Search This Blog

Above: Lake Geneva, Switzerland. At Montreux.

Fodderize v.t. 1. To break down individual components; to make fungible; to disregard difference; to render one easily substituted for another 2. To impose sub-quality goods or services upon, with little recourse 3. To cap role choices, hinder access to resources regardless of merit, and so avoid competition 4. To manage perception by propaganda-spin techniques, while concealing dispositive facts 5. To manipulate, lure, exploit, deceive


Saturday, May 31, 2008

Mocking Heads. Campaigns Amok. Propaganda Technique

Update:  Mockery tactic, mockery as behavior modifier, in anti-smoking, other areas:  NYT The Power of Mockery, by Nicholas Kristof, Mockery with Humor or Irony Directed at the Target, Works

Media Bait
Media Will Air It -- Plenty

Ridicule: Tactic of Persuasion Without Facts.
Hyperbole in Political Speech

This issue does not go away.  Ridicule and attitude, mockery of opponents, hyperbole, exaggeration for effect, use the sneer to oppose an opponent without reference to merits: contrary to leadership ideals. See Classics and Leadership Ideals

I. Topic: Mockery

To mock is to use technique instead of merit or content in persuasion. Turn your opponent into a target of derision, get the nervous laugh, the emotional involvement, the shock, so the hearer gravitates away from the person being mocked. An opinion is seeded without information being transmitted about the issue at all. Mockery over merit. See:// Is mockery just another propaganda technique.

Any use of a propaganda instead of information is a sneak. People open up to the technique, and the point of view slides in almost unawares. Mockery rising. Emotional involvement rising. Content and analysis falling. The person who mocks is resorting to expedience and shortcut, over substance and merit.

II. Uses of Mockery

See its many forms.
  • Mock. The Verb. Ridicule, deride. See overview of related terms at ://
  • Mock, the Adjective. Simulated; false; sham; a mock battle.
  • Mockery. A presentation for laughs.
A. Media mockery of the campaign process.

Media-for-profit puts candidates' advertising on endless news loops, during the news portion or the interview portion of a show. Not in the advertising slot, that must be paid for. This gives free air time to a candidate's advertising - and advertising has nothing to do, very little to do, with truth, actuality. It is a sales pitch.

All we get is competing sales pitches, not content, not information, from those techniques. Mockery. Recycling snarky parroty panels that badminton little platitudinous birdies back and forth until the viewer finally turns off the set.

B. Candidate mockery of the process.

This happens when a candidate substitutes ridicule of the other for information, as to the candidate's own positions on domestic and foreign policy.

All candidates mock each other at some point. But the extent and repetitive nature of the mocking plague is variable, and the telling point. How often it is used may reveal whose body has been snatched by which special interests.

Ridicule works, even if by repetition and dissemination, and the negative associations that arise in people's brains by the technique; and not merit. See FN 1 for overviews of mockery in this 2008 electioneering so far.

C. The motivation: Fair and Just; or Profitable, Expedient, Fast Shortcut

We have competing standards at work in our culture. Do what is fair and just (concepts in our country's founding documents); or do what produces the most profit, the greatest advantage to oneself, regardless of fairness and justice. We haven't worked it out yet as a nation. Money follows the expedience. And the money gap between people and mogul-dynasties is broader now than ever, we understand.

III. Measuring Substance v. Mockery

A. Decide on a Standard for Weighing Mockery, to find any Substance

1. Equity in presentation, Accuracy and Completeness as to Facts.
  • The statement. On the merits, or emotion. Objective, with content, fair and just. True. No subliminal messages. Facts.
  • The body language, tone, volume. Distracting, sending message to grab the emotions, negativity.
  • Setting: Equity? Basic principles of fairness. Traditional. Read about Equity, and Equity's historic maxims, or principles. Find the one requiring "clean hands" - see Joy of Equivocating, Maxims of Equity, Clean Hands. Scroll down to find it. Then apply the principle, that each person seeking recourse in any area, must himself or herself not be guilty of bad behavior.
Fairness. The discipline to avoid mockery. This is not easy. All our cultural rewards go to the winners - if the result favors me, it is fair. And mockery works to win. Mockery affects decision-making. Ridicule hits the emotional core of people, and that is more effective than reasoning. See emoticon dominance. Legend and tales supersede facts. The mocked one cannot let the mockery hover out there unmet, un-countered in some way, because the mockery will "stick".

