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

Translate

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Leak. GOP to rename DC. Contact Mitch in support.

 The Renaming in the Wings. Eight Talking Points.

1. The GOP plans to rename the postal service abbreviation for the District of Columbia.

2.  This is part of the first-100-day push of the new Administration.  New legislation effectuating the rename is based on the GOP objecting to the postal service. The postal service abbreviates District of lColumbia as DC.

3.  The abbreviation DC is objectionable to the GOP because DC resembles the common nickname for a routine internal medical maintenance procedure, dilation and curettage (sounds like ballet, a pas de deux perhaps), or D&C. See http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/dilation-and-curettage/home/ovc-20259331

4.  The D&C is also known colloquially as a Dusting and Cleaning.

5.  The D&C also happens to be a simple and safe means for abortion, where that may be an issue.

6.. In order to avoid obliterating the postal service (that is set for 2017), the GOP is planning to rename the District of Columbia.

7.  To avoid promoting abortion, the GOP will rename the District of Columbia to new name: Gentrified Overseers' Plantation. GOP.

The postal service is grateful for the reprieve. GOP. Acronym for the Gentrified Overseers' Plantation. Get it? Fine with the postal service.

8.  Use it. Write to Mitch McConnell in support at 317 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington GOP 20150. See phone, email and fax at http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/

Trompe News Services.

Monday, November 21, 2016

Immigrants, resident others. Dhimmi in moderation. Reasonable non vengeful administration without humiliation or brutality.


DHIMMI FOR THE WEST

How to deal with The Conquered; the Immigrant; the Other.
Alt-solution without deportation. 
The stay-with-burden solution by Dhimmi.
.
Historically, Islamic conquerors took a hard line in control. Consequences flowed from a legal system without quarter: objective, impersonal, minimal equity intervention to soften the result. That worked in Spain for centuries. Dhimmitude applied.  Muslim and Jew and Christian under the Caliphate each knew what could and could not be done. As to laws for the non-Muslim, the dhimmi, those laws provided that dhimmi could remain in the land, but the dhimmi had to pay a special tax, could not own land, had no say in governance. With the humiliation of those burdens, and the threat of persecution if the individual disobeyed, the dhimmi could live a life with that reduced financial reward and status, but otherwise undisturbed. This was, in effect, a harsh gangster-type protection system, not a gauzy happy time for all. But it provided a way to stay, a reason to go if the humiliation became too intolerable, and without slaughter, expulsions.  See Life as a Dhimmi in Medieval Islamic Spain,   https://world.wng.org/2016/09/life_as_a_dhimmi_in_medieval_islamic_spain

There was another way out. If the dhimmi converted, then the status rose to that of the other Muslims. This was no utopian solution for multiculturalism, because the hierarchy of who was right was fixed (Islam was right). A balance was struck however. That is the key. And it lasted until the punitive-vengeful Christians took over: Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492 took the expulsion-death approach as to the Jews after retaking Spain.




Governments and the Other, as seen by the Already Here. What laws can foster national progress without killing the humanity in all of us. Old textbook.Pestalozzi Institute (now museum), Yverdons-les-Bains

We know that a moderately administered dhimmitude works. That is probably why certain government leaders here propose tracks to citizenship or guest worker status.  How to get that back on track, when punishment and enforcement are so much more personally satisfying, from above.
.
A. What recourse?

1.  Educate about the role of humiliation in making matters worse.

Humiliation added to defeat creates enemies with heightened fervor to restore their place, when and as possible, but a sub-canker.  See Germany's response to perceived humiliation in 1933 at  Glasgow Herald, article: Hitler's Manifesto: Unjust Humiliation of Germany. So came another war loss, another humiliation, and the fervor is still there, Update 2012: a German ombudsman will represent victims of the neo-Nazi Zwickau terror cell. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15687020,00.html. Humans can take defeat better than humiliation.
.
Examples of humiliation working against the humiliator

Role of humiliation in ongoing conflict.  See studies on humiliation as aggravating conflict:  The Privilege of Humiliation: The Effects of Social Roles and Norms on Immediate and Prolonged Aggression in Conflict.  Do a simple search.

South Africa as elsewhere, "immigrants are targets of xenophobia, harassment, intimidation, immigrant police sweeps, and even geopolitically motivated attacks." See http://sfbayview.com/2012/congolese-say-south-africas-congolese-immigrant-sweep-targeted-anti-kabila-refugees/
.
Humiliation as a coercive tactic backfires.
2.  See our own history as less than enlightened. Western boorishness was a choice made early with the Crusades against the Cathars, to reject the humanity of the "other", see http://www.worldwar1worldwar2.blogspot.com/#!http://worldwar1worldwar2.blogspot.com/2009/12/paratge-in-warfare-two-jerusalem.html. Crier havot, cry havoc, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=havoc, let slip the dogs of war, http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/dogs-war.


