Actually it refers to the beginning of the Tea Party movement when a Thomas Paine imposter stood in front of a document that the real Thomas Paine called "a copy, though not quite so base as the original, of the form of the British Government" and ranted about assorted nonsense including nativism (even though Thomas Paine was an immigrant from England who narrowly escaped the guillotine because Robespierre designated him an illegal alien) and ended the absurd video by telling viewers to mail a teabag to their congressional representatives. A related movement called "Teabag Congress" was started around the same time--the double entendre being obviously understood by those who developed it.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
"Proper Breeding"
I have read recently about a vast Eugenist conspiracy that wealthy philanthropists are imposing upon the earth. It is unclear to me why someone would wish to make such an accusation, but I must assume that it comes from a general skepticism that anything good may come from the creations of mankind, and in order to assert that goodness may only occur in some miraculous form beyond the realm of human responsibility. In any case, I hope to lend some perspective upon what is, and--more importantly--what IS NOT insidious among the systems of morality and propriety.
Now, it is beyond abundantly clear that the social selection of desirable traits was by no means the original invention of the Eugenics movement, or those movements contemporary to it with which it was loosely (and, in the minds of some revisionist historians, indivisibly) associated. We need not look much farther back in history from then, to see the perverse notions of a demigod-like linage attributed to royalty and nobles, and the brute-like nature attributed to linage of the "common people." Compared to the perpetual state of atrocity that characterized that institution (with it's recurring endemic state of war, cruel and unusual punishments, and religious inquisitions) even the cruelty committed in the name of Eugenics seems trivial. And yet, was it even a year ago that sycophants for that perversion were denouncing the "horrid common girl" that was to pollute the precious backwater of the royal gene-pool.
Still, the notion of lineal superiority long predates the European order of kings and nobles. For even among the recorded legends of the barbarian tribes of the Levant we find reference to inherited exaltation and degradation according to the blessings and curses of man and God, even extending unto tribes and nations. Such superstitions were even used as an excuse for mass genocide. Despite this given explanation for such atrocities, it is worth noting that in the tales of the feud between Jacob and Leban the author reveals an understanding of the process of genetic adaptation to different environmental conditions (albeit explained away by primitive superstition)
Such it seems that the only clear difference between this set of beliefs and that of Eugenic theory is the greater understanding of science on the part of the latter.
Later, among the European philosophers of republicanism, the notion appears as a plain comparison to the breeding of animals. Plato's Republic advises that a hierarchy should shroud a selective process of breeding in the cynical guise of religious observance:
“that the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible. And the way in which all this is brought to pass must be unknown to any but the rulers, if, again, the herd of guardians is to be as free as possible from dissension... We shall, then, have to ordain certain festivals and sacrifices, in which we shall bring together the brides and the bridegrooms, and our poets must compose hymns..."
and
“...if anyone older or younger than the prescribed age meddles with procreation for the state, we shall say that his error is an impiety and an injustice, since he is begetting for the city a child whose birth, if it escapes discovery, will not be attended by the sacrifices and the prayers which the priests and priestesses"
Given the authoritative veneration given to Plato during the long reign of episcopal hierarchy in Europe--that omnipresent coercive force of the fusion of church and state upon the mind (and--if that fail--upon the body) of every parishioner-citizen, it could hardly be a surprise if it were found that a great deal of western customs and morals were aimed at the selective breeding of the "flock."
But perhaps it is simplest of all, to note the near-universal force that family-esteem plays in courtship around the world. One may know the goodness of the individual from associating with them. Why then would one be judged by the status of family? In elite society (even here in the west) the status of "old money" is elevated above that of the "nouveau riche." Even the term "well-bred" may be used, no less with human beings than with quarter-horses. The middle class often emulates this as well, making reference to someone being from a good family or being "good people." All this is aimed at a familiar goal; the animal urge to perpetuate one's DNA. In spite of the harm that it has done to some individuals, the most absurd aspect of Eugenics is its redundancy; for it seeks to order according to a specific plan, what mankind is driven to do biologically.
That some stray from this course of elevating their own DNA above all else, and actually take the time to invest their fortunes in helping the downtrodden--to put it figuratively; to give some of the contents of the dish as alms rather than merely polishing the outside for some aesthetic gratification--ought to receive admiration, but if it does not some philosophers say this will garner a greater reward still
Now, it is beyond abundantly clear that the social selection of desirable traits was by no means the original invention of the Eugenics movement, or those movements contemporary to it with which it was loosely (and, in the minds of some revisionist historians, indivisibly) associated. We need not look much farther back in history from then, to see the perverse notions of a demigod-like linage attributed to royalty and nobles, and the brute-like nature attributed to linage of the "common people." Compared to the perpetual state of atrocity that characterized that institution (with it's recurring endemic state of war, cruel and unusual punishments, and religious inquisitions) even the cruelty committed in the name of Eugenics seems trivial. And yet, was it even a year ago that sycophants for that perversion were denouncing the "horrid common girl" that was to pollute the precious backwater of the royal gene-pool.