Is this true: The only way to counter mockery is for one to out-mock the other until the electorate is thoroughly confused and fed up.

2. The Balance.

Weigh if the candidate used mockery on the way up. Is that how the person succeeded. If not, question the act now. Who has bought the candidate, gotten at the strings, so that even the candidate is no longer the candidate we once thought we knew. Has the candidate's body been snatched. Mockery brings out the worst. Is there already a doppelganger out there, an evil twin, a chuckie instead of an honorable person. Then worry about what comes next. That is the power of mockery. It is a window into a person, not a reflection of the other.

Does mockery work? Yes. The tactic of mockery may indeed work in the short term because it gets an immediate mental bounce (people perk up and listen - it is entertaining advertising), and that may stick - and sometimes that is all that immediately matters (as in getting elected).
Does it last. Not necessarily. Effectiveness test: Did you buy what the mockery sold?

Consider the degree to which a candidate resorts to mockery and derision, and not content and merit. Is that the person to set domestic and foreign policy, to garner support of foreign and national leaders. Will mockery help once an election is over.


FN 1 Watch for beginnings of the process of ridicule, or raising any issue. The first step could well be concealed, ambivalent, ambiguous, enabling the candidate to deny that he or she said anything offensive. Any ridicule ends up in a circle - or a spiral down: What goes around comes around.
Media: feeds mockery because it is cheap to put it on the airwaves, over and over. Just show it, analysis not needed. The power to skew and skewer. Just show it - turn off the sound and the point gets across. Cheap trick. Update: See Hello Fodder, TV Constituencies, Streaming News.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Hello, Buyer - Any Propaganda Today? Enter Through the TV

Have I got a war for you!

Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn, sponsors legislation targeting government taint in news. See ://

If she succeeds on our behalf, citizens will know when a military "consultant" is giving an independent view, or parroting the White House talking points.

Scott McClellan joins in - his book debunking why and how we went to war: propaganda. And figuring out his next steps, see ://

This is vital to all of us. A democracy is a voluntary, bilateral form of government (why are you laughing?). We the people give our taxes and allegiance in exchange (are you still laughing?) for an agreed product: services to protect and further our legitimate interests. Our interest. As a people. As a whole. Not Halliburton (oh, gads, they're rolling on the floor over there).Not

That means that We the Buyers of the Democracy Services must know fully
  • what we are buying (level playing field as to literacy, understanding of terms, consequences), and
  • all aspects of the product (ingredients, conditions, accomplish intended purpose, safety, origin, testing history before marketing); and
  • that we are being "sold" what we think we are being sold. That there is a demarcation between neutral fact information about the product category, and the puffing of the salesperson as to this particular version; and which is which.
Example of a social contract: I may give up some of my income in a social security tax now, and you will provide me a pension of sorts when I get dottey.

Remove any of the above elements, and the transaction moves from the voluntary to the involuntary.

And once you are hooked emotionally and see a view as fine, it will be hard to change your own mind. See Joy of Equivocating, Emoticon Dominance.

The propaganda absorber may just have intended to watch a little TV, listen to a little radio, and suddenly, wham, there is a large lump of ideology or product jammed in, and repeated so often that finally it is not spit out at all.

You Know It's Propaganda if the propaganda techniques are aimed at you while your mouth is open, or is being coaxed open for the purpose: See Hello, Fodder, Propaganda Study.

Ideas, politics, clergy taking advantage of alleged trustworthiness to push civil dogma, go to war, hate this group, ridicule that group, draw this conclusion, believe this, don't believe that, and all sideways to the facts that may be involved.

Spot the method, and you may be able to filter out the persuasion.

Scott McClellan'? Yes, him. He was no help, but at least he fessed up - see Hello, Fodder, McClellan and Administration Stockholm Syndrome.

We need Rosa DeLauro. Why do all of us repeat ourselves so much? Because so much focuses on real news, real information, and we don't get it.

