMATOLOGISTS ARE PRECISELY IN THE PROCESS OF KICKING DENDROCLIMATOLOGY FROM THE MODELS.

Thanks to Big Dan for the link, and please excuse the appalling use of Beavis and Butthead in the video, but THIS is the basis for a sudden flood of relief on the other side of this cyberspace from you just now. I feel much better, and maybe I'd've felt much better if I'd've forced myself to read through everything pertinent, but, well, as you know, I couldn't face it.


I'd lost too much vitality from all the trolls yonder....

=====================================

Even later: Wow. I'm really, really getting some relief here. Sometime late afternoon or early evening yesterday, Saturday, it was put to me that this was an established scientific discipline and that they weren't trying to be dishonest. I knew the not trying to be dishonest part of it, but somehow the "established scientific discipline" part rattled my cage. Whuuuuuhut-t-t-t?

I know my stuff, here, and that piece of information threatened to send me off to the Alzheimer's experts because I couldn't find it in my mindscape. Figgered it had to be new from when I had to leave off with my forest activism, but, no, I was told, it was not new. I was right in the middle of one of my long nerve movies pertaining to matters completely else while these bits were sliding under my nose and it was really throwing big blots up into the middle of my screen.

Shortly it managed to snap off my movie and consume me with draft pontifications about how ever this could be, when it suddenly came to me to start googling this stuff. Holy shit. Well, yes, it ended up that I had known about guys running around after tree core samples, and assumed it was to gather historical data for inventory projections and applications of weather to local history... that sort of thing... but somewhere in there they had made, or tried to make, this archeological and commercial practice into something a lot more than that, tried to make it say stuff that freaked me more after learning more and thinking more than the mere notion of it had to begin with... and that was bad enough.

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions from the tasteless YouTube scold that has set me free, but it really sounds now to me as though the guys in the climategate email exchange were feeling about this sort of like I am feeling about this, that the tone and the choices of words were driven by the exasperation of people working for truth to be known and to prevail in the shaping of our future course. And, if the whole discipline were not already being kicked out of our modeling, it will be now. This is really, really a relief. I had begun to feel something like despair that everyone, on both sides, had devolved to the work of substituting the survival of their inclinations for the survival of our planet.

We really are so close to completely losing it.

Sometimes I think I could just drop from bewilderment about the way sentient beings deal with vital things.

polls closed in bolivia

[click image]

Evo expected to win big.

Yay.

05 December 2009

climate change at my house today

[click image]
Study: Slowdown in warming last year not permanent
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID (AP)

WASHINGTON — Cooler temperatures in North America last year do not mean global warming is easing, government and academic scientists said Friday.

Their report comes just days before President Barack Obama heads to Copenhagen, Denmark, to speak at a United Nations conference on climate change.

Rising temperatures over decades have prompted scientific concern, and the last decade has been the hottest in thousands of years, according to climate records. However, the warming eased over North America last year, and groups seeking to deny climate change seized on that in an effort to challenge the idea of overall warming.

North America wasn't as warm as expected because of cooler water in the North Pacific — a condition called La Nina — but the rest of the world continued to warm, researchers said Friday. The overall warming trend is expected to continue worldwide.

La Nina caused cold air from the Arctic to move south into North America, temporarily overwhelming the warming influence from climate change in the region, said Judith Perlwitz of the University of Colorado, lead author of the report being published next week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

While temperature readings in North America dropped back to about the level of 1996 last year, it would have been even colder without the underlying effects of human-induced climate warming, said co-author Martin Hoerling of the Earth System Research Laboratory of the government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Our work shows that there can be cold periods, but that does not mean the end of global warming," Perlwitz said.

Last year "was not an extremely cold year; it was not an extreme event," Hoerling said, but it did "raise a considerable stir."

The scientists launched their study of conditions last year and compared them with complex computer climate models, leading to the conclusion that it was a case of natural variability rather than any change in global warming.

