Based on comments by Ron in response to nickhart above. I wonder if we interchange the terms liberal and progressive. I think of the two as being distinctly different.

Anyone want to try defining some of the differences?

adamhewitt,

I believe the author's point is valid. Simply because of the fact we are trying to get through to specific segment of society.

We are trying to communicate with them.

We are trying to reason with them.

But how do you reason with an unreasonable person?

How do you communicate with someone who LITERALLY sticks their fingers in their ears and humms LA LA LA...?

There is a segment of society that, regardless of what we call them, and regardless of who is to blame, DOES NOT have the cognative ability to give any rational input regarding war and peace.

Some of them are progressive.

Reactionary - Extreme opposition to social or political change.

Conservative
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low
3. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.

Liberal
1. - Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression

4. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant

5. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts

Progressive
- 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

Radical

1. thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms:
2. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved August 03, 2007, from Dictionary.com

I was recommending the films Babel and Children of Men to someone in my family, with the preface that these are not necessarily "fun" movies to watch, but that they push Americans out of their comfort zone and into the reality of another world view. And she responded, "Oh, I just won't see movies like that anymore. I just want to enjoy my life and I don't want to have to think about any of the problems out there." This is someone who is college educated and a professional. I was so stunned by her defense and even advocacy of ignorance. I am getting the feeling that a lot of people WANT to be lied to.

In defense of kindergarteners (I have one at home) - I have taken my daughter to peace rallies and marches, where she has heard the chant "No More War". But when she says it, she says "No More Warriors". I think she gets it...

Or, we could learn to be translucents-- and let go of our definitions of progressives, liberals, -cans, -crats, or -ists.
How about -ings?

This is such an interesting and thoughtful discussion-- and respectful and broadly diverse. I am heartened to see a blend in these discussions of the political and cosmic elements at play in this time. This IS the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Birth is hard work. Pain is part of it. Suffering is optional. Science is showing us how we are co-creators of our world. Living in a more heart-centered paradigm, (a higher vibration) will help to acomplish the shift from consumerism and separatness to partnership and co-operation-- and the concept of "enough." We have to remember that our fear and judgement keep us mired in the densities of lower vibratory patterns, prisons of victimhood, blame, shame, guilt, and powerlessness and despair. It's hard not to go there, hard to bring our despair back up to that internal (powerful)place where we can BE peace. But we must.
Even through grief and sorrow, confusion and frustration-- such feelings cannot be avoided it we are going to learn to live heart-centred. Which is where healing takes place.

I appreciate all of you for taking the time to share your hearts and minds here.
When we,the whole world, can really feel that we are a beloved community -- what a wonderful world it will be.
The human experince in time is quite a lab for learning. I wonder when will we get over the fascination with blood sacrifice?
______
"Democracy is coming, to the U.S.A. ... it's coming through a hole in the air....it's coming from the feel that it ain't exactly real, or it's real, but it ain't exactly there...it's comin' from the sorrows in the street, the holy places where the races meet; ... from the wells of disappointment where the women kneel to pray for the grace of god in the desert here and the desert far away...It's coming to America first-- the cradle of the best and the worst; it's here they got the range and the machinery for change, and it's here they got the spiritual thirst...
sail on, sail on,O mighty ship of State:
to the shores of need, past the reefs of greed, through the squalls of hate...sail on, sail on, sail on
sail on." (L. Cohen)
_____
namaste

I don't know, maybe I'm just stupid, but I really don't see how "complex" progressive ideas really are.

Take care of people. Give them a job, a home, enough food to eat, an education, a safety net, and healthcare.

Treat others as you would want to be treated. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Stop throwing yur collective, national weight around. Don't stick it to other nations and/or peoples, and they most likely won't want to harm you and your nation. Don't bother your neighbors and they won't bother you.

I believe in Good and Evil also.

Peace is good.

Sharing is good.

Acceptance is good.

War is evil.

Greed is evil.

Intolerance is evil.

Is it all that hard to understand? Are progressives really smarter and more mentally mature than everyone else, or are they just more ethical?

Professor Green has used the metaphor of "childishness." What a number of commenters have seem to missed is that most of the stances, thought-patterns etc. of today's professed conservatives - (everyday folks, but especially "neeeoh con-artists" especially) - actually DO reflect immaturity. That's right,

"It's the lack of Emotional Maturity, Stupid". ("That's a joke, son.").

I'll try to flesh out how I see this issue:

Adorno's two volume work, entitled The Authoritarian Personality, was published in 1950. More recently Dyer has contributed to this knowledge-area by summarizing more than 1000 pages of in-depth research on authoritarian personalities, including Adorno's.

Dyer begins by raising this issue: "Anyone who is an alert observer of society can plainly see how few people think for themselves, but some social scientists have estimated that as many as 77% of the people in our culture (Western civilization) manifest more authoritarian qualities than nonauthoritarian on a daily basis."

Dyer's synopsis depicts - in simple and direct language - the characteristics that one can expect to find in a person whose basic orientation can be characterized as "authoritarian." Such people can be predicted to display a number of attributes which include, but are not limited to: intolerance of ambiguity, dichotomous thinking, rigidity of thought, punitiveness, anti-intellectualism, militaristic patriotism, conformity, and ethnocentrism.

A brief overview of some key characteristics:

1) INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY: The typical authoritarian experiences a strong need to have things spelled out specifically. Unless there is a yes or no answer to every question, no matter how complex, they show signs of anxiety. As a result the authoritarian has little tolerance for people who are working in intrinsically ambiguous areas - philosophers, artists, social or political leaders. It might be said that authoritarians feel compelled to insist that every piece of language they hear or read "mean just one thing"…which is clear and readily identifiable.

2) DICHOTOMOUS THINKING: Authoritarians exhibit a compulsion to divide everything and everyone into mutually exclusive groups - good/bad, right/wrong, friend/enemy - without taking into account the subtleties, qualifications or even downright mistakes that may be involved. "Dichotomous thinking" can be considered an outgrowth of intolerance of ambiguity; it is a sort of "rush to judgment" which serves to provide an immediate (but illusory, and generally false) sense of certainty.

3) RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT: The rigidity in the way an authoritarian perceives the world and himself is often exhibited as a generalized unwillingness to consider perspectives that conflict with his (or her) own preconceived ideas. Dyer notes, that faced with such a situation, "the last thing [such a person] will do…is to listen, evaluate, and be prepared to change his position if it seems warranted. It is virtually impossible for him ever to [sincerely] admit having been wrong or having learned anything from anyone [with views different from himself]…You will never hear [him or her] say [and mean]: 'Well, you have a point there.'" Dyer goes on to say that - with true, "dyed-in the wool" authoritarians - rational discussion [regarding emotionally laden issues]…"is never a cooperative effort to reach agreement, beginning with mutual respect on each side…

...The most frustrating thing about authoritarians is their inaccessibility: most of the time, there is literally no way to reach them."

4) ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM: Dyer states that authoritarians often display a mistrust of "intellectuals," particularly people who make their living as thinkers, but he adds this caveat: "Today of course, there is no lack of authoritarians in academic fields; however…these people tend to be devoted followers of some 'school of thought,' and more often than not…are notable only for blindly following what some 'great man' has taught."

5) ANTI-INTROSPECTION Authoritarians tend to resist looking into their own motivations. Dyer observes that one of the things such a person seems most afraid of - is admitting (to others or to themselves) that they have not always been "right." Dyer speculates that authoritarians reject looking inward because they have come to rely so strongly on external support systems to convince themselves of their own value.