Related rants:
Joy of Equivocating, News Fact Ratings, News Tilt.
Joy of Equivocating, The Incitement Push News "Product".
PoseJuxta: Proposed Planks. Required Disclosures by Purveyors of News Products.
Hello, Fodder, Propaganda Study.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Meme as Mind and Body Snatcher - The Suggestion Becomes Action

Danger: When a Suggestion, an Idea,
Becomes a Map for Action for the Hearer.
The toxic meme


1. Memes. Ideas spreading. Now a weapon.
In ordinary usage, a meme is an idea that spreads, head to head, almost spontaneously, and with immediate rooting, regardless of merit as to the idea. But it has to start somewhere. See the term at ://

Memes can be recreational - somebody establishes next Thursday as silly pigtail day, and the word spreads. So, the next year, even without words, the kids appear with head hair poking every which way. Or, let's all wear Phrygian Caps, that historic symbol of independence and freedom. See Hello, Fodder: Phrygian Caps.

One just starts doing it, no words, and you may even find others starting to be aware of them and wear them, at other places, no connection.

Memes can be poisonous. Like mushrooms. A person in power wistfully speaks, and the idea gets out that this is to be done. Know before you swallow. Memes are persuasion weapons.
Look at the propaganda rumor as a continuing weapon of choice for persuasion. The casual comment by a candidate, or a talk show host, suggesting an outcome that the candidate would approve - becomes code for "do this," or code that says, "I will approve it this happens." For the hearer, to do it shows, I am on your side. I belong.

People who are unaware that suggestibility leads to action, are vulnerable. Their lack of awareness lets the meme in. Awareness lets a person stop before swallowing.

2. Toxic Memes.

Toxic memes tend to sneak up and into heads

The toxic meme is a propaganda technique that spreads a foul rumor, or incites people to violence or more subtle rejection behavior.

A persuader pushes or makes up a ambiguous or tenuous but negative-type connection, between an opposing viewpoint, and some third party or event, that may or may not be reasonably based.

No matter.

The intent is to kill or weaken someone else's view, who cannot fight back easily immediately, because just the spreading does the damage.

Many believe just because they heard it on TV. It sneaks up on people, gets into their heads. See this one as reported by The Daily Kos: -:// A campaign comment, a careless one. A meme.

3.  Benefits of Toxic Memes

3.1 Deniability.  Who me? I never meant that.

3.2 Persuasion.  Propaganda.  The message does its work just by the spread of it. FN 1.

3.3  Stops the clock.  Buys time, while purveyors hope for a turnaround.

Let's say the merits of their own position are in question. So the spreader spreads toxic memes to attack the other side, putting it off balance, distracting, while the spreader hopes for a miracle of sorts.  The Deus Ex Machina, see ://; and :// -- the god from the machine. Wishful thinkers seem to believe that an outside force will suddenly enter the scene, so they can stay the course and all will come to rights. The deus ex machina - the theatrical device where a god suddenly descends on stage and unravels the plot. Do an Images search for "deus ex machina." See also ://

This is an ancient drama technique, where an outside event suddenly appears from nowhere and resolves a plot, and the former loser suddenly wins out.

2.  Historical Example of a Meme in Action - Thomas a' Becket

2.1. The Leader needs/ wants/would approve this, if it were only Done.

Word goes out. The leader does not correct the followers when they verbalize actions. Drama unfolds. Minions swear loyalty and then act. Leader denies having fostered the mind set.

Look at History. King Henry. 12th Century. "Will no-one rid me of this meddlesome priest," or turbulent priest, or similar words, see :// Thomas a Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury; slain by the king's minions who heard the king speak that fateful idea, and ran off and did it.

Yes, "they" do.

Could the King deny having sent them? Yes. That is the beauty of the Poison Meme. Put it out and then deny. See // Go to Canterbury. See the place, the flame, in the Cathedral there, where the assassins stabbed the Bishop at the King's directive, so they thought, and so he denied.

Letting the Meme out may trigger someone to carry it out.

Theme song: Who let the meme out? Bark. Bark. Barkbark. Bark.

2.2  Avoid Accountability: Use the Meme

Not me. Who is accountable for this viral detonating device. Loosing a Poison Meme, FN 2, puts an idea out there in such concrete form that some nut may well say, why not. And carry it out. How it works: FN 3. We are in times like these.