  • Religion is not the answer; who is chosen, who is not. Women have been dhimmi as part of religion ever since patriarchy took over religion.
    •  Start with behavior, not ideology.  Shape behavior, and beliefs may or may not follow, but the path is safer.


Ask children to distinguish between these buildings. What is each for?

Mosque, Gibraltar.






















.

Mont St. Michel, France. Also used as a prison


.












Buchenwald Labor Camp, Germany

Same tall steeple type things?
















3.  Study Islam. Manipulation increases with ignorance.

Bear the burden, and remain. Administration not punishment. The idea was to use ongoing administration; not to removing the population from the path by slavery or death: the idea of the "superior" victor (the Muslim there) imposing economic and political limitation on the "inferior" vanquished (Christian or Jew), with economic, social and political benefit resulting if the person converted. See 'dhimmitude at http://www.dhimmitude.org/; and discussed at Europe Road Ways Themes - Kosovo, Dhimmi status.

4.  Back off.

Seek consensus, not agreement. Consensus is giving permission for something, not necessarily agreeing with it. Ultimate dignity:  choice. How to live a life. Somebody can give permission for the other to have a small farm, zone for it, without agreeing with what he does. See Rob Sandelin's work at http://www.ic.org/nica/Process/Consensusbasics.htm .


Scharfe family farm, Ottawa. Once immigrants.
.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Foundations of elections and voter exploitation. Update remedy: Elector limited vote on conscience without penalty.

Speak, O Peter Abelard. Speak, O Peter Lombard.
Speak of truth and processes to arrive at it. Please.
The media needs you.

Option for Electors: Free to vote conscience under given circumstances.

Trials are looming as to a President-Elect, with continuances prior granted and now should be finished. Popular vote went the other way. Let Electors in those two circumstances vote conscience, if they choose.

Update to Foundations of Elections and Voter Exploitation:.

Address voter remorse when a re-election is not feasible, by providing an option to Electors to vote conscience without penalty, and as they see fit -- based on their own responses to events. This would occur under two circumstances. 
    A. Frame the period between election and Electoral College as a constructive rescission period during which, under two circumstances, electors have the power to decide their vote based on conscience and not State or Party rule. 

    This constructive rescission is optional for each Elector, and only triggered in two circumstances:
    1. Where the popular vote went to the losing candidate in the national electoral count, as a check and balance to the resulting overall winner;
    2. Where there are outstanding, non-frivolous legal actions filed more than 12 months before the election, and against the winning candidate, that remain unresolved prior to the Electoral College count. 
    • Such trial outcomes may be relevant to the election, and in an abundance of caution must be settled or trial begun prior to the electoral college vote. 
    • If trial has commenced and is ongoing, then the Electoral College vote shall be postponed until trial conclusion.
    • All trial proceedings shall be public.  
    • In the interim, the current President shall serve until the electoral vote at the conclusion of the trial(s) and then until the Inauguration.

    B. For other exigent circumstances, or just on whim, the Elector may as currently provided cast a rogue vote, but such Elector shall remain subject to the penalties and fines of the State or Party as are currently in effect, so long as the meet Constitutional muster. 

................................................................

Initial post: Foundations of elections as exploiting voters. 
 .
I.  Overview.  The trajectory of election 2016 is over. What did that election represent? Did 2016 represent overall position support, such as a) repudiation of an establishment; or b) rejection of current healthcare laws. Or did 2016 represent instead the perfection of spin creating a miasma of negativity, just going in the wrong direction, all is terrible, without accountability for merits. What facts support those conclusions?  Consider the endless reruns of film loops of speeches, interactions, the dogged reporting on polls, talking heads talking their heads off about what people merely thought, without vetting, as though bald beliefs count without vetting.

Foundations of statements matter. Or do they?

  • The media did not address much in 2016 that counted as to the functioning of democracy:  a)  veracity in issue presentation, b) cogency, and c) context of persuasion tactics, as a modern and old issue. 
II.  Tools for a reasonable degree of public service over the airwaves. Investigate the words.

A.  Middle Ages to the rescue. Uses of logic and rhetoric. Go back to Peter Abelard 1079-1142 CE.  Sic et non.  Yes and no. See http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/Abelard-SicetNon-Prologue.asp.  Use established liberal arts for logic, analysis of rhetoric, in compiling arguments pro and con any issue, and in order to be able to resolve differences.