Still, the notion of lineal superiority long predates the European order of kings and nobles. For even among the recorded legends of the barbarian tribes of the Levant we find reference to inherited exaltation and degradation according to the blessings and curses of man and God, even extending unto tribes and nations. Such superstitions were even used as an excuse for mass genocide. Despite this given explanation for such atrocities, it is worth noting that in the tales of the feud between Jacob and Leban the author reveals an understanding of the process of genetic adaptation to different environmental conditions (albeit explained away by primitive superstition)
"And he set the rods which he had piled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted"
-- Genesis 30:38-39
Such it seems that the only clear difference between this set of beliefs and that of Eugenic theory is the greater understanding of science on the part of the latter.
Later, among the European philosophers of republicanism, the notion appears as a plain comparison to the breeding of animals. Plato's Republic advises that a hierarchy should shroud a selective process of breeding in the cynical guise of religious observance:
“that the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible. And the way in which all this is brought to pass must be unknown to any but the rulers, if, again, the herd of guardians is to be as free as possible from dissension... We shall, then, have to ordain certain festivals and sacrifices, in which we shall bring together the brides and the bridegrooms, and our poets must compose hymns..."
and
“...if anyone older or younger than the prescribed age meddles with procreation for the state, we shall say that his error is an impiety and an injustice, since he is begetting for the city a child whose birth, if it escapes discovery, will not be attended by the sacrifices and the prayers which the priests and priestesses"
Given the authoritative veneration given to Plato during the long reign of episcopal hierarchy in Europe--that omnipresent coercive force of the fusion of church and state upon the mind (and--if that fail--upon the body) of every parishioner-citizen, it could hardly be a surprise if it were found that a great deal of western customs and morals were aimed at the selective breeding of the "flock."
But perhaps it is simplest of all, to note the near-universal force that family-esteem plays in courtship around the world. One may know the goodness of the individual from associating with them. Why then would one be judged by the status of family? In elite society (even here in the west) the status of "old money" is elevated above that of the "nouveau riche." Even the term "well-bred" may be used, no less with human beings than with quarter-horses. The middle class often emulates this as well, making reference to someone being from a good family or being "good people." All this is aimed at a familiar goal; the animal urge to perpetuate one's DNA. In spite of the harm that it has done to some individuals, the most absurd aspect of Eugenics is its redundancy; for it seeks to order according to a specific plan, what mankind is driven to do biologically.
That some stray from this course of elevating their own DNA above all else, and actually take the time to invest their fortunes in helping the downtrodden--to put it figuratively; to give some of the contents of the dish as alms rather than merely polishing the outside for some aesthetic gratification--ought to receive admiration, but if it does not some philosophers say this will garner a greater reward still
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
"Regulation Caused the Subprime Crisis"
The myth goes something like this: "The gubment made dem banks lend'ta minawratas, an' we'all know dey can't pay no goddamm bills"
Of course the data shows that this is all a ruse by the race-baiting anti-regulation propagandists. The report on the subprime crisis done by the Federal Reserve Board of Dallas shows that:
"No major changes have been made to the CRA or its enforcement since 1995. The subprime crisis was triggered by poorly performing mortgage loans originated between 2004 and 2007. This chronological gap weakens the contention that the CRA is a major cause of the crisis.
Contrary to the widely held perception that most higher-priced loans were made to lower-income groups targeted by the CRA, 55 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- and upper-income borrowers or borrowers in middle- and upper-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006.
Only 6 percent of higher-priced loan originations made by banking institutions and their affiliates in 2005 and 2006 went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods within CRA assessment areas"
and further:
"Mortgage purchase data counter the notion that the CRA indirectly created an incentive for independent mortgage companies to make higher-priced lower-income loans. In 2006, banking institutions bought only about 9 percent of independent mortgage companies’ loans; 15 percent of those loans were higher-priced loans to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods"
rather, the report concludes:
"There appears to be a direct correlation between the quality of subprime loans and the degree of regulatory oversight. Nondepository mortgage providers such as mortgage lenders and brokers are regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of a federal body responsible for comprehensive oversight. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan reported that these companies 'originated the overwhelming preponderance of toxic subprime mortgages' and these loans 'account for a disproportionate percentage of defaults and foreclosures nationwide, with glaring examples in the metropolitan areas hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis.' "
It would seem that the most obvious (if not the most classist, racist, and what have you) conclusion bears out; that the crisis was not caused by governance, but rather a lack of governance
http://dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm
Of course the data shows that this is all a ruse by the race-baiting anti-regulation propagandists. The report on the subprime crisis done by the Federal Reserve Board of Dallas shows that:
"No major changes have been made to the CRA or its enforcement since 1995. The subprime crisis was triggered by poorly performing mortgage loans originated between 2004 and 2007. This chronological gap weakens the contention that the CRA is a major cause of the crisis.