6) PARANOIA Dyer believes that authoritarians' basic distrust of themselves tends to make them suspicious about every human encounter. Because they find it so difficult to admit that they, themselves, are responsible (at least in part) for creating many of the problems they complain about, they feel compelled to blame someone else. As Dyer notes - "even to [be able to] support the relatively mild paranoia of the majority of authoritarians…it is necessary for them to imagine a multitude of enemies out there. (Yet these same individuals seldom allow themselves to be moved to greater sympathy or support for others who really are being persecuted). Their paranoid picture of the world [usually] simply leads such people to withdraw into ever-tightening spirals of paranoia."

7) ANTI-WEAKNESS Authoritarians tend not to support help for the weak because they equate weakness with evil; so, the outcasts of society are responsible for their own situations. It is their own fault if they did not "make it to the center of the herd." Another implication of this view is that "winning" is all that really matters: if you are weak, or part of a "weak team" you should be feel ashamed.

8) POWER WORSHIP The other side of the anti-weakness coin is the authoritarian's typical worship of power, no matter how the power is being used. This trait also speaks to authoritarians' habit of compulsively looking outside of themselves for measures and validation of their worth.

9) ETHNOCENTRISM This trait has been considered both one of the most common and most dangerous of all the typical authoritarian qualities, because it is most capable of leading to violence. Ethnocentrism in general, and racism in particular are, in turn, connected with the phenomenon of anti-minority thinking and behavior. Dyer points out that such a set of attitudes promotes alienation between all kinds of "minorities" and "majorities." He goes on to argue that, more recently, focus on being part of a "great majority" has replaced allegiance to a specific ethnic group; this trait, he notes, fits with the "authoritarian knack for covering up the fact that they are not flawless."

10) CONFORMITY and SUBMISSIVENESS Authoritarian people tend to be governed by opinions and social forces outside of themselves; generally, they are quite weak when it comes to relying on their own judgments, instincts, independent sets of values, etc. They find it much easier and more comforting to adjust to imposed standards than to look inward for the keys to guiding their own lives. As Adorno has said, "Conformity is one of the major expressions of lack of an internal focus." So, it seems natural for such people to be submissive to established authority and conventional modes of behavior. And we can see here, the way in which a person with a strong authoritarian inclination will inevitably be quite suggestible and gullible, particularly to propaganda and hype. This vulnerability can be contrasted with the relative resiliency of more autonomous individuals who are willing to challenge authority, and "who see no reason to accept things as they are - simply because an authority figure or institution decrees it should be so."

The double standard which is implicit in the authoritarian stance is particularly evident in the way such people think of the parent /child relationship (which can be considered as a model for their approach to all relationships). The concept of the parent as absolute authority is sacrosanct. The authority of the parent is seen as a one-way street, in which the parent deserves respect, simply for being an authority figure. Embedded within this conceptualization is the idea that authority itself must be unchallengeable -because a challenge to any authority is seen as a threat to all order, and authority.

So, as might be expected, parents who act in an authoritarian fashion toward their children will feel strongly motivated to act in a submissive fashion toward their own parents. It would be fair to say, then, that for such people the "game" they are most comfortable playing in life is that of "follow the leader."

As Milburn discusses in his 1996 "The Politics of Denial" - Adorno and his colleagues also offered a specific formulation regarding a likely origin point for "the authoritarian personality."

Their theory suggests that rigid, punitive parents, by definition, cannot tolerate any expression of a child's powerful, spontaneous, and natural sexual and aggressive impulses; in fact, parents responded to them with an exaggerated punitiveness; and this parental reaction leaves the child no alternative but to repress those impulses - that is, to ban them from consciousness.

However, our knowledge of the psyche tells us that emotions banished into the mind's basement - remain disturbing and tumultuous, whether or not "the owner of the house" is aware of their existence. Repression alone, as a defense against feelings, is rarely completely successful.

To guard against the anxiety that these emotions might break through into conscious awareness - additional defenses must be erected - much as one might pile larger and heavier pieces of furniture against a door to keep out an insistent intruder.

It is understandable that a child will respond to his parents' excessively punitive reactions with feelings of rage. But this very emotion is one the child dare not allow himself to acknowledge - or at least must not connect with his parents' behavior. This is not unusual, for we can recall that a child, who is completely dependent on his parents, will, if forced to submit to abuse, deny parental abusiveness, and continue to idealize them.

Adorno (Milburn, 1996) also theorized that - in these humble and poignant origins - can be found the beginnings of the formation of the authoritarian character style. Since unresolved feelings do not simply "go away" with the passage of time and physical maturation, the original sexual and aggressive emotions (and especially those feelings that arose following parents' suppression of those emotions) - far from becoming extinct, grow into a major determining force of adult outlooks and beliefs.

Aspects of themselves that the individual "disowned" so long ago are "transformed" into a more "acceptable" form: they are "projected onto" (unconsciously attributed to) others - commonly members of a despised outgroup.

As Milburn (1996) points out:

The beauty of projection lies in its psychic economy; once one has projected one's own "bad" impulses onto women, Jews, or African Americans, it is only reasonable to take out one's rage against them. After all, they are the ones who are oversexed, aggressive, sneaky, and so on. Individuals of this personality type, in addition to venting their anger on minority groups, find their own children perfect targets for displacement, and [often] treat their children the same way their parents treated them."
*****
Does the "authoritarian personality" sound fully flourishing adult? Is this what a mature human looks like at some end point...or is it in reality the product of a seriously stunted emotional and cognitive development?

It is, in fact, terribly frustrating to feel like a relatively mature soul - (or at least trying to achieve such a developmental level, whether you call it that or not) - living amidst the "torch and pitchfork" folk, who seem to be driving this country (and the world) over a cliff --- .

I believe the metaphor of "adult children" which Professor Green has used (hats off to Al Anon here) is - besides being a reflection of his anguish and frustration - valid in and of itself.

From the perspective of human development look at Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Do they behave like grown-up, generative males? Don't they seem more like "monster boys?"

To me they seem to be grown boys whose character development went way screwy. Today, each could accurately be describe as a type of conscience-less sociopath. What would that make the people who admire and follow them unquestioningly?

"Baby-Souls?"

On the other hand, Ron Paul describes himself as a conservative, and he has vastly greater intellectual depth than any Democrat I have ever seen. Barry Goldwater and Russell Kirk were hardly what you'd call illiterates, either.

Of course, what the author actually describes above is not conservatism but neo-conservatism (fascism).

Many people just don't want to know. They just don't want to know the Truth. The truth can be very painful and once you know the truth, you never see things the same way again. Your innocence is gone and you can never get it back again. But people must know the truth in order to grow and learn.

PowerofLove:
Your last dissertation as well as two previous posts shed more light than the original essay that sparked such a lovely discussion. I venture to compare DMG's text to particles of dust in the air that cause condensation of vapor into pouring rain.

Reading through 10 line items of authoritarian attributes I found that the top of the list - INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY, DICHOTOMOUS THINKING, and RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT - constitutes defining attributes of scientific method. You would not call scientist, accepting these qualities as prerequisites in his trade, as marching toward authoritarianism, would you? 50 years ago Charles Snow popularized the concept of two cultures, orthogonal to each other. I would be interested in your view on this matter.

"1) INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY"
It feels good to have all the answers, to live in a world where you already know everything you need to know (everything that matters anyway). A world of unknowns is potentially scary.