3.  Instructions for the Memer:
Condemn any changes of mind seen in the opponent.

Other memes: Not just please kill him

  • Let out the Meme that to reconsider is weak.
Reversal of position means my opponent is weak. My reversal is leadership is acceptable because I respond to needed change. The reality is that flipping is nothing apart from the issue flipped. Flipping is done all the time when flipping serves the political advantage purpose of the flopper. But act as though it were unforgivable. Condition the audience to boo.

  • Let out the meme that anything is acceptable, so long as it wins.
Get the opponent to agree to one set of rules, then change course when the score changes more in your favor. Tactical expediency is the standard we have come to expect. In elections, "Count every vote," is a common mantra, despite "those votes will not count if the legislatures move around established primary dates."
Let out any propaganda technique - start it spinning. For association as a clear propaganda technique, see
  • Let out any meme raising fear, uncertainty, doubt.  And threat of dire consequences. 
It is dishonest, but it works.

There is nothing like a threat. Nothing in the world. Think there's nothing you can't get? That is anything like the threat. Or use of a logical fallacy.  If they do this, then there will be an attack.  Or, "I want X to be true, therefore I will argue that X is true." See ://  The speaker interprets according to what is desired, not what is objective evidence. It can also be dissembling, misleading and even fraudulent to do that. See ://

4. Visualize A Meme Growing.

If we see how things work, we can decide next steps. Here, picture this: life's realities from the Flicks. Are there, indeed, Pod-People.
Stay with this idea a while:
Do you wonder if, while people sleep, ideologies are poured through funnels in heads from their bedroom TV sets. How else to explain why talking points appear and reappear in speeches, verbatim, on the talking head shows, news editorials, the coffee shop. Some of the terms are so oddly bumper-sticker-ish that they could not have sprung out of so many mouths without first being swallowed.

Memes in the night.

Think back: There was once a movie about the evil, mind-stealing pods growing in the night, vines creeping in the window cracks, over the sleeping people, covering, smothering, absorbing, and the next day the people podded were something different. The nightmare for the rest: who was taken over, who not. AAACK! Point! Run! Mobs after you because you have retained independent thought and they can sense it! AARKWKK! See :// The Meme Poisonous. Poison meme.

Toxic Memes are like that - ideas that spread in lieu of thinking, like the body snatchers - but also spontaneously, not just by contact or the open window while you sleep, but they can take root just by the spread-around in the ether. The Wavelength Sower. They can just happen. Podded people. Hired and voluntary; or inadvertent - still being used.

5. How to defend.

Science fiction buffs. Can any of us be so "podded" so that we agree with something without understanding, based on partial and skewed information.

It may not be our fault that our brains were taken over. We were not awake when the message slipped in. We weren't even looking. The TV or radio were just on, over there. We weren't even paying attention.  We may be illiterate and led astray or utterly convinced because we believe in the goodwill of our gods on the airwaves, or in government.

Still, if we absorb them, and spread them, we are enablers, and used.

5.  Call and Thank Rosa de Lauro, D-Conn. 

She called a meme a meme.

This fine Congresswoman recently unveiled military Podded People who were used by the Government to spread memes that support White House policy, while pretending to be neutral. See :// And more podded people, us, had already taken it all in. And were taken in. Government puts out only what they want you to hear, is the logical inference from Rosa DeLauro's work on that project.

What can real people do to stop toxic memes?
  • Stop the viral email.  It is not funny.  It slides in a message. Point it out to your kids before you spam it out, refuse to support those who toxic-meme others, and recognize and reject it appropriately as a propaganda technique.
  • Promote awareness of propaganda techniques in every school system as part of No Child Left Behind. Include Propanda Techniques with Math, Science, whatever else. Without defense against meming, what country is left.
  • Check the sources used by the purveyor of the meme - are they neutral, or on the ideology's payroll.
  • Reject Threat Memes in particular. What you see now is what you will get.

FN 1 Memer. Memist. One who memes toxic memes is a malignant sower. The ideas get into people's heads and take root there without accountability on the part of the source, circumventing the person's usual ability to raise the drawbridge, before the toxin enters. It has great power - particularly as a last resort for those whose search for a rational support for a position is failing. Viral malice.

