Walker reflects the sad inability of WI's good people to move ahead and adapt to change. We have sentenced ourselves to become quaint and curious relics--sorta like Hillbillies. Even Thompson--not the sharpest tool in the shed--advocated back in 2000 for changing direction to move into more high tech, genetic, med-based research. He cited Milwaukee, Madison, and Marshfield as hubs of change.
Sadly the people here await the return of the buffalo--farming and manufacturing--like the Ghost Shirt Society. MN continues to beat us at every game. Our population ages more quickly (in the sense of constituting a higher proportion of the total), our children continue to flee the state, and our net growth lags to the point where will will continue to lose representatives at the federal level. Walker is giving people what they want. Stagnation and decay under the pretense of stability.
--LL
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Eugenics history snippets
With the recent revelation that prison doctors illegally sterilized female inmates in California, and the ongoing full-court press of anti-woman's health legislation in Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas it may be a "teachable moment" as they say to discuss how much fun elite children of darkness have had in the past with "selective breeding."
On the occasions I have had to lecture on the history of eugenics the first reaction of my audience has usually been shock that there ever was such a thing in the United States. But yes, this supposedly free country has seen its share of restrictions on freedom. In my high school we had to pee in a cup to participate in sports and there was a ban on hats and jackets, but what the heck right? Students can't vote. Once the shock wears off that yes, many states had the power to sterilize citizens deemed unfit to have children because of mental or physical defect, one can almost start to see their brains turning; "hmm, who would I prevent from having children?"
The truth is that eugenics, the pseudo-scientific program of weeding out "bad genes" or encouraging the proliferation of good ones, was all the rage in the US around the turn of the Twentieth Century. The idea that society should have some degree of control over reproduction and raising children is an old one. In the western world the ancient Greeks charged the polis or city with responsibility for raising children to be good Hellenes and the Spartans in particular had detailed instructions on not only who could have children but how mothers are to take care of themselves during pregnancy to ensure strong and healthy kids. Eugenics itself is based on the Greek word for "good in birth" however humanity had to wait until Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species to really get the modern movement rolling. Sociologist Herbert Spencer adapted Darwin's ideas to humans, within the species, not between species. This was a big reason "Social Darwinism" was garbage, junk science.
Contemporaneously with Spencer, Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was studying the bloodlines of "genius" especially among nobility and found a tendency among very intelligent families to refuse to reproduce at rates that would increase the genius of mankind. On the other hand, Galton hypothesized that the poor (and obviously less-intelligent) were having children at a rate which would crowd out the gifted. It was therefore a rare occurrence in human history that "progress" could be made, more smart people and fewer dummies but it could never last as the differential birthrates meant a regression toward the mean. See where this was going? Why should not society regulate reproduction to maximize intelligence and ability?
Progress was the watchword of the day. Progress for the race. And it should not be a surprise that in America it was "Progressives" that latched onto the idea of improving mankind, but as with all human endeavors, the dark side got into the act as well. While deciding who would be prohibited from having children and who would get public subsidies to grow their families is an inherently elitist and paternalist fancy, in America there was a racist component as well. This was not Galton's intention, ogre that he was, Galton wanted to reserve his program for Anglo-Saxons and so did many in America. But this was a time of "scientific racism" where the so-called races of mankind were ranked and the light-skinned peoples of Northern and Western Europe were "naturally" the world's masters, justifying imperialism and abhorring the melting pot of ethnicities.
One would think that the South would be the epicenter of eugenics in America, given its history, however you would be wrong. By and large Progressives in the South were thwarted in their attempts to segregate or sterilize the unfit. It was their history that prevented eugenic ideas from taking hold. Long established churches, tight-knit communities, and the tradition of individual freedom was a barren place for the eugenic seed. But what about race you say? Well, eugenics was always considered a means of improvement of the white race against all others. While some social workers and doctors were able to sneak through a few outliers, it was not what popular memory holds.
California, on the other hand, was a different story. In the Golden State there were no long-established traditions and other checks on the onrush of eugenics, therefore California was the place to be for every crackpot attempt at social engineering. World War II and the revelations of Nazi horrors dampened enthusiasm for eugenics but for many years, especially during the Great Depression, the poor, disabled, prisoners, and anyone deemed "unfit" had much to fear from the authorities. Therefore, given that eugenics became a tradition in California, it is unsurprising that it resurfaced in their prison system. Legal or not, the impulse among certain people to decide for others whether or not they can have children is going to persist.