"2) DICHOTOMOUS THINKING"
This is the same as the first. They oversimplify, they reduce everything to black and white, because that is necessary quite often to actually have an answer.

"3) RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT"
This is because they've already panglossed the world, they've already developed the positions that make this the best of all possible worlds for them, thus they will do their best to hold on to these positions. They consider continuing to believe such positions of utmost importance to their happiness, to their being able to stay adapted to the realities of this world. Any conversation about politics, etc is not to learn anything, it is only to "win" the conversation. As a huge part of their panglossianism is believing that endless competition is the best of all possible worlds as they are indeed stuck in a world where losing certain competitions means homeless and starving to death.

"4) ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM"
Anti-intellectualism is the product of republican propaganda which played into the feelings of inferiority of the weak, fearful people who adopt panglossianism. Being able to call intelligence just arrogance, elitism, etc helps them feel more likes winners instead of feeling inferior.

"5) ANTI-INTROSPECTION"
Of course, again they've already adapted a viewpoint which makes this the best of all possible worlds. Introspection might mess that up.

"6) PARANOIA"
I don't know about this one other than adapting the best of all possible worlds mindset in a capitalist world means adapting a dog eat dog mindset where everyone is against everyone else.

"7) ANTI-WEAKNESS"
Again this is these panglossists simply adopting ubercapitalism as some great religion.

"POWER WORSHIP"
They worship power because, generally, in the best of all possible worlds, those who've obtained power are the perfect men. Of course it gets more complicated. If they've already adopted unregulated capitalism as The Way, then a person in power seemingly preaching the opposite (relatively speaking) may not be worshipped. OTOH, there were plenty of panglossists worshipping Stalin also I'm sure. Provided they were born after 1910 or so.

"9) ETHNOCENTRISM"
The panglossist is already living in the best of all possible worlds, so their way over there, their culture, etc, is of course inferior.

"10) CONFORMITY and SUBMISSIVENESS"
Of course, panglossian, etc. No need for me to add anymore.

If a person can convince themselves that the world we currently live in is just about perfect, then they really are going to be happier. Furthermore, they can adapt better to such a world. So if one convinces one's self that the world is cruel and mean and that's how it ought to be, then they will go around acting like an ass to others.

It all comes back to looking at the world, and trying to figure out how they can get ahead in life, and how they can be happy. The panglossist/authoritarian or whatever else, sees a world of people simply crushing one another and convinces himself that it is for the best and he/she better jump right in and do the same. While the liberal believes that the key to being happy is knowledge. And then there are degrees of each.

"INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY, DICHOTOMOUS THINKING, and RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT - constitutes defining attributes of scientific method."

Which is interesting considering that conservatives, especially those on the Christian Right are very much anti-science.

"From the perspective of human development look at Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Do they behave like grown-up, generative males?"

Unfortunately, they do.

It's insulting to children, whose souls are innocent, to suggest that one has to have a kindergarten mentality in order to embrace ideologies such as right-wing fascism, imperialism, and unbridled capitalism. I have never known a child to be more cruel than say a Dick Cheney or a Rumsfeld. And when children are cruel, it's usually the fault of adults from whom they learn such behavior. It's rather ageist actually. Children are our most vulnerable citizens. Let's not insinuate that they are little monsters.

... and so ultimately. It's not that they're stupid. It's not that they are thinking like children. It's that they're wusses, to put it simply. They are too afraid of this big bad world to dare going against whatever they see as the majority, whatever they see as the true power. They looked at capitalism and couldn't handle it. It was too horrible for them to face honestly, too scary. So instead they found a way to make it the ultimate good. And then most spend the rest of their lives just holding on to that rigid position.

On the subject of bumper stickers; I have 4 on my car; "Jesus Is a Liberal", "I like Your Christ, but I don't like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ", (a quote by Ghandi), "Fascism Will Come to America Wrapped in the Flag and Carrying a Cross", and "911 Was an Inside Job". I live in the "red" state of North Dakota. I have had numerous people wait for me in parking lots to ask me where I got my bumper stickers and to tell me how much they like them. I haven't had one person say anything bad about them. But there are very few people out here willing to discuss politics. I think alot of them are scared to. I am a native Minnesotan, and where I come from people are not afraid. I would really rather be dead than to be afraid to state my feelings.

Emphyrio, I love your moniker -- from the Jack Vance novel?

What deep doo-doo US society is in -- really. Fatal doo-doo, I think.

Green I think correctly puts the finger on the efficient cause of USA's lurch into the abyss: Mass mental flabbiness. But notice, he doesn't make a fool of himself by analyzing the sufficient causes, nor by clamoring about how those causes might be corrected anytime soon.

That's probably because the USA, as it's dgenerated now, can't be corrected, short of a meltdown/Reformation. And it's unlikely that even a current meltdown would ever re-yield, anytime soon, the timeless consciousness of 1789, given the present world.

I personally think America's mad, self-destruction was hastened - if not entirely caused by - a commercially-driven mass hypnotizing PR machine (corporate Capitalism) that successfuly promised people bodyily/emotional/political/metaphysical pleasures in exchange for giving-up their critical-thinking skills and/or letting-go their instinct-generated souls.

My Native American friends say this threnody is too wordy -- but they agree with the gist.

Other powerful nations have become extinct because of similar bogus themes, so the USA's plight is hardly historically unprecedented.

It arguably no longer matters what any of us well-intentioned citizen-fixer analysts think.

There aren't enough of us dissenters to prop-up the USA's fatally-tottering structure, long enough for greater citizen numbers to be waked by credible clamor to save it.

For the USA, The Cat's Out of the Bag.

There've been too many generations of self-serving monkeys in positions of High Power, propagating a steady-stream of Constitution-inimical policies; too many periods of gullable citizen self-censoring.

A critical-mass of contradiction has now been reached, and the USA can now only implode and decline, more and more, in the immediate time ahead.

I hate to say this or think this, because I love the promise my country -- uniquely enshrined in its chartering documents. I think its Constitution -- however seemingly antiquated today -- was nevertheless designed by people who had accurate human-creature insights: like the need to charter, and insist-on, limits to personal and official power. Crucial! But now quite Gone.

Limiting all human Power in the polity was no small wisdom for any human gathering of nation creators to agree on. But the Enlightenment period that such an idea came out of is now only dimly remembered --and in any case is once again violently 'out of style' in the present age.

Sentimentally/hypocritically, I keep advising everybody to do what they can to revive this brain-dead USA Meta-Patient we all live-in and call Our Country; to act now, before the most-apoplectic villians fully bury USA's unresponsive body politic forever.

But the die looks ineluctably cast. As Mr. Green's essay hints: The People, themselves have become supine toward and/or complicit with the madmen who rule and frame a distorted human consciousness.

Not much you can do when that kind of Power locks-in - except, like the USSR, wait and push for the rot to topple.

On a hopeful note: USA's Constitution was (and remains) a noble Ideal. And even if the present USA dies, the ideal of a decent self-governing Republic, as normal, sane, decent humans have unsuccessfully struggled to make it so since 1789 hereabout, won't easily die.

It'll likely come alive again, refocused, somewhere, sometime. Maybe even before most of us personally die-out. As always, much of any future that's decent will depend on what still-alive, decent humans do in the Present.

Akakakakak!

"So much of progressive thinking requires careful reflection, extended analytical probing, and a collection of just plain data - factual information - about what is going on in the world" certainly makes clear a key characteristic the author attributes to the "progressive".

"We in the progressive community…" certainly makes clear which side the author considers himself a part.