The work was funded by the NOAA Climate Program Office, and other co-authors were from NOAA's National Weather Service and National Climatic Data Service.

meat

[click image]

holder immunizing yoo

[click image]

are you too demoralized to act?

[click image, HOME, gorgeous video, hour and a half, which is uplifting at the end, so stressed here now...]

Weekend Edition
December 4-6, 2009


In Search of Morale

Are Americans Too Broken for the Truth to Set Us Free?
By BRUCE E. LEVINE

Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them? Has such a demoralization happened in the United States? Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further? What forces have created a demoralized, passive, disCouraged U.S. population? Can anything be done to turn this around?

Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them?

YES. It is called the “abuse syndrome.” How do abusive pimps, spouses, bosses, corporations, and governments stay in control? They shove lies, emotional and physical abuses, and injustices in their victims’ faces, and when victims are afraid to exit from these relationships, they get weaker; and so the abuser then makes their victims eat even more lies, abuses, and injustices, resulting in victims even weaker as they remain in these relationships.

Does the truth of their abuse set people free when they are deep in these abuse syndromes? NO. For victims of the abuse syndrome, the truth of their passive submission to humiliating oppression is more than embarrassing — it can feel shameful; and there is nothing more painful than shame. And when one already feels beaten down and demoralized, the likely response to the pain of shame is not constructive action but more attempts to shut down or divert oneself from this pain. It is not likely that the truth of one’s humiliating oppression is going to energize one to constructive actions.

Has such a demoralization happened in the U.S.?

In the United States, 47 million people are without health insurance and many millions more are underinsured or a job layoff away from losing their coverage. But despite the current sellout by their elected officials to the insurance industry, there is no outpouring of millions of U.S. citizens on the streets of Washington D.C. protesting this betrayal.

Polls show that the majority of Americans oppose U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the taxpayer bailout of the financial industry, yet only a handful of U.S. citizens have protested any of this.

Remember the 2000 U.S. presidential election? That’s the one in which Al Gore received 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush. That’s also the one that the Florida Supreme Court’s order for a recount of the disputed Florida vote was over-ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in a politicized 5-4 decision, of which dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens remarked: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” Yet, even all this provoked few demonstrators.

When people become broken, they cannot act on truths of injustice. Furthermore, when people have become broken, more truths about how they have been victimized can lead to shame about how they have allowed it. And shame, like fear, is one more psychological way we become even more broken.

U.S. citizens do not actively protest obvious injustices for the same reasons that people cannot leave their abusive spouses. They feel helpless to effect change. The more we don’t act, the weaker we get. And ultimately to deal with the painful humiliation over inaction in the face of an oppressor, we move to shutdown and escape strategies such as depression, substance abuse, and other diversions, which further keep us from acting. This is the vicious cycle of all abuse syndromes.

Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further?

Maybe.

Shortly before the 2000 U.S. presidential election, millions of Americans saw a clip of George W. Bush joking to a wealthy group of people, “What a crowd tonight: the haves and the haves more. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base.” Yet, even with these kind of inflammatory remarks, the tens of millions of U.S. citizens who had come to despise Bush and his arrogance remained passive in the face of the 2000 non-democratic presidential elections.

Perhaps the “political genius” of the Bush-Cheney regime was fully realizing that Americans were so broken that they could get away with damn near anything. And the more people did nothing about the boot slamming on their faces, the weaker people became.

What forces have created a demoralized, passive, disCouraged U.S. population?

The U.S. government-corporate partnership has used its share of guns and terror to break Native Americans, labor union organizers, and other dissidents and activists. But today, most U.S. citizens are broken by financial fears. There is potential legal debt if we speak out against a powerful authority, and all kinds of other debt if we do not comply on the job. Young people are broken by college-loan debts and fear of having no health insurance.