FN 2 A Poison Meme is an idea spread intentionally to adversely affect another's fortunes, to one's own benefit. The Poisoner can always say, "Who, me?" "I meant nothing by that and I am so sorry." Sorry. Too late. It is in the nature of Memes to have impact upon unleashing. Poison memes are not inadvertent. No savvy politician looses a poison meme against an opponent (any Swiftboating) inadvertently. And if a politician is not savvy, the politician should not be running. Meme walking. Incoming.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

GOP Tennessee Attack Ad, Michelle Obama, Is it spliced?

Michelle, and the GOP in Tennessee.
Listen for a splice.
Do you hear what we hear?

What they said. 

During this election cycle, we hear a Tennessee GOP attack ad targeting Michelle Obama. According to the ad, she said that, in a context not given as to what went before or after, that for the first time in her adult life, she was really proud of her country.

What was omitted.

We know from the previous post here, citing the video of the statements and other sources at Hello, Fodder, Spin Foie Gras, Michelle and Swiftboat by Misquote, that the attack ad omits the rest of her statement - the "because" portion was omitted by the GOP in their attack.  She was proud because her husband was doing well and people were hopeful.A different matter from the representation.

Uh-oh.  Here they go again.  There is the GOP - they invited you to a fresh, full breakfast - lured you in - come here, come here, let serve you! You pay before they open the door and let you in. And you get there and it is glue. They just wanted to sell - get the vote - not provide the product they promised.  Now we know.

A late breakfast at Cesky Krumlov, the Czech Republic. Moral - don't order sight unseen (we did get fresh eggs, thank you - this is illustration only)

Why trust the pusher of the ad for anything.

Back to Michelle Obama - Without that explanation, is it fair, reasonable or responsible to try to get yo to swallow that statement as meaning she is unpatriotic, not proud of her country before she made that statement. Or have you a right to further context, full information before you come to any kind of conclusion at all. Is it a lie, mere commercial speech without accountability, and is that what political discourse has come to.  Lie and see if you are caught. Meanwhile, the damage is done.

Apply past experience to charges like this:  Attack ads usually leave out anything in the rest of the speech or discussion that does not support what the ad wants you to believe.

Review what we found, because we now think we have more - a splice-out.

We think we find that Ms. Obama made two separate statements.

Each statement was a full sentence.  Each sentence included a qualifier, the explanation of what she meant, about her renewed pride in country (Obama doing well, people having hope).

So she was proud for the first time because she saw her husband doing well, people hopeful.And in one of those statements including the explanation, she included the emphasis word "really" in "really proud." That makes the statement one of degree.  That she was of course proud before, but more so now, for the reasons she gives.  And we also know from that site that the representations of those two statements have been selective and truncated in other talking head and news accounts, so that the full statement in either case is not shown. People are hearing political bombast based upon a section of the whole.

Now: listen to that ad yourself. Do you hear what we hear. (Echo: Do You Hear What We Hear....)

Is there a splice in the audio. A prejudicial, false, distorting splice that cuts out something.

We listen to the attack ad and hear a gap, audibly, at her saying "I am ____... proud." that indicates to us a splice-out, and the missing part is the word "really."

That alters the meaning of the statement presented. Combined with the cutting out of her reasons given for her renewed patriotism, the GOP ad is propaganda.

Is presenting a cup of flour the same as presenting a cake? Is that cup of flour the same thing as what was ultimately presented? Back to the splice.

Is a political group deliberately falsifying a statement made, and pushing it? You techies, listen up. What do you hear? Do you hear what we hear?

Spin Foie Gras. Michelle and Swiftboat. Pride in Country; and the Misquote

Is reality changed before your eyes? This, Kafka's own Metamorphosis, Prague

Swiftboat by Misquote;
Swiftboat by Truncated Quote

Creating a falsehood by selectivity, omission.

Swiftboating. The persuasion technique takes many forms.

Here we look at Swiftboat by misquote. Picking one element of an entire complex of facts, cutting quotations short, for example; splicing one sentence and connecting it to another spliced quote to make another but different statement, then repeating and repeating until the different statement is believed.

Other examples of Swiftboating: See FN 1.