But is the content following the assertion indicative?

Akakakakak!

Allegations; epithets; notions; pandering; non sequiturs; etc.

Where is the "careful reflection, extended analytical probing, …factual information "?

Akakakakak!

He almost made a sound and valid conclusion or two but wasn't able to aptly apply that reflective, analytical, factual rigor allegedly attributed to "We in the progressive community". For example: "secular, Shiite-majority". Leaving alone the lack of evidence of rampant secularism in the Shiite-majority in Iraq, if I am not mistaken the rules of diction (easily accessible to even non-thinkers outside the bounds of the "progressive community" in the form of a dictionary) would render this phrase akin to "non-religious religious". I'm just not feeling the "thinking" part. Is it because I'm a "progressive community" outcast… or could it be something else?

Credit where credit is due. The author seems to understand that power can often persuade a critical mass of the many that something is true without having to support that something with solid evidence. Dear reader, do you honestly believe that the author was unconscious as to the likelihood that his flattering assertion that those whom attribute to themselves membership in the "progressive community" (and as such authorized to wear the "Thinker" pin) without evidence might elicit the likes of:
"Excellent ideas Mr. Green and I wholeheartedly agree."
"ill-informed masses. A huge percentage of them are (from an evolutionary perspective) just beginning to think (a little bit)."
"This essay is the one I have been waiting to see published"
"Spot on."

Baaa-a-a-a

Akakakakkakak!

PowerofLove: That's quite an essay! I apppreciate what you have stated.

iwarrior: Very good! The truth of the matter is not complex, and when stated as simply and unambiguously as you have, everyone should understand the elementary principal of right and wrong, or positive and negative.

RichM: I bought several copies of Parenti's, TO KILL A NATION, and gave them to a few friends of mine who fell for the "Hitler" crap about Milosovich. It was worth the investment!

marius002: I think you mean, "the rapture".

Flowerchild: The process seems very slow, but the world is changing for the better. The Japanese rejected Abe's militaristic posturing, knowing full well he is a puppet of the U.S. They remember the "Tojo" era.

Professor Green, Thank you for hitting the nail on the head again. Thats what I call news analysis.

Progressives vs. Regressives. Please write more about how you can justify those labels. Even though its crystal clear to many, there are plenty still living in the dark ages oblivious to the distinction. If you elaborate on it a little more by writing a book, I think you'd help us become more sophisticated in who we elect as our president. We need a president (and a cabinet) who actually wants an informed and educated citizenry.

Begging the question: what do we do about it?

There is a large segment of our society that takes comfort in having a daddy figure watch over them. They surrender themselves to it because it's not only easy, it's comforting to not torture one's self with the burden of independent thought.

Case in point: people who readily believe a great big invisible father that lives up in the sky at the same time deny global unanimity about climate change. They do so because their daddy figures in locus who publicly share a similar surrender to the will of Big Invisible Daddy tell them climate change is a farce. Never mind that while these so-called "leaders" wave the Bible with one hand, their other palm is being greased by the fossil fuel industry to maintain the status quo. Similar examples are numerous.

We have been fortunate of late, as the power these charlatans had accrued had made them so drunk, they way overstepped the bounds of prudent thievery. Their image as altar boys and girls has been tarnished a bit, thanks to the last remnants of a free press that has not been totally corrupted by advertising dollars from the same corporate masters buying the politicians.

The only answer I come to is that we must continue to make inroads into the mainstream media that spoon-feeds the intellectually lazy. As CNN competes for Fox viewers by employing racist hate-mongers and propagandists for the right, we must attack them where a mammonist can be hurt most effectively: in the wallet. Recent successes with sponsors of the O'Reilly factor serve as a great model for future activism.

The rabid right has played the refs since Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine. We must tirelessly insist on true balance in the media once again if we are to compete for the hearts and minds of the dumbass class. We must make it clear that reporting lies in the interest of fairness just because those lies represent an opposing viewpoint is not acceptable journalism. And we must do so with our consumer dollars, because that's the only language the media executives understand.

POWER OF LOVE: Excellent posting, and much of it runs parallel with the insights drawn from John Dean's insightful look into the authoritarian persona in "Conservatives without Conscience."
Centuries of conditioning through patriarchal religious indoctrination has certainly led to the 70% figure that supports the authoritarian model. So-called religious freedom is a relatively new phenomenon. Consider the millions murdered or burned BY the church for the castigation of heresy: i.e. believing OTHER than the established religious teachings of the time. Religion has always taken the "my way or the highway" approach, even when its ostensible hypocrisy showed loud and clear. This patriarchal programming has also established the father as HEAD of household, repressed female rights and equality, and configured into a worldview that operates like a catch 22, re=generating more of same as if the vast majority operated within a self contained, self limiting feedback loop.
Einstein related that no problem could be solved (racism, sexism and all ism divisions) from the level of consciousness (orthodox patriarchal religion playing such a FUNDAMENTAL role in this operation) that brought it about. KUDOS to FLOWER CHILD and MAXHEMUST's references to the larger time cycles playing out in this challenging phase of global transition.
OBSERVER: Science can operate a lot like a priesthood with its own rigid, authoritarian protocols. How often has the novel thinker been stigmatized for not going along with established ideological protocols? Dr. Robert Mendelsohn wrote books that exposed the medical world in the manner Perkins wrote his confessions of a hit man (as per US military/CIA's relationship to corporate outreach in the manner of coopting the resources of other lands). Mendelsohn called the medicine world that of the MDEity, and made a good case for its emulating a priesthood.

Hey don't insult the kindergartners with that title!

This discussion is rather juvenile and depressing. In fact, liberals are depressing. Almost every post can be characterized as "whoas me" or "What's a fella to do?" This wimpish attitude is why liberals will always by the party of angst and complainers. Get off your girlie asses and do something about it! But I bet you can't do it without crying or lying...the world is coming to an end...whoas me...those "regressives" stole my piece of the pie...they make me feel bad...why can't I have that?....blah, blah, blah....

Since about 1970, the only real religion in the US is rampant consumerism. The desire to buy trinkets, designer clothes, bigger and bigger houses, etc. is as addictive as any drug and far more ubiquitous.

To belong to the Church of consumerism, a hefty dose of denial is required. If you think too hard or read the wrong literature, you will draw the inevitable conclusion that the wealth we are currently enjoying is made possible only by wasting resources that accumulated over millions of years, blowing through them all in a few centuries. You will realize that we can't keep this up for much longer.

As a result, we have this strange, circular, economy where someone works at Burger King so they can eat meals at McDonalds. The government cashes in on every exchange at the cash register. At the root of consumerism is the incrdibly cheap prices we have enjoyed in the US for decades. Food is cheap, because we have CAFO's and ocean trawling, migrant workers, GMO's etc. Everything that comes from China is cheap, even though it has traveled thousands of miles.

We complain about leaders, yet what most Americans really fear is someone who threatens their life style, their consumerism.

I was a child when Richard Nixon resigned, but I remembering wondering what all the fuss was about. We know our Presiedents our corrupt. They are our moral fall-guys. They make the decisions to go to war, not us.

Our current President, however, is so incredibly stupid and delusional that he forced us into a war so ridiculous and brutal that we have lost all respect. We took a stable country and created a humanitarian disaster. The President will throw any amount of money into the war to save his ego.
We were on a bad course anyway, but this President sped up the process by about 100 years.

There are a lot of people that I would like see to read this article. At least sixty million little brained kindergarteners. I know of some personally, as I'm sure we all do that I would like to present this article to and in turn have them eat it.