The U.S. population is increasingly broken by the social isolation created by corporate-governmental policies. A 2006 American Sociological Review study (“Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades”) reported that 25 percent of Americans did not have a single confidant in 2004 (10 percent of Americans lacked a single confidant in 1985). Sociologist Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone (2000) describes how social connectedness is disappearing in virtually every aspect of U.S. life. For example, there has been a significant decrease in face-to-face contact with neighbors and friends due to suburbanization, commuting, electronic entertainment, time and money pressures and other variables created by governmental-corporate policies. And union activities and other formal or informal ways that people give each other the support necessary to resist oppression have also decreased.

We are also broken by a corporate-government partnership that has rendered most of us out of control when it comes to the basic necessities of life, including our food supply. And we, like many other people in the world, are broken by socializing institutions that alienate us from our basic humanity. A few examples:

Schools and Universities: Do most schools teach young people to be action-oriented — or to be passive? Do most schools teach young people that they can affect their surroundings — or not to bother? Do schools provide examples of democratic institutions — or examples of authoritarian ones?

A long list of school critics from Henry David Thoreau to John Dewey, John Holt, Paul Goodman, Jonathan Kozol, Alfie Kohn, Ivan Illich, and John Taylor Gatto have pointed out that a school is nothing less than a miniature society: what young people experience in schools is the chief means of creating our future society. Schools are routinely places where kids — through fear — learn to comply to authorities for whom they often have no respect, and to regurgitate material they often find meaningless. These are great ways of breaking someone.

Today, U.S. colleges and universities have increasingly become places where young people are merely acquiring degree credentials — badges of compliance for corporate employers — in exchange for learning to accept bureaucratic domination and enslaving debt.

Mental Health Institutions: Aldous Huxley predicted, “And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude.” Today, increasing numbers of people in the U.S. who do not comply with authority are being diagnosed with mental illnesses and medicated with psychiatric drugs that make them less pained about their boredom, resentments, and other negative emotions, thus rendering them more compliant and manageable.

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is an increasingly popular diagnosis for children and teenagers. The official symptoms of ODD include, “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules," and "often argues with adults.” An even more common reaction to oppressive authorities than the overt defiance of ODD is some type of passive defiance — for example, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Studies show that virtually all children diagnosed with ADHD will pay attention to activities that they actually enjoy or that they have chosen. In other words, when ADHD-labeled kids are having a good time and in control, the “disease” goes away.

When human beings feel too terrified and broken to actively protest, they may stage a “passive-aggressive revolution” by simply getting depressed, staying drunk, and not doing anything — this is one reason why the Soviet Empire crumbled. However, the diseasing/medicalizing of rebellion and drug “treatments” have weakened the power of even this passive-aggressive revolution.

Television: In his book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (1978), Jerry Mander (after reviewing totalitarian critics such as George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Jacques Ellul, and Ivan Illich) compiled a list of the “Eight Ideal Conditions for the Flowering of Autocracy.”

Television, Mander claimed, helps create all eight conditions for breaking a population. Television: (1) occupies people so that they don't know themselves — and what a human being is; (2) separates people from one another; (3) creates sensory deprivation; (4) occupies the mind and fills the brain with prearranged experience and thought; (5) encourages drug use to dampen dissatisfaction (while TV itself produces a drug-like effect, this was compounded in 1997 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration relaxing the rules of prescription-drug advertising); (6) centralizes knowledge and information; (7) eliminates or "museumize" other cultures to eliminate comparisons; and (8) redefines happiness and the meaning of life.

Commericalism of Damn Near Everything: While spirituality, music, and cinema can be revolutionary forces, the gross commercialization of all of these has deadened their capacity to energize rebellion. So now, damn near everything — not just organized religion — has become “opiates of the masses.”

The primary societal role of U.S. citizens is no longer that of "citizen" but that of "consumer." While citizens know that buying and selling within community strengthens that community and that this strengthens democracy, consumers care only about the best deal. While citizens understand that dependency on an impersonal creditor is a kind of slavery, consumers get excited with credit cards that offer a temporarily low APR.