Contrary to the widely held perception that most higher-priced loans were made to lower-income groups targeted by the CRA, 55 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- and upper-income borrowers or borrowers in middle- and upper-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006.
Only 6 percent of higher-priced loan originations made by banking institutions and their affiliates in 2005 and 2006 went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods within CRA assessment areas"
and further:
"Mortgage purchase data counter the notion that the CRA indirectly created an incentive for independent mortgage companies to make higher-priced lower-income loans. In 2006, banking institutions bought only about 9 percent of independent mortgage companies’ loans; 15 percent of those loans were higher-priced loans to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods"
rather, the report concludes:
"There appears to be a direct correlation between the quality of subprime loans and the degree of regulatory oversight. Nondepository mortgage providers such as mortgage lenders and brokers are regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of a federal body responsible for comprehensive oversight. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan reported that these companies 'originated the overwhelming preponderance of toxic subprime mortgages' and these loans 'account for a disproportionate percentage of defaults and foreclosures nationwide, with glaring examples in the metropolitan areas hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis.' "
It would seem that the most obvious (if not the most classist, racist, and what have you) conclusion bears out; that the crisis was not caused by governance, but rather a lack of governance
http://dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm
Friday, September 23, 2011
"Hate Crime = Thought Crime"
The argument that distinguishing between common crimes and hate crimes is a method of policing thought-crime would seem a most cynical ploy by those who wish to defend bigoted belligerence. Long before Orwell, legal distinctions distinctions were made upon crimes based upon intent. Even the ancient Law of Moses made the distinction between accidental manslaughter and murder, and provided means by which one who committed the former could take refuge from vengeance. As civil law entered the modern age, new terms of distinction such as "malice aforethought," "premeditated murder," and "aggravated murder" entered the legal as well as the common vernacular. The notion that criminal law ought to take notice of actions only is to ignore the history of jurisprudence.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Sex Ed for Every Kindergartener
I was recently shown a video off of youtube
http://youtu.be/DNqyt2vac4E
It details how the author believes that Barack Obama believes that every Kindergartener should have sex ed, and how the author postulates that the president lied about the bill being intended to protect children from sexual predators based exclusively on the author's inability to read/use search a document. It took me about 10 minutes to find the references to protecting children. wow. Here is my response to the person who posted the propaganda:
firstly, the bill does not mandate that EVERY kindergarten teach sex-ed. It only sets guidelines for school districts that decide to do so.
the first line of the bill text reads: "No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil."
the bill also does state: "Course material and instruction shall advise pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations with a minor as specified in... Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961"
as well as:
"Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.
(12) Course material and instruction shall teach male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence and shall teach female students about reducing vulnerability for sexual violence.
(13) Course material and instruction shall teach pupils about counseling, medical, and legal resources available to survivors of sexual abuse and sexual assault, including resources for escaping violent relationships.
(14) Course material and instruction shall teach pupils that it is wrong to take advantage of or to exploit another person.
(15) Course material and instruction shall be free of racial, ethnic, gender, religious, or sexual orientation biases."
So I bet I can guess which line was ACTUALLY outrageous to the maker of that video. Anyone else have a guess?
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=73&DocNum=99&GAID=3&Session;=
and Article 12 of the Illinois Criminal Code
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12,+Subdiv.+5&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=20887500&SeqEnd=22225000
http://youtu.be/DNqyt2vac4E
It details how the author believes that Barack Obama believes that every Kindergartener should have sex ed, and how the author postulates that the president lied about the bill being intended to protect children from sexual predators based exclusively on the author's inability to read/use search a document. It took me about 10 minutes to find the references to protecting children. wow. Here is my response to the person who posted the propaganda:
firstly, the bill does not mandate that EVERY kindergarten teach sex-ed. It only sets guidelines for school districts that decide to do so.
the first line of the bill text reads: "No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil."
the bill also does state: "Course material and instruction shall advise pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations with a minor as specified in... Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961"
as well as:
"Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.
(12) Course material and instruction shall teach male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence and shall teach female students about reducing vulnerability for sexual violence.
(13) Course material and instruction shall teach pupils about counseling, medical, and legal resources available to survivors of sexual abuse and sexual assault, including resources for escaping violent relationships.
(14) Course material and instruction shall teach pupils that it is wrong to take advantage of or to exploit another person.
(15) Course material and instruction shall be free of racial, ethnic, gender, religious, or sexual orientation biases."
So I bet I can guess which line was ACTUALLY outrageous to the maker of that video. Anyone else have a guess?
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=73&DocNum=99&GAID=3&Session;=
and Article 12 of the Illinois Criminal Code
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12,+Subdiv.+5&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=20887500&SeqEnd=22225000
Sunday, July 17, 2011
About this blog
The purpose herein, is to dispel disinformation, and the looniness it propagates. This includes wild conspiracy theories, race-baiting political myths, and politicians' revisionist histories.
Please enjoy
Please enjoy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)