Thanks for putting into words that which is obvious but often overlooked.

The truth will set us free.

Awareness of facts will set us free from the darkness of ignorance of those facts.

The truth about American foreign policy will set us free from ignorantly tolerating it, and all needless human misery that it creates.

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

A Conversation with Jean Ziegler
Empire of Shame
http://www.counterpunch.org/accardo12202005.html

Greetings Regressive Comrades. I am, in your groupthink, a regressive Christian conservative. I only have a few questions that would certainly be easily answered by some of the deep thinkers among you.
1. What is the "progressive" guidebook, or best methodology for determining right and wrong, in a way that is simple enough for children (or adults)?
2. Are there even categories like "good" and "evil" that you accept as universal and absolute, and if so,
how are they derived?
3. Are they subject to change? Does "evil" also "progress"?
Thanks for any response. Scoot.

steve.scoot:
I see you smiling about a trap you set for godless progressive. However, all your questions are easy to answer.
Q1. What is the "progressive" guidebook, or best methodology for determining right and wrong, in a way that is simple enough for children (or adults)?
A1. Life is good, death is bad. You cannot argue with that proposition. For if you disagree and still living, any your argument is lost by definition. It is that simple even for adults of your ilk. BTW, transition from non-being to being is progressive by definition, as well as transition from being to non-being is regressive by definition. Everything else flows from these definitions. I beg your pardon, but God becomes superfluous within this system of axioms. Tetragrammaton (YHWH, translated into English as 'I Am') carries the same meaning – BEING, the very foundation of our discussion. Most definitely I welcome Jesus into good company of Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Socrates, … Marx and couple thousands other great and not so great men and women.

Q2. Are there even categories like "good" and "evil" that you accept as universal and absolute, and if so, how are they derived?
A1. I help you with the hint as how to use A1 to answer your second question. Whatever leads to longer BEING – my, your, our as humans, mammals, plants and on and on and on, depending of the level of one's awareness- is GOOD. Conversely, whatever leads to shorter BEING – is EVIL. Shortening human life is lesser evil than shortening life on this planet. Shortening unconscious life is lesser evil than shortening conscious life. Make your own choice in stem cell research debate.

A3. Are they subject to change? Does "evil" also "progress"?
Q3. Based on my previous two answers even kindergartner can answer your last question: evil most definitely way in progress nowadays. Evil of 10,000 nukes is way more progressive that an evil of club. And don't forget that progress of negative is in fact regress.

Welcome to critical thinking, my dear. Scoot.

Thank you, observer for sharing and asking this:

"Reading through 10 line items of authoritarian attributes I found that the top of the list - INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY, DICHOTOMOUS THINKING, and RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT - constitutes defining attributes of scientific method....I would be interested in your view on this matter."

Actually, I do not see scientific thinking (other than a dysfunctional form of it) to reflect these 3 characteristics at all. I can see your point though. A dedicated scientists wants to generate definitive results that are verifiable and reproduce-able, not some mushy feeling about what is so(such as Chertov's highly irresponsible statement that he has a "gut-feeling" that there Might be a terrorist attack soon. Ack and Uggh!).

A scientist also would like to be able to say it is This and not That (dichotomous thinking). Rigidity of Thought - No. A genuine scientist (worthy of that designation) has flexibility of thought, a lack of pre-judgments (prejudice), and a willingness to go wherever his or her results lead.

I appreciate your points. Reflecting on the issue, I tentatively would say that the key is "open-mindedness." A true scientists would have no affinity with Categories 4 through 10.

As for 1 and 2, I'd say that one can utilize these thought-forms as tools, to be used when it makes sense. A number of discipines including meta-mathematics and physics --- (bedrocks!) are in the process of relinguishing their attachment to these conceptual categories.

For example, the idea that an electron must either be a particle Or a wave.
Also, the necessity to use a "Fuzzy Systems" approah when solving some problems.

The key I think is being able to use these thought-tools, without being dominated or used by them. To employ a lighter touch and to be open to "both/and" thinking as well.

Edgar Morin (Homeland Earth) and Milton Rokeach (The Open and Closed Mind) have both offered great reflections on how the issues that you raised can actually serve to cripple our thinking and cause us to add to the world's massive dysfunction.

Thanks again for asking!

Anyway, that's what I think I think ~~~ about that !

Green's mistake is to assume that just because other people don't agree with his ilk, they are not thinking. There are other possibilities. Thinking people will disagree when there is a difference in a) their foundational assumptions (non-provable axioms), b) their interpretation of events decided by what/who they trust, c) their prediction of results, or d) their weighting of outcomes and values. Funny that Green did not think this far. But then, that is a typical liberal trait: not being able to grant the credibility of the other point of view. Do you know why? They cannot afford to. They have persuaded themselves, and need to stay persuaded. Sorry to be so frank, but the truth is out there and needs to gotten ahold of. My personal opinion is that neither the liberals nor the conservatives are the enemy. The enemy is altogether a more dark and sinister force. Laugh now, but remember this later, in say 2012.
Anthony Rose

U.S. soldiers ask "Should We Stay or Should we Go.

http://newssophisticate.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-soldiers-ask-should-we-stay-or.html

Observer, thanks for the kind response. Tao with a little Buddha sauce on the side? So life is good and death is bad. For me, death is not really bad, since I go to heaven when I die, but as to the timetable, I leave that to God. I guess that is why people
"of your ilk" are SO consumed with the "here and now"...because if this material world, with all its suffering, is all there is, then
a sense of existential doom and gloom is the only corollary. But, back to my questions.
1. Where do you derive these absolute moral axioms about good and evil? A book? A plebiscite? Tea leaves? Your innate wit?
2. Are you implying that inert objects (nukes, guns, clubs, etc.) are evil? On what basis?
3. If long life is the ultimate "good", I might suggest that you visit a nursing home and rethink that.
4. PLEASE respond directly to question #1, since it appears that your moral compass is without a true north, at least as far
as you have thus far explained. Thanks, Scoot.

Hi iwarrior!

Thank you for your response. You make some interesting points...writing re- my question in a former comment:

"From the perspective of human development look at Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Do they behave like grown-up, generative males?"

"Unfortunately, they do."

Don't think so.

"Generative" in the context I'm using it, means "giving, nurturing the next generation, other adults, and the world we live in." The psychologist Erik Erickson describes this way of being as being important and necessary for psychological health in one's older years, especially. It can be defined as "an adult's concern for and commitment to promoting the well-being of future generations."

Would you say Cheney and Rumsfeld fit this bill? Shrub? I don't think so.

I can see your point re: comparing Conservatives to Kindegartners: "It's insulting to children, whose souls are innocent..."

However, when you say:

"I have never known a child to be more cruel than say a Dick Cheney or a Rumsfeld. And when children are cruel, it's usually the fault of adults from whom they learn such behavior. It's rather ageist actually."

In one sense I agree ---- the "learned from adults part." But that has been my point all along: that these folks were twisted up and frightfully wounded in childhood. In the currently used diagnostic assessment used in psychology and psychiatry, a whole category is devoted to the Huge issue of Character Pathology - or "Personality Disorders" (as opposed to discrete things like depression or anxiety).

To have such a disorder Means that the maturing process has been stunted - and often crushed. In a practical sense the psyches of such folks are those of "Adult Children" (as in Adult Children of Alcoholics - a commonly used descriptive).
In my opinion we Must understand this phenomenon and the havoc it wreaks on relationships and human society in general.