Go back to Peter Lombard 1095-116- CE, scholastic theologian, for dialectics in how to resolve disagreements in a rational way, see http://www.iep.utm.edu/lombard/. There the focus is religion, but the process is what counts.  Enable a person to vet an argument before committing to a result, before the tripwire trips and someone becomes a mere follower.

B.  The science of spin in our culture:  let the people in on the secret. Why should they be guinea pigs for free?

1. Start with  Edward Bernays, 1928 or so. A video. http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/lesson1166/PersuasiveTechniques.pdf.

2. Move to advertising psychological research and businesses that conduct it, see http://www.neuromarketing-labs.com/services/neuroadvertising/are now a science.  What do advertisers of any product do (including a presidential product, because this is indeed a sales matter and probably should trigger veracity controls on speech as in any commercial matter)?


3.  Go back to the simple techniques Americans were warned against in WWII, and still effective. See Institute for Propaganda Analysis.   Find the devices of persuasion, at  http://www.mindivogel.com/uploads/1/1/3/9/11394148/how_to_detect_propaganda.pdf.

  •  Propaganda defense: Spot the tactics. See how the techniques are even ready for mass understanding. For the pop summary of propaganda, see http://www.propagandacritic.com

4.  See what techniques pass under the radar of many people. See 'false equivalence,' where merely equal time is given to speeches, regardless of the weight based on merit. Where is investigative journalism when it comes to political speech? Surely we have crossed the line into commercial speech when people pay advertisers and buy time.

Meme alert. Repetition feeds the beast, in the currency of memes. See Wiki for Everyman's Memes. See https://www.thenation.com/article/how-false-equivalence-is-distorting-the-2016-election-coverage/.

II.  Note that none of these analyses of "propaganda" include in the category a discussion on the merits, the pros and cons of an issue where people can check the reliability, veracity of the claims made. That kind of methodology is a counter-force to propaganda, and also are longstanding in importance (now overshadowed).

Medieval times, whether religious topics then, or political now. Reboot logic, thinking, facts.


III.  Role of Media. 

Media has abdicated its information role, condones exploitation, perhaps to avoid charges of abridging free speech. That is misguided. It is only the government that is restricted from abridging free speech; private entities can use their own judgment for their own reasons, as they already do, and I would add, abridging or weighing political speech should require disclosure of what has been omitted, corrected, or should be. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

  • Rant. Exploitation, whether by gutting Dodd Frank, or keeping people immobile, hungry, sick so they cannot compete, is inconsistent with longterm stable democracy. Education, if not in schools (no common core?), then by media can recalibrate justice for people who may well not have the educational background to assess, vet, critique candidates in their own interest. 
Explore, before this election fades. Does media have any obligation to counter exploitation, or is politics just another used car-type transaction-with-talking points. Media itself is exploited by the exploiters.  Media, then, also has the power -- and obligation -- as a baseline in all walks of life -- to promote fair dealing. Any less promotes instability, injustice that goes in circles. 

Disclosure. I respect and honor the office of President of the United States.  I do not, at this point, respect the methods and mindset of the man who has been elected, and I believe largely because media left those largely unquestioned, to hold that office. I have every hope I can come to respect the man who chose those methods, but if humilitation, bandwagon, fact concealment, disinformation, sexual exploitation,  intimidation, name-calling and condoning violence continue, that respect will not arise. Will the manner of the man rise to a level worthy of the office.

  • Media guidelines. For the future: Watch spin. The science of spin. Rather than reporting only on what someone came to believe (polling), after years of hammering and pejoratives over the airwaves, report instead on what persuasion techniques were used by each side for the voter person to believe that way. 
    • This media can and should do as part of basic voter information, to enable voters to guard against their own exploitation. Do a timeline. When was the issue first raised. Who raised it. What facts. How did facts change. Bait and switch. Innuendo. Fair dealing. As important in politics as in commerce.

Why the need to counter voter exploitation? Because elections are, have become commercial in nature. The candidate, the seller, making sales pitches to close the deal.  The voter, the buyer, choosing a candidate without effective means of testing the good faith and truth of the sales pitch. Even without cause, let the voter constructively rescind in a given time frame, constructively by giving the electors the option to do so under the given circumstances. Allow a path.
    Where those circumstances do not exist, a vote against the rules, Party or State, shall be with civil consequence for usual faithless electors, as set by the party or state, so long as those are within Constitutional guidelines. 

    Saturday, November 5, 2016

    Faithless Elector rule. An elector may vote conscience, subject to State civil penalties that meet Constitutional standards.