The Purposeful Misquote

Analyze the use of the misquote, the truncated, chopped quotation. Hear Michelle Obama speak at a promotional campaign gathering. She made two statements in particular, each one giving the reason for how she felt:

1.1 "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of America and not just because Barack has done well, but because I believe people are hungry for change." 1.2 "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
Hear and see the statements being made here: at this Arlington Cardinal blog film clip: :// The statements address degrees of pride, and when, and why; not whether pride itself is there or not.

She is "really proud" because people are hungry for change. She is proud because hope is making a comeback. What controversy? But look at the media distortion. Examples.

Fox. The Incomplete News Channel.

a. See ://,2933,331428,00.html. One statement provided.

And that is given a headline with no relation to the content of the statement - does Michelle dislike America? And ignoring the qualifying section about hope making a comeback as the criteria for her pride as referenced in that example.

b, Tennessee attack ad, on the day before a primary - again showing one statement, and only part of it this time. Not even the full statement, and no reference to a second statement.

No reference to the qualifiers, and reasons why the increased pride. Search for attack ad michelle and it will come up - omission and all. Propaganda by omission, and by failing to give the full story. Pushers. Spreaders. Marketers, using parts of "news" to incite.

Yet, she is quoted only as saying she is proud for the first time. The guts of the quotation is the reason, the context. Gone. See how propaganda works when statements, themselves clear in total, are distorted when they are chopped and put through the grinder.

4. Fox and the KY Attackers - Both -Propaganda by Omission, omission of the pivotal second statement, and as to the Attackers, presenting a chopped portion; and spinning it.

The goal is to rev up opinion before people know the facts. See Joy of Equivocating, News Rankings for Media, Incitement Push. Arouse and exploit feelings so that people will find it difficult to change their views once they have bought into a particular other version. How to save face? Once committed to the propagandist's version, knowingly or not, the person is Caught. Legend Supersedes Facts.

Remember the old horror movies, where you only knew if the aliens had gotten to someone by spotting the little X at the back of their necks, where the probe went in? Wonderful. Was that one called Invasion from Mars, the little boy finding the adults around him one by one -- oh, no, not good ol' Mom! Run!

News media products relate to persuading to get the results they want, of course, and that depends on who is paying them? We just need to be aware of the relationship, the spin, and hold the accountable somehow for not passing on fib as fact. Fraud alert.

Obama rally. Change promised. Delivery?

How can even large numbers of people counter the owners of the media who control how people's words are quoted.

Do we leave the field, let the media win, swallow the spin. Ha - like foie gras. News foie gras. We the Geese. Thou art the feeder, we are the geese.


Could this ever happen: could news be required to identify itself, what it is doing in a particular segment: news, and by that we mean information, facts; or opinion; or even incitement. We see Incitement.

What is it when quotes are not quotes at all, but fabrications. Quote quilts. This is Propaganda, News Tilt. Opinion Push. Fact rankings are low, accordingly. IP. NT. We could useFact Content Ratings for News Industry.

Swiftboat by Misquote. A propaganda technique. jAfter all, political speech is nothing more than commercial speech, where it is buyer beware. Puff away. No obligation for truth, unless someone can prove fraudulent misrepresentation and damages, or some such. The Political Free Speech Meme.

Democracy is vulnerable.

A fragile system, easily broken. Persuasion techniques, holding back full information, can win at least for the short term. That may be all it needs. Just keep people deluded until the election is over, then it is too late.


FN 1 Swiftboat by lift and separate. It is most familiar, perhaps, in its earlier incarnation in politics. Think Senator Kerry and his experience in Vietnam, and medals. Tarnished by Swiftboating. Lifting parts of a life, plunking bits down together to make a new picture altogether, then touting the new image and spinning a new meaning, then repeating and repeating until the new image is believed. Put them together, and the impact is persuasive. Is that so.

Swiftboat by ellipsis. Swiftboating is more subtle when it uses mere punctuation to entrap. Omit, but pretend transparency by showing the omission by "ellipsis" - those three or four dots that signify something is missing. At least the reader is alerted that something is missing; but never fill it in. Suggest the interpretation instead. It gives the illusion of an accurate statement, while passing on tilt instead. See Joy of Equivocating, Quotation: Death by Ellipsis.