As is described in Transactional Analysis, it is not the Natural Child Ego State within us that needs to be feared. Rather, it is the Adapted Child - the part of us that Adapted to a death - (not growth) -oriented, dysfunctional family milieu, which gives as many of our adult problems.

These men need to be seen for what and where they are in terms of both emotional and intellectual development. To turn away from these psychological realities only makes us more impotent than we already feel.

For much more on this, see "Bush on the Couch," Justin Frank's amazing psychoanalytic profiling of Lil' Georgie, using the same methods that our very own CIA uses to profile other world leaders. Peek inside GWB's head, if you dare...it's scary stuff!

Abraham Maslow was first in psychology to say, "We've only been looking at sick people and their pathology, now let's try to understand the healthiest and most mature people we can find."

And he did. Thus, one of my touchstones for what genuine adulthood can look like comes out of his groundbreaking work (eg., Towards a Psychology of Being).

A wish would be for anyone interested to have a sense of the latest research on human development, so that we can readily see that --- folks are at different levels and stages along a multitude of developmental lines. The work of Kohlberg,

(on stages of moral development --- some people Are more primitive and infantile in this realm!)

Kagan, Piaget, and of course, Ken Wilber (with his Einstein-like application of a 4 quadrant spiral - dynamics approach) have enriched my understanding immeasurably.

On the liberal vs. conservative thing, I think that at this point the whole business
is sillinonsenseickle. How about Citizen of the Earth - for a starter?

IMHO We desperately need to expand our focus: first to our Homeland-Earth as a whole, and from there to being a member of a much vaster community of sentient souls. These issues will, I think, soon enough be at the forefront of our awareness ---whether we *like* *it* *or* *not.*

In the meantime >>>>

"Now what was we watchin' on the Plasma Screen, Honey? Oh, yeah and, doll, on your way, would you bring me a beer?"

"Did ya Hear me??"

"I SAID.... BEER ME, HON!!"

Escravo Do Poder...

"But:

Peace is good.
ALWAYS? (ie, was WWII a bad idea?)"

Actually I think it was. I don't think there has ever been a war that was truly a good idea.

"Also, to go Clintonesque on you, it defends on HOW you define "peace". The "peace" of the grave, because your enemies killed you? The "peace" of an absence of war, because your enemies conquered you?"

I believe in peace for the sake of peace.

To me peace brought about by war or murder is not real peace.

"Or the "peace" that comes from living right, as a person and as a country, but being prepared to deal resolutely with other people, countries, ideologies, or religions who are not prepared to let you live in peace?"

Well see now that's a neocon's idea of peace, peace brought about by busting the heads of those they think might not want peace. That's not peace. I think The Arab World (which is what you're talking about) would be willing to let us live in peace if we would let them live in peace.

"Intolerance is evil.
Yes it is. (most of the time) Intolerance comes from being Ignorant. Which is why I get frustrated with the level of intolerance shown by some (not you) on this site.
The comments here, "some people don't think", "all conservatives are Christian fundamentalists", "That behaviour and thinking is the signature of a large part of America"

How much tolerance is shown on this site to:
Citizens of a "Red State"?
Believers in any strain of Christianity?
NRA members?
Those who morally believe that killing an embryo in its 8th month of gestation is murder?
Those whose intellectual reasonings, experiences, and/or travels have led them to believe that something other than socialism is required to improve this country?
Those who believe that public education does not educate and should be taken out of the hands of heartless govt burocrats?"

I'll agree with you there, but I'm not calling for the heads of all people who disagree with me either. People have a right to be pro-life and whatnot.

When it comes to villifying people from Red States, I totally agree. I've butted skulls numerous times with liberals who attack so-called Rednecks. There's intolerance on the left side of the fence for sure towards certain groups of people, and I have never stood for it.

"How many of you, merrily damming people for the above have known a member of a mega-church?"

I never have no, but I have known many people who are religious. I grew up Catholic myself. I've seen the bad and the good regarding religion firsthand.

"Or know a poor black family moving heaven and earth to get a kid into Catholic school because the public schools where they live are useless?"

I've known a number of people like that. I won't kick them around as they're just trying to look out for the best interests of their kids.

"Or have met a person who has used a firearm in self defense, or lost someone because they could NOT defend themselves?"

I have known people like that. Again they were trying to survive and in that case of losing a loved one, are grieving.

"Or hunts because he can't afford meat in the supermarket?"

Well you got me there. :) I live in the city, where surprisingly enough we have plenty of deer.

"On the other hand, INTOLERANCE is NOT always bad. I believe in a resolute intolerance of slavery. There is nothing to discuss on an issue like this. I am supremely intolerant of those who would use religion to justify "honor killings", multiple wifes, murder of homosexuals, or cutting off female genitalia. Again, I think there is nothing to discuss on these kinds of issues…"

I would agree there. I was referring to intolerance towards people's differences.

However, I can also see your remarks being directed towards Muslims, which is intolerance.

Mcra99 thank you for your participation in such a juvenile discussion. You serve as an excellent example. Apparently, you are very masculine (probably homophobic) and you have your piece of the pie (fat ass) and you are depressed by a word that means generous, abundant, broad minded, and favoring progress.

You assert that we should get off of our girly asses and do something about it. Yet are unable to express what "it" is.

What it is, is not our piece of any pie, but everyone's right to be left the phuck alone and live, as opposed to having bombs dropped on them from a distance. You may feel that this is a very manly tactic, but us liberals do not.

The discussion here centers around the fact that people like you have been persuaded to believe that random murder is a good thing or you actually thought it through and agree, and we cannot understand why. It's not about how much pie or cake or material things we have. It's about how you cannot imagine the same atrocities being carried out by your government, against other people, applying to you. Surely you agree if Bush ordered your neighborhood to be bombed because your neighbor is a criminal, you'd object. So why then, do you think it's good to do it anywhere? It appears you have nothing more to add other than a few he-man dribblings, thus confirming the author's implications.

You also seem to think that there is a party of liberals. This is not the case. Unless it's a keg party. So, we'd love to hear something from you to either confirm or deny the kindergarten mentality described by the author of this article.

If all you have is the content of your previous post, you'd be better received at the Worldwide Wrestling Federation's website.
peace

Just about every time I get disgusted with and am tempted to lose hope for my country from where I am on the other side of the world, here comes David Michael Green with another dose of sanity and good sense. And it's wrapped in delightfully unstuffy unspun language. I don't imagine David wants to be President, but I remember Plato's insightful point that the only people who fit to rule are those who don't want to. Think about it.

PS: Naptime is still wonderful, especially when it unblurs you.

Somebody needs to challenge the contention, glibly accepted by some in this interesting string, that rigidity of thought and intolerance of ambiguity are characteristic of scientific method. (And now I see that PowerofLove already did.) Try reading a single page of Richard P. Feynman taken from anywhere. He insisted that a true scientist must THRIVE on uncertainty. Didn't he even later reject most of his own research that led to one of his Nobel prizes?

Wow....you folks are crazy...get a job in the private sector for crying out loud...and smile every once in a while.

Siouxrose:
"How often has the novel thinker been stigmatized for not going along with established ideological protocols?" Not often to my knowledge. If we limit ourselves with real paradigm shifts in non-oracular sciences, with real path breakers, such as Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Kant, Laplace, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Albert Einstein and leading scientists of 20th century, all those novel thinkers, it seems to me, were just waiting in the wings to revolutionized contemporary understanding of Nature. Secluded genius like Cavendish, who discovered Coulomb's and Ohm's laws decades prior to those men after whom respective laws were named and never publicized his work, is rather exception than rule.