On the occasions I have had to lecture on the history of eugenics the first reaction of my audience has usually been shock that there ever was such a thing in the United States. But yes, this supposedly free country has seen its share of restrictions on freedom. In my high school we had to pee in a cup to participate in sports and there was a ban on hats and jackets, but what the heck right? Students can't vote. Once the shock wears off that yes, many states had the power to sterilize citizens deemed unfit to have children because of mental or physical defect, one can almost start to see their brains turning; "hmm, who would I prevent from having children?"
The truth is that eugenics, the pseudo-scientific program of weeding out "bad genes" or encouraging the proliferation of good ones, was all the rage in the US around the turn of the Twentieth Century. The idea that society should have some degree of control over reproduction and raising children is an old one. In the western world the ancient Greeks charged the polis or city with responsibility for raising children to be good Hellenes and the Spartans in particular had detailed instructions on not only who could have children but how mothers are to take care of themselves during pregnancy to ensure strong and healthy kids. Eugenics itself is based on the Greek word for "good in birth" however humanity had to wait until Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species to really get the modern movement rolling. Sociologist Herbert Spencer adapted Darwin's ideas to humans, within the species, not between species. This was a big reason "Social Darwinism" was garbage, junk science.
Contemporaneously with Spencer, Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was studying the bloodlines of "genius" especially among nobility and found a tendency among very intelligent families to refuse to reproduce at rates that would increase the genius of mankind. On the other hand, Galton hypothesized that the poor (and obviously less-intelligent) were having children at a rate which would crowd out the gifted. It was therefore a rare occurrence in human history that "progress" could be made, more smart people and fewer dummies but it could never last as the differential birthrates meant a regression toward the mean. See where this was going? Why should not society regulate reproduction to maximize intelligence and ability?
Progress was the watchword of the day. Progress for the race. And it should not be a surprise that in America it was "Progressives" that latched onto the idea of improving mankind, but as with all human endeavors, the dark side got into the act as well. While deciding who would be prohibited from having children and who would get public subsidies to grow their families is an inherently elitist and paternalist fancy, in America there was a racist component as well. This was not Galton's intention, ogre that he was, Galton wanted to reserve his program for Anglo-Saxons and so did many in America. But this was a time of "scientific racism" where the so-called races of mankind were ranked and the light-skinned peoples of Northern and Western Europe were "naturally" the world's masters, justifying imperialism and abhorring the melting pot of ethnicities.
One would think that the South would be the epicenter of eugenics in America, given its history, however you would be wrong. By and large Progressives in the South were thwarted in their attempts to segregate or sterilize the unfit. It was their history that prevented eugenic ideas from taking hold. Long established churches, tight-knit communities, and the tradition of individual freedom was a barren place for the eugenic seed. But what about race you say? Well, eugenics was always considered a means of improvement of the white race against all others. While some social workers and doctors were able to sneak through a few outliers, it was not what popular memory holds.
California, on the other hand, was a different story. In the Golden State there were no long-established traditions and other checks on the onrush of eugenics, therefore California was the place to be for every crackpot attempt at social engineering. World War II and the revelations of Nazi horrors dampened enthusiasm for eugenics but for many years, especially during the Great Depression, the poor, disabled, prisoners, and anyone deemed "unfit" had much to fear from the authorities. Therefore, given that eugenics became a tradition in California, it is unsurprising that it resurfaced in their prison system. Legal or not, the impulse among certain people to decide for others whether or not they can have children is going to persist.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Huh?
What the hell does this even mean? I noticed a few years ago the move to "reverse racism" by white conservatives. Did they just drop the "reverse" part since Barack Obama's election?
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Social Justice tolls for thee
The Reactionary Libertarian/ Tea faith as regards social justice is conceal, carry, and stand your ground. The Liberal faith in social justice means preventing stand your ground with education, housing, and employment.
At the heart of the matter, the right wing does not accept humanism in any of its forms--and by humanism I mean the movement that developed in renaissance Europe. I cannot imagine any of the right wing posters agreeing with John Donne's concern for people beyond his own kith and kin. Nor can I see the Tea/GOP and their ilk endorsing the lines, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. . . ."
from Meditation 17
--LL
1 Response from CB
I can imagine these mopes with a lifeboat from the Titanic machine gunning those in the water with the slogan: "You should have saved your money and traveled first class. Tough cookies!"