Consumerism breaks people by devaluing human connectedness, socializing self-absorption, obliterating self-reliance, alienating people from normal human emotional reactions, and by selling the idea that purchased products — not themselves and their community — are their salvation.

Can anything be done to turn this around?

When people get caught up in humiliating abuse syndromes, more truths about their oppressive humiliations don’t set them free. What sets them free is morale.

What gives people morale? Encouragement. Small victories. Models of courageous behaviors. And anything that helps them break out of the vicious cycle of pain, shut down, immobilization, shame over immobilization, more pain, and more shut down.

The last people I would turn to for help in remobilizing a demoralized population are mental health professionals — at least those who have not rebelled against their professional socialization. Much of the craft of relighting the pilot light requires talents that mental health professionals simply are not selected for nor are they trained in. Specifically, the talents required are a fearlessness around image, spontaneity, and definitely anti-authoritarianism. But these are not the traits that medical schools or graduate schools select for or encourage.

Mental health professionals’ focus on symptoms and feelings often create patients who take themselves and their moods far too seriously. In contrast, people talented in the craft of maintaining morale resist this kind of self-absorption. For example, in the Question & Answer session that followed a Noam Chomsky talk (reported in Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, 2002), a somewhat demoralized man in the audience asked Chomsky if he too ever went through a phase of hopelessness. Chomsky responded, “Yeah, every evening . . .

If you want to feel hopeless, there are a lot of things you could feel hopeless about. If you want to sort of work out objectively what’s the chance that the human species will survive for another century, probably not very high. But I mean, what’s the point? . . . First of all, those predictions don’t mean anything — they’re more just a reflection of your mood or your personality than anything else. And if you act on that assumption, then you’re guaranteeing that’ll happen. If you act on the assumption that things can change, well, maybe they will. Okay, the only rational choice, given those alternatives, is to forget pessimism.”

A major component of the craft of maintaining morale is not taking the advertised reality too seriously. In the early 1960s, when the overwhelming majority in the U.S. supported military intervention in Vietnam, Chomsky was one of the few U.S. citizens actively opposing it. Looking back at this era, Chomsky reflected, “When I got involved in the anti-Vietnam War movement, it seemed to me impossible that we would ever have any effect. . . . So looking back, I think my evaluation of the ‘hope’ was much too pessimistic: it was based on a complete misunderstanding. I was sort of believing what I read.”

An elitist assumption is that people don’t change because they are either ignorant of their problems or ignorant of solutions. Elitist “helpers” think they have done something useful by informing overweight people that they are obese and that they must reduce their caloric intake and increase exercise. An elitist who has never been broken by his or her circumstances does not know that people who have become demoralized do not need analyses and pontifications.  Rather the immobilized need a shot of morale.

--------------------------------------------

Bruce E. Levine is a clinical psychologist and his latest book is Surviving America’s Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007). His Web site is www.brucelevine.net

04 December 2009

moyers recaps on afghanistan

[click image]

I have been trying hard to remove the flies from this little girl, wash her face, feed her, show her the sea, teach her about trees... but it's no use. All my work to take the harm off even the image only makes a mess.

[Particularly lucid segment....]

this is your chance

[click image]

... to really get a lock on the crap coming down behind the scenes and in front of our noses for the last twenty years, your chance to get it clear about the stuff our government and media have been burying in bullshit full time to keep the public muddled even when the facts are all there to be known.

Nobody I know as confused about what they were doing, and yet, and yet, look at the carnage! It's the same now. It is the same now. We know and they heap lies on the facts we know are facts until we just scream uncle and bury our heads under our pillows... or in buckets of ice water.

WHEN DO WE GET TO BE LUCID AGAIN?


Scott Horton interviews Scott Ritter [one hour]

oh, shit

[click image]

blackwater graymail

[click image]

And talking about it with Rachel Maddow....

phil is a climate skeptic

[click images]

He doesn't see how it's necessarily anthropogenic, is suspicious because of all the high finance guys diving into the carbon credit market. He wants us to see this, this, this, this, this and this.