Science is essentially social enterprise, contrary to widely spread impression, especially among American people, that science is driven by few chosen people. As nation of ragged individualism, Americans believe in divinely inspired heroes, rather than in collective efforts; such a mythology is extremely helpful in justification of American 'winner takes it all' economical and hence political system. This mythology is also, I venture to say, lays at the core of American anti-intellectualism.

In short, coming back to attributes of authoritarianism streak, I think that we should be especially careful when giving up INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY, DICHOTOMOUS THINKING, and RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT straight to our authoritarian enemies. For INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY, DICHOTOMOUS THINKING, and RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT are the only conditions that allows science to brash aside millennia of oracular theology and other tools that helped so far to keep humanity in the zombie state.

PowerofLove :
You said it all. I would only add that RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT does not preclude readiness to re-assess the most rigid theory to accommodate new facts or new conditions. This is what you, Karl Popper or George Soros call "open mind". In a sense, by accepting such a readiness, we are participating in the continuous process of creation, a miracle that dwarf by many orders of magnitude all miracles of established religions combined. Creation of transuranian chemical elements is but insignificant episode.

Your reference to Fuzzy Logic only proves my point. Built upon binary neuronetworks, we expanded our one-dimensional logic, the very foundation of social cohesiveness, into multi-dimensional domain. This is a build-up dialectical process, which is so opposite to false certainties of people yet to be awakened.

We do not need to judge them harshly, their time will come also. It might be bloody before that happened, but Evolution has it own subtle ways. Remember mighty dinosaurs and tiny mice-like creature that survived and open gate ways for Mozart and Einstein to BECOME.

What?

From Observer: "Your reference to Fuzzy Logic only proves my point. Built upon binary neuronetworks, we expanded our one-dimensional logic, the very foundation of social cohesiveness, into multi-dimensional domain. This is a build-up dialectical process, which is so opposite to false certainties of people yet to be awakened."

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahhhahahhahahahahah....where did you learn to write? In study hall? You guys need to get out and volunteer more often, go to church, donate money to a worthy cause, join the military or the peace corp, but for the love of Pete...stop complaining about the "dialectical process of false certainies!" What the hell does that mean?

PowerofLove...

"Thank you for your response. You make some interesting points…writing re- my question in a former comment:"

No, thank you for the mental workout. :)

""From the perspective of human development look at Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Do they behave like grown-up, generative males?"

"Unfortunately, they do."

Don't think so.

"Generative" in the context I'm using it, means "giving, nurturing the next generation, other adults, and the world we live in." The psychologist Erik Erickson describes this way of being as being important and necessary for psychological health in one's older years, especially. It can be defined as "an adult's concern for and commitment to promoting the well-being of future generations."

Would you say Cheney and Rumsfeld fit this bill? Shrub? I don't think so."

Well, you have a point there. I just don't see how they are child-like either. Are children that cold and calculating aside from some sort of "bad seed" maybe?

"I can see your point re: comparing Conservatives to Kindegartners: "It's insulting to children, whose souls are innocent…"

However, when you say:

"I have never known a child to be more cruel than say a Dick Cheney or a Rumsfeld. And when children are cruel, it's usually the fault of adults from whom they learn such behavior. It's rather ageist actually."

In one sense I agree —- the "learned from adults part." But that has been my point all along: that these folks were twisted up and frightfully wounded in childhood."

Are they scarred, or did they just come up in a world insulated by privilege, wealth, and power? Or did that in a sense, twist them up? I dunno, maybe I just can't see these people as tragic villians.

"In the currently used diagnostic assessment used in psychology and psychiatry, a whole category is devoted to the Huge issue of Character Pathology - or "Personality Disorders" (as opposed to discrete things like depression or anxiety).

To have such a disorder Means that the maturing process has been stunted - and often crushed. In a practical sense the psyches of such folks are those of "Adult Children" (as in Adult Children of Alcoholics - a commonly used descriptive).
In my opinion we Must understand this phenomenon and the havoc it wreaks on relationships and human society in general.

As is described in Transactional Analysis, it is not the Natural Child Ego State within us that needs to be feared. Rather, it is the Adapted Child - the part of us that Adapted to a death - (not growth) -oriented, dysfunctional family milieu, which gives as many of our adult problems."

Ok that's interesting. I don't have the expertise to respond to that. :)

Are you saying that if these men grew up in nurturing environments, they might have turned out differently? That they are just psychically underdeveloped and/or deformed?

"These men need to be seen for what and where they are in terms of both emotional and intellectual development. To turn away from these psychological realities only makes us more impotent than we already feel."

So they're not evil, just screwed up? I'm not disparaging what you're saying, but there's just something inherently wicked about them. To me, these are very smart men. They just use their intellects for ill and for personal gain. Imo, they are defective morally, not emotionally or psychologically.

"For much more on this, see "Bush on the Couch," Justin Frank's amazing psychoanalytic profiling of Lil' Georgie, using the same methods that our very own CIA uses to profile other world leaders. Peek inside GWB's head, if you dare…it's scary stuff!"

I wouldn't mind reading that. Thank you.

Maybe the reason why I have a hard time completely swallowing and digesting what you're saying is because when you suggest that these men are for lack of a better descriptor, screwed up in the head, it makes them out to be imo sympathetic in a sense, and as I said before, tragic in their villiany. And I can't see them as anything but heinous. I don't think that they suffer from a lack of ability to reason or empathize. They can clearly see how their policies negatively affect the world. I just don't think they care.

As far as Bush himself goes, I believe that he's really just a puppet representing a coalition of interests. He's doing his job, and as long as he's getting paid, he's happy. Bush in a sense may be child-like, as in pampered, spoiled brat clownprince.

Scoot:
I presume that we both agree on principle ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'' a.k.a Ockham's razor. I also presume that it is un-American not to be a straight shooter. Now, jokes aside, let's go to your questions.
You ask, "Where do you derive these absolute moral axioms about good and evil?"
Axioms are not derived, as you know from Euclid's geometry. Set of axioms is a foundation on which one structures one's knowledge. Your set of axioms is called Bible (Torah, Quran etc) and you, with the help of people who came before you, build your worldview and live accordingly, is it not? I, like you, examined many systems of axioms, yours included, and found your wanting and controversial, to say the least. But I also have people who came before me, my parents included, who make my being possible.
Upon further reflection I found recursively that my parents faced the same questions as I have and as their parents had. That train of thoughts brought me back to 4.5 Billions revolutions of our little planet around our little Sun and had it as my duty not to extinguish this rather lengthy chain of events with my humble persona. This last 4.5 Billion years I consider rather long life. Using word 'good' and 'evil' as the short cuts, I am absolutely positive that breaking this chain of events is EVIL.
Since for all practical purposes 4,500,000,000 years is "absolutely" longer than my 70 years, I gather that clubs are evil, while nukes are Absolute Evil. That take care of questions 2 and 3.

Finally, you judge that my "moral compass is without a true north", thereby violating your religion's own injunction against judging in vain. Ironically, you put your finger right on target. For what you consider true north is neither true, nor north if you mean magnetic compass as an analogy. But jokes aside again, would you PLEASE explain to me and to yourself the following.
If morality, that is, a or the set of rules by which society lives, emanates from religion or directly by Word of God, then how come all multitude of people who lived before Christ (for argument sake) managed not only to survive but to bring forth those chosen people, to who you believe you belong? And if longevity is any sign of healthy body with healthy spirit, than how come the longest surviving civilizations, China and India, do NOT profess any religion in your particular meaning of this word. Are Chinese and Indian society therefore immoral? I doubt that you have chutzpah to say so. Thanks, Vitaly.