Swiftboat background. See Hello, Fodder, Propaganda Study, Swiftboat,

Swiftboat push-back remedy in the form of news ratings as to factual integrity: the fact content news rating idea. The rating applicable for Swiftboating by ellipsis and misquote is "Incitement Push" or IP news rating. See Joy of Equivocating, Fact Content Ratings for News Industry.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Religious Argument in Legal Issues - Same-Sex Marriage; Gay Rights - California Lawyers, Check Exodus 33:23

When is an Argument Religious, and When Cultural

Do they Mask Each Other

It is said that the Christian New Testament never mentions homosexuality or abortion. But it is full of issues related to wealth and poverty.

So how did homosexuality and abortion top the charts in religious type forums, and on legislative agendas.

Is it really human power ploys, and if so, what can ordinary people do to keep living their lives, free of them. We have no ax to grind here - traditional stuff. But the concern goes beyond individual gain on the issue - it is liberty and pursuit of happiness. That affects us all.

Immediate trigger:

California's recognition of gay marriage, see ://, presents an opportunity to look at the issue from all sides. With the Supreme Court of California holding that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, see ://, expect reflux.

Do we dare to go back to original sources including religious ones, as far as we can and check it out.

Exploring backwards.

Bible. Include in your consideration Exodus 33:23, the versions King James and prior. Before the editing out of sections later deemed unacceptable culturally.

Is there a defense to gay relationships in the Bible itself, and as shown, with liberties, by Michelangelo at the Sistine Chapel. For discussion purposes, we believe it may well be, and call it "The Sistine Defense." California, you are the test case right now.

The only option?

Legislative History Issues.
This post requests scholars and lawyers to to back to original sources on the issue, like any other legislative history where "laws" evolve. What was originally intended about how relations between people or people and deity, are sealed: looking at the examples given us even thousands of years ago.

We lawyers like legislative history. Why not apply the skills of determining "intent" to hot buttons? Go.

Background discussions. See the issue laid out at Joy of Equivocating, Propaganda by Translation, Sistine. At issue is a simple, straightforward Biblical text - important since Biblical things have been represented so long as opposing anything gay.

The request. Scholars, start up again, neutrally. Look at the King James Version, and earlier, as to Exodus 33:23. There are always multiple choices on interpretation, but this one may well support the divide between our own, personal, cultural requirements, and what is really religious.

The Picture Showing the Pose.

We could well reproduce yet again Michelangelo's artistic representation of how God entered into binding relationship with Moses, and conclude that the act shown, the visible showing, is therefore among the sanctified.

Instead, by this point, do your own Images search for Sistine Sun Moon, or go to our sites exploring Michelangelo's intent in painting God as he did, in that Pose, and in the Wrong Story.

Do an Images search for Sun and Moon Sistine and you will find the picture, over and over again.

A recent meme is this: that there are anomalies in Michelangelo's paintings at the Sistine Chapel, The Vatican, Rome, and interpretations are varied.

These anomalies and their interpretation may affect current legal and religious arguments. Apply usual credibility arguments - chain of custody of texts, changes, hearsay (!), original sources, copies, etc.


See also Joy of Equivocating, Propaganda by Translation: The Sistine Defense, and KJV, California and Sealing Relationships. How the deity sealed his relationship with Moses, until it was was edited out; Martin Luther's Stove, Foggy Texts are for Decorating Up: Michelangelo's Intent and the Celestial Mooning. Reformation climate; More Michelangelo, His Anomalies at the Sistine, Texts Ignored. Criticism of literalism? And World War I, World War 3, Other Battlegrounds: Ideological Battleground at the Sistine Chapel. The battlegrounds of ideas.

So: the Frame

What is more important to a stable society -

1) that most of its people rest in reasonable contentment with their lot, aspirations, condition; that their relationship, where they can live together can continue, with long-term financial and family expectations, and non-interference, as they conduct their day-to-day activities, including child-rearing if they like; or

2) that people obsess about what other people are doing in their private spaces, specifics about who has which organs or other parts, entering into relationship. See Joy of Equivocating, Propaganda by Translation, The Sistine Defense. What standing and proofs support either side. What if a mainstay of one side - Biblical heritage - does not apply, and the people who used the argument, were never told; or the people simply disregarded the language pointed out, but denied, that may well support same gender relationships, and how they are sealed.