I just have to say that it can be, almost certainly is, anthropogenic AND the high finance guys will make global fascism out of it. Nobody seems to be mentioning that it's even more plausible the plutocrats would figure out a way to make trillions off of real disasters than that they would make them up, or pull false flags to get their way. Why can't the science be right, or largely correct, AND plutocrats are trying to make a killing on it?

It isn't either or. It just so seriously isn't.

03 December 2009

viva! viva! viva! jane hamsher!

[click image]

OUTSTANDING appearance on Democracy Now! Don't miss it.

Outstanding. She's nailing them. Nailing them.

only the baddest best and brightest need apply

[click image]

How long are you going to take this?

i guess i am comforted

[click image]

... that so many have ceased trying to defend this egregious performance....

That's something like progress, innit?

eat this

[click image]

the audacity of hubris, part 808

[click image]

Matt Taibbi has just set himself squarely with Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald in terms of transcendentally good journalism.

2012

[click image]
Putin used the show to further burnish his common-man appeal, chastising the Russian rich for arrogantly showing off their wealth, saying their fancy imported cars looked as grotesque as golden teeth.

In a careful balancing act in response to a question about Josef Stalin, Putin credited the Soviet dictator for his industrialization drive and World War II victory but denounced the massive repressions under Stalin's regime.
So... if they're trying to rehabilitate Stalin, they don't seem to be doing it by glossing over the atrocities....

02 December 2009

peter b and reese erlich and robert parry on president mouth

[click image]

social justice

[click image, video, two hours]

I am crestfallen to find one of my heroes in this condition, but I'm listening to each precious word.

nobody, but nobody seems to grok the darker meaning

[click image]

... of why Fudd is still in D.C.

C'mon now. You can do it. Can't be just me and Old Uncle Dave....

why they buck history to prevail in afghanistan

[click image]

The only reason the Soviets did not prevail is because the United States was arming and training the mujahideen. That is why the war pigs are ignoring history. They have really good reason to believe it doesn't apply this time... and, unless the Chinese are setting up supply lines for the Taliban, they probably aren't wrong about this.

they call us "idealists"

[click image]

... as though the ideal is only fiction, not ideal at all....

why obama ain't no JFK

[click image]

Antiwar has up a fabulous interview with James W. Douglass. It's only twenty-two minutes and it's hard to listen to this woman try to buck most of what he's saying, but it turns out to have made it a very strong articulation of precisely what is the matter with Obama.

01 December 2009

the consensus

[click image]

... for all the good it does us....

Glenn Greenwald

and

Michael Moore:

War President

Obama: 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Obama: "We Did Not Ask for This Fight"
Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"
Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak"
Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"
Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering"

Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined"
Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat"

Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"
Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country"
Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"

DO SOMETHING:
CodePink | SDS | United for Peace & Justice | World Can't Wait
And I'm sure there will be staggeringly many more to add. I even snatched something out of the side of my eye from the MSM saying "Bush Lite".

watch home with me instead of obummer

[click image, video, hour and a half]

i woke up to pleasant surprises from apple

[click image]

I had begun to think Apple might not be Apple anymore, which was threatening to break my heart, but, here I am blearily reading emails from them that put me positive this was just a cosmic wrinkle and Apple is really Apple still after all.

I may live.

I'm sure our government has perpetrated all kine absolutely brain-powderizingly awful stuff today, but... well... guess what? I'm not going to look until after I go giddily beg use of a local fax machine and kick up my heels a little in this spurt of vitality from a sense of renewed hope.

Buy a Mac.

if we kicked him in the family jewels -- REPAIRED LINK

[click image, now that I've fixed the link, sorry]

... would he even feel it?

[It was too late, and I was too fried to do this post. I was just trying to catch up with myself before I dropped from the carnival ride of nerves over this whole computer thing... which is turning out happily I think....]