At the heart of the matter, the right wing does not accept humanism in any of its forms--and by humanism I mean the movement that developed in renaissance Europe. I cannot imagine any of the right wing posters agreeing with John Donne's concern for people beyond his own kith and kin. Nor can I see the Tea/GOP and their ilk endorsing the lines, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. . . ."
from Meditation 17
--LL
1 Response from CB
I can imagine these mopes with a lifeboat from the Titanic machine gunning those in the water with the slogan: "You should have saved your money and traveled first class. Tough cookies!"
Monday, July 15, 2013
Let the hate flow through you
Is it even a surprise? An extremely divisive case begets an extremely divisive reaction to the verdict. A case that provides an horrific instance that not only is extreme polarization causing the United States to be ungovernable, but lawless as well. When anyone can pick up a gun, shoot anyone who "threatens" them, real or imagined, and get away with it; that is the state of nature imagined by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. A war of all against all.The FB post where I took this meme from was decidedly anti-Martin, but this one is decidedly double-edged. Take this comment by "B. Oblamer" on a Politico story:
The jury did a fine responsible job and found for the defense based on the overwhelming evidence. A very fair trial.And this was a very, very tame one.
Later, a decidedly liberal philosophy professor I know posted the exact meme, somehow I do not think he would suffer the fools, now "instant lawyers" and experts on legal defense all over the interwebs, very gladly. Lawyers deal with the law, however poorly the laws are constructed or for whose benefit they are enforced. Even the above comment from "Oblamer" who probably put as much intellectual punch into that derp which his hamster brain could muster, manipulates anyone who reads it. "Responsible... fair... overwhelming evidence," this has got to be the racists' finest hour. Not only did they vicariously murder a proxy Barack Obama, but they got away with it. Cue the victory lap of gloating.
Just survey the comment section of any news story on the subject, this one from Daily Banter is representative. His/her name is Michale, this individual has deemed it their mission to respond to absolutely every comment even slightly critical of the jury's decision. If there is a single person fitting the "instant lawyer" description implied by the above meme, this is it. All I can say is in a million years I could not hope to have the kind of free time to waste that this individual has spent in the past few days locking down any chance of honest and rational debate. What kind of passionate hatred could drive this commitment? How much is he/she being paid by some authoritarian outfit to spend this much time here? Just a small sample.
cfdman said:
17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would haveMichale replied: "Your list of "undisputed evidence" is very much in dispute..
been no physical confrontation.
18. But for the physical confrontation, there would have been no fight.
19. But for the fight, the man would not have shot the teen.
20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.
3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.
The man was ADVISED by a police operator not to follow the SUBJECT. A police operator has absolutely NO authority to tell on sight security personnel ANYTHING..
4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway.
Inaccurate. The man, at that point, turned around and started to return to his vehicle. In other words, he followed the advice of the police operator, even though he was under absolutely NO legal obligation to do so.
11. The man and the teen met in a physical confrontation.
Inaccurate. The teen initiated aggravated assault (with Hate Crime special circumstance) against the man while the man was returning to his vehicle.
12. The man and the teen fought, wrestled to the ground, and punches
were exchanged.
Inaccurate. No punches were exchanged. Martin was the only one throwing punches.
14. The man shot the teen while both were on the ground.
Inaccurate. The man shot the teen while the man was on the ground and the teen was on top of the man.
17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have
been no physical confrontation.
Accurate as far as it goes. It is equally accurate to say that there would have been no confrontation if the teen hadn't doubled back and attacked the man. It's also equally accurate that there would not have been any confrontation if the teen hadn't been kicked out of school for drugs and violence.
20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.
And if the teen hadn't attacked the man, the teen would ALSO be alive.."
He/she continued:
"One problem with your scenario.
Martin attacked Zimmerman.
That tiny little, but oohh so important detail completely decimates your argument.."
The comment thread goes on and on with this individual injecting these kinds of faux legal sounding shout-downs everywhere. I scanned through page after page of this crap. How many of these idiots are out there? They have just been waiting and waiting for the chance to frame their racism through a legal case like this. "No, I'm not a racist, I am supporting the 'justice' system." For authoritarians, this is a dream come true, wonderful cover to aggress against the enemy, the ability to openly and honestly express their prejudice couched in legalese, and prostrate themselves to authority when they like the result. So, in response I say: "Are there any circumstances under which you can support the verdict, actively, not just passively accepting the outcome, and not be a racist?" I ask because I honestly cannot think of any. and flipping the circumstances of the crime around... Would he/she be asserting the opposite as vehemently, or would he/she suddenly notice that GZ is not white enough?