Hi iwarrior,

You make some great points // questions!
I very much appreciate the chance to "dialogue" together...

You wrote:

"Are you saying that if these men grew up in nurturing environments, they might have turned out differently? That they are just psychically underdeveloped and/or deformed?"

Yes.

(Although IMHO they would likely have had other problems. But this gets into the subject of the "soul's DNA," ie. the karmic patterns that may accompany us at birth and provide our "curricullum" for a given lifetime. Too big a topic for this discussion!!)

You also shared:

"So they're not evil, just screwed up? I'm not disparaging what you're saying, but there's just something inherently wicked about them. To me, these are very smart men. They just use their intellects for ill and for personal gain. Imo, they are defective morally, not emotionally or psychologically."

To me the emotional, intellectual, psychological, and moral are like separate strands in one unified ball of yarn --- the psyche. The human psyche is a whole.

And, while we can separate these "strands" out to try to understand ourselves better, in reality they are intertwined and interdependent. Making distinctions between these lines of development is only helpful to a point.

For example, if we're looking at the issue of stunted moral reasoning and judgment, we will find connections to "reasoning" - intellect (we also need to take into account that we now can can distinguish a number of "kinds" of intelligence, eg musical, spacial, mathematical); Also connected to one's level of "moral maturity": emotional maturity - the capacity to see and treat another person (and ourselves) as a "Thou," rather than an "It."

Speaking of which: The symptoms of narcissism (self-centeredness, grandiosity, and entitlement) impact our intellect as well as relationships to our own and other - "selves."

On top of this, our psyches develop unevenly: highly talented and intelligent narcissists (who treat other people like shit) are a dime a dozen. And remember the trusty joke-fodder for late night commedians: Cal Tech PHD students (just a metaphor, guys and gals, no offense intended!) who have no social skills and hang out with other pocket-protected, Star Wars nerds....("That's a joke, son!")

Finally, and connected to your point about evil, you observed:

"Maybe the reason why I have a hard time completely swallowing and digesting what you're saying is because when you suggest that these men are for lack of a better descriptor, screwed up in the head, it makes them out to be imo sympathetic in a sense, and as I said before, tragic in their villiany. And I can't see them as anything but heinous.

"I don't think that they suffer from a lack of ability to reason or empathize. They can clearly see how their policies negatively affect the world. I just don't think they care."

In the human realm we are each responsible for the results we create. On the (also Huge) topic of "evil vs. sick," Scott Peck's books "People of the Lie." and "the Road Less Travelled," are more articulate than I could hope to be. I have learned so much from reading (and re-reading) them. He makes the point that a great many humans seem to have a built-in reaction to evil. Perhaps it is some kind of species survival mechanism: it is the bodily feeling of "revulsion," and a virtually instinctive response of pulling back and avoiding the dangers involved.

One last thought. Some of the dichotomies we have learned to set up are artificial and, I believe, no longer useful in our thinking process. For example. "Sick Vs. Bad (evil). For me what has been useful is to look for a point of synthesis which includes, yet transcends both polarities.

In any case - far as I can tell - what goes around comes around, sooner or later.

OBSERVER: While admittedly there is a name or two on your quoted list whose work I am unaware of, I think you associate ALL of science/scientists with the evident accomplishments of its cutting edge premier genius/thinkers. I am talking about the "herd." Every field has its mediocres. Rudolph Steiner, an important mystic, called science, "The consensus of mediocre minds." I think it becomes another boy's club. Sure a woman here or there passes the requisite tests and gets inside. The REAL geniuses step outside their discipline and perform the art I define as marrying right brain with left. Their logic functions in accord with their intuition. Generally the intuitive portion of mind is devaluated by the scientific realm. If you read Carlos Casteneda's books, the experience where his teacher Don Juan asks him to explain the wind is telling. How the shaman looks at the world differs from the view of the scientist, but just because the scientist can work better numbers does not convince me he KNOWS more. Modern mankind is in a phase of gross materialism. As always our senses are trained to accord with pre-established beliefs. The child who SEES discarnate beings is told to stop imagining things. The individual born with the gift of precognitive dreams is marginalized as a misfit. My father's left hand was TIED behind his back to make sure he'd write with the right hand. To an extent this PROCESS is done to all young minds as their thought process is conformed to the rigid protocols of standardized testing and those usually pragmatic pursuits that the owners of society deem to be worth the academic investment. What results is a collective sentience cordoned off in the manner reminiscent of a society that only allows residents to live in 40% of its habitable land. Science can and does make its contributions, but as far as liberal thought in that realm... I believe it's consigned to those rare creatures who by virtue of their own inner genius cannot and will not conform to the ideas of their peers, beliefs which have formed the consensus in their intellectual domain up until that point.

SIOUXROSE:
We are talking one passed each other, while using the same word science. This word was grossly abused and overused for last several decades. Of course, I listed ground breaking physicists who had lead physics (knowledge of Nature in loose translation from Greek) from oracular discipline into well structured hierarchy of multitude other disciplines, such as chemistry, molecular biology and all way up to nascent molecular psychology and host of other disciplines, which for ages were domains for idle uncritical speculation, unfounded and not connected to other fields of knowledge.

Success of science attracted masses of make to believe charlatans, some of them being honest, majority – being outright profit seekers. Academy used to be refuge for Plato's students for more than thousand years. US of A became the first country in the world, which reserved this word for police training school. The list of registered professions masquerading as science is longer than I care to think about. Even economists, a band of con artists, whose role is to deflect attention, while public pockets are picked clean, pretend to be scientists.

So you diatribe against science is directed to wrong address: it is pseudo-science you are unhappy with. Alas, you and too many a modern citizen convinced yourself that you can be up to date while ignoring science, or delegating it into periphery of awareness. There are few things more lethal than such a conviction in our high-tech world. It is one thing that troglodyte is voted into office of US President. It is much worse if we allow ourselves to stay in pre-scientific mode of thinking open to manipulation 24/7. Respect, Vitaly.

OBSERVER: I agree until your last paragraph, where frankly it seems your logic takes a turn into a big non sequitur. I, too, have my stream of consciousness moments in this forum. I argue that the rational intellect is complemented by the more intuitive gifts of sentience. Einstein in my mind was a poet who "married" both sides of his intellect and therefore was capable of genius. I don't need you to be on the same page with me, if you are not. To humor you, I did a lot of radio in Florida before CLEAR channel and its "christian" management took over all the popular markets (and a variety of stations under their umbrella.) I used to do radio shows in the Florida Keys with a scientist, Marine Biologist, named Bill T. IF I were a listener, I'm sure the program would qualify as Benny Hill style humor or worse, because when the host asked a question, Bill and I responded in such out of alignment manners that it must have been a TRIP to listen to! Now that was a case of talking right by each other. But hey, I'm willing to play that scene again, if virtually. Have a pleasant evening. (It's more effective when we in this forum find common ground then fight over details... Goddess knows we're needed as a united front to take down Darth's death star these days.)

There's a great book called "lies my teacher told me" by James W. Loewen that parallels this essay - about the (mis)teaching of history and political slant of history textbooks. An essential read if you are interested in the roots of conservative thought as expressed here.