    I.  Post-election update: Re:  Workings of the Electoral College. Are the following consistent; how to enact, if no current specific provision in effect for interpretation: Further background, see https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/roles.html#electors

    A.  An Elector may vote his or her conscience.  The right of Electors to vote their conscience shall not be denied.  The State may exercise its own options to ensure compliance with its rules, so long as those are Constitutional.  Trigger point:  See http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/faithless-electors-petition-change-org-fine-trump-hillary-clinton-by-state-crime-illegal-electoral-college-when-does-meet/  [Vet heavy.com for reliability in reporting, analysis -- I just found Wiki, must be more]

    B.  State Recourse against Electoral College rogue voting: must pass Constitutional muster.
    • There shall be no automatic penalty that is contrary to Constitutional rights. No strict liability where the result is so onerous or arbitrary or punitive in this civil area as to violate the Constitution.  
    • A State that is winner-take-all may forego a vote entirely on the first ballot, as a means of countering an effort by a Faithless Elector to vote conscience on the first ballot.
    • All other Electors, from States not winner-take-all, may vote conscience on the first ballot, subject to the fines or penalties as are permissible.
    • A rogue Elector shall not be subject to criminal investigation or criminal penalty, loss of liberty or property. Rogue voting is not a crime.

    ................................................................................................
    II.  Pre-election interest: Still relevant.  A State may forego an actual vote if it is a winner-take-all State, and such status was in effect and duly publicized at least 90 days prior to the Election.

    A.  Overview:  The Electoral College faces the issue in a close election of the Faithless Elector.

    How binding shall be a State's decision to consider itself winner-take-all. Does that entitlement to winner-take-all mean that Electors in such state do not need to vote at all, with their bound votes merely submitted for the count instead. In such case, can they then go off on a frolic of their own, liability-free for a second or later ballot, if neither candidate wins on the first ballot?   Must Electors vote on a first ballot even where they later disagree with their own pledge to follow the State's rules?
    "The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees."
    See https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html 

    Conclusion:  Lawyers, prepare to argue that winner-take-all requires no actual vote on a first ballot; the winner iis entitled to all those votes by fiat, without additional step or objection by individual Faithless Electors.  They have to wait until the second ballot.
    ................................................................................................................................

    I.  Rules of the Electoral College:

    It is useful to check the wording of the actual law or rule apparently applicable in any situation, before assuming a refusal of an elector to vote is a problem to anyone.


    Totem pole hearsay says the elector says he will not vote as an elector. Is he required to vote at all in a winner-take-all state?  Photo: Off-road in Romania.

    II.  Immediate issue:

    News says, I read, that some Washington State elector refuses, in advance, to vote for Hillary Clinton even if she wins his State of Washington.  See http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d3a1c10593c44da58bb611ef09101214/washington-state-elector-says-he-wont-vote-clinton.

    More news, informal:  This elector says, says Rachel Maddow in finest totem-pole hearsay tradition  [from this morning, at rerun of her Friday evening show], that the recalcitrant elector plans to pay the $1,000 penalty (where is that? where are the rules?) rather than cast his vote Hillary's way.

    III.  Collect the information:

    A.  Where are the rules for the Electoral College? Start at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

    B. Is Washington a winner-take-all State? Yes. See site:
    "48 states, including Washington, use a “winner-take-all” system; the presidential ticket that receives the most votes in the state are entitled to all of Washington’s electoral votes (emphasis supplied)."
    C. If a candidate wins in winner-take-all, then there need be no act of voting by the individual electors of that state?  Looks that way.
    If all that is so, then Yes. No need to take vote. The candidate is "entitled" with no further action specified.

    III. Discussion.

    A. Not so fast on strict construction of the meaning of a word. There are miles to go before we sleep,  in this our own electoral forest. Keep this site handy: the National Association of Secretaries of State. (NASS).  An issue may return to roost at the State level. Be prepared.
    • The Electoral College site suggests on its own a broader latitude, suggesting that a vote is indeed needed (despite the plain language otherwise).  So, if that holds, is the obligation of an elector merely a matter of good faith??
    B.  The website indeed addresses what happens if an elector does not vote as pledged. Elector on a frolic of his own.

    But that means a requirement to vote in the first place in a winner-take-all state, on the first ballot; which interpretation is contested here.  
    The Magic Website and its term, Faithless Electors:
    "Some state laws provide that so-called 'faithless Electors' may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged."
    *****"Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged."
     See https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html.  
    C.  The site even provides a tentative non-binding list of the kinds of fees and penalties a State may or may not exact from a Faithless Elector.  See site, and its own disclaimer against itself. Perhaps there is no penalty at all??  In Washington, the stakes are merely a party pledge and a thousand bucks.

    So an Elector can throw an election by ante-ing up $1,000.00 in Washington State. Could happen. .

    What good is a pledge otherwise in a winner-take-all state>