And how stupid does all that gloating look in light of the fact that GZ was acquitted, not exonerated. There was enough reasonable doubt not to convict, this was not a vindication. Thank goodness for all the racists that tomorrow will bring a new outrage and everyone will move on (sarcasm font) and not notice how completely full of shit people like Michale are in their whacked out assertions.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Anarchy, Florida, and the monopoly of violence
I say it too often, "the blade itself incites to violence."
In ancient Rome, the authority to wield deadly force was called Imperium. It was a legal concept that restrained the ability of military commanders to order troops to use violence. Imperium was confined to a specific geographical area and during a specific temporal period. Legates in charge of the legions were not legally authorized by the Senate and People of Rome to command armed men outside of these parameters. The Romans also divided the power of Imperium between several commanders and did not allow them to overlap.
What is the point of that little tale of ancient history? First, authority to wield deadly force was delegated from the lawful authority of the state. Second, the state could revoke this power at any time but it was known when and where violence could be exercised. Third, no one man could command absolute power over violence in the state. The state itself held the monopoly on the power to do violence. The United States, a republic, based its system of government on that of the Romans. The Founders were specifically concerned about Imperium, wielding deadly force, because of course technology makes violence easier for individuals to use. That is why the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces is a civilian.
With the Zimmerman verdict, that is all out the window. Imperium can now be exercised by anyone. No lawful authority delegated to George Zimmerman the power to be judge, jury, and executioner. He took it, and used it, and now got away with it. The state tried to recover its monopoly on violence by trying Zimmerman for murder... and failed. The precedent is now set. Militias or lone vigilantes can now use the case to kill and not be held accountable because the Imperium is now scattered across the land for anyone to pick up like the ashes of our founding principles.
Lincoln Log posted this to his Facebook earlier.
The operational definition of anarchy is loss of the monopoly of force by the state, represented by all the American people. Special interests lobbied for and got these "stand-your-ground" laws passed for various reasons but by diluting the public's capacity for justice; all of them are unjust.
In ancient Rome, the authority to wield deadly force was called Imperium. It was a legal concept that restrained the ability of military commanders to order troops to use violence. Imperium was confined to a specific geographical area and during a specific temporal period. Legates in charge of the legions were not legally authorized by the Senate and People of Rome to command armed men outside of these parameters. The Romans also divided the power of Imperium between several commanders and did not allow them to overlap.
What is the point of that little tale of ancient history? First, authority to wield deadly force was delegated from the lawful authority of the state. Second, the state could revoke this power at any time but it was known when and where violence could be exercised. Third, no one man could command absolute power over violence in the state. The state itself held the monopoly on the power to do violence. The United States, a republic, based its system of government on that of the Romans. The Founders were specifically concerned about Imperium, wielding deadly force, because of course technology makes violence easier for individuals to use. That is why the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces is a civilian.
With the Zimmerman verdict, that is all out the window. Imperium can now be exercised by anyone. No lawful authority delegated to George Zimmerman the power to be judge, jury, and executioner. He took it, and used it, and now got away with it. The state tried to recover its monopoly on violence by trying Zimmerman for murder... and failed. The precedent is now set. Militias or lone vigilantes can now use the case to kill and not be held accountable because the Imperium is now scattered across the land for anyone to pick up like the ashes of our founding principles.
Lincoln Log posted this to his Facebook earlier.
1. How did he [Zimmerman] define the possible danger with Martin--and what bothers me, how is this tied to the idea of "trespass" vis-a-vis the rather loose construct of "neighborhood? And how does one trespass in public space?If one can now trespass in public space, then the local appropriation of Imperium by any scared, prejudiced person will make movement very problematic. What happens when I venture across a sidewalk patrolled by someone who does not like Cephalopods?
2. What function did Zimmerman think he served--and what were the limits to his "territory? " Or was he a no-bounds auxiliary/ vigilante? There are serious implications that stem from definitions of public space, trespass, and "perceived danger." All of them very disturbing.
The operational definition of anarchy is loss of the monopoly of force by the state, represented by all the American people. Special interests lobbied for and got these "stand-your-ground" laws passed for various reasons but by diluting the public's capacity for justice; all of them are unjust.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Government dependency
Dear Congresscritters,
You're doing it wrong.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/lawmakers-benefit-from-farm-subsidies-congress-seeks-to-overhaul.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)