But is anyone afraid of President Donald Trump

Susan Milligan a Senior Writer at us news says, “Trump puts the bully into bully pulpit – but experts say his approach has problems.”

Here is a little history lesson for her which she could have easily known. The meaning of words and phrases change over time. When President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to his office as a “bully pulpit”, by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda, the word bully meant good. It referred more to the “outstanding” bully-for-you sense of “bully” than for any aggressiveness on Roosevelt’s part, and this describes Trumps use of the “bully pulpit” as well. One might say Trump has mastered a “bully tweet” to make his agenda know and propagated; that is, a damn good way to get the word out.

She goes on to say, “He talks tough, and tweets tougher. He makes demands on Congress and state governments, needles foreign nations and launches broad attacks on the press. But is anyone afraid of President Donald Trump?”

Which leads me to ask, if they are not afraid of him why are they so hell-bent on impeaching him? He has upturned their apple cart, cutting the government work force starting with the White House staff, EPA, State Department, but to name a few. Slashing regulations off the books at a rate unknown in my lifetime.

Then she quotes,”‘That’s going to be a problem with Congress [and] the G-20,” the group of world leaders Trump is meeting with in Germany this week. “Already our allies are feeling pretty uncomfortable about his positions and approaches,’ Peterson says.”

Well hell yes, they are uncomfortable about his positions and approaches with the Trans-Pacific Partnership gone, and his dumping their beloved Paras Accord. They are just going to have to deal with it; he was not elected to be president of the world.

Then there is this lie, “The president’s voter fraud commission demanded that states turn over personal information on voters, including party ID and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. States are rebelling, and not just the blue-tinted ones: so far, 44 states have refused to hand over all or some of the requested information.”

According to her, any state that will not provide sensitive, non-public voter data like social security numbers has refused the commission’s request. However, the panel only requested public voter information, and most states have not refused to provide this data. But even as some states will decline to provide non-public voter data, most acknowledge that voter rolls are available to the public for non-commercial purposes. As a result, even some states that oppose the request won’t refuse to give the commission public voter data.

“The decision by states not to provide sensitive information is not a refusal to comply as CNN claims because the commission never sought non-public information. “We’re not asking for it if it’s not publicly available,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who serves as the vice chair of the commission, told The Kansas City Star. CNN grossly inflates the number of states that have refused.”

So she lies by selecting which truths she will tell, and how she strings her words together. Progressives will see her words as gospel, and not bother to check into the fact the claims to present, but she is preaching to the choir as, I hazard, very few non Democrats read her propaganda.

Further she goes on, “Trump’s orientation is to bully – ‘I’m going to run somebody against you. I’m going to hurt you.’ That’s not where you lead from,” says Texas A&M University political science professor George C. Edwards III, author of “On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit” (Yale University Press). But bullying does not translate into an effective bully pulpit once someone is in the Oval Office, Edwards says. “Presidents rarely move public opinion in their direction. That’s fundamental,” Edwards says. “You cannot govern based on the premise of expanding your coalition, but not everything presidents do lack public support. Turns out many things this president does lack public support.”

Milligan misstates Trump’s often claimed philosophy of “If I am hit, I hit back” into ‘I’m going to run somebody against you. I’m going to hurt you.’ This is a good example of twisting someone’s words into something they did not say, mean, or do. Why is it bulling to tel the never Trumper Republican that he will campaign against them in the primaries?

Then she goes back to this trope, “Not only did Trump lose the popular vote, Peterson notes, but he lost it by a bigger margin than anyone who has nonetheless won the presidency by securing the Electoral College majority. While his party hung onto majorities in the House and Senate, the GOP lost seats in both chambers in the 2016 elections. And his approval ratings are dismal, hitting the upper-middle 30s.”

They just cant get over loosing the election, undoubted she wants to scrap the Electoral College, but that would lead to a different type of campaigning, where only a few states with the biggest cities would be relevant to winning the office.

I would also point out that the ones doing the polls on Trump’s approval ratings are the same ones that had Hillary winning by a landslide.

I Did Too Build This: Government does not equals socialism

Facebook Meme

Facebook Meme

When Progressive like Obama, Clinton, Warren, and their ilk say this they are implied that self-interested acts are, by definition, selfish acts. It is based upon the idea that when someone creates wealth for his own benefit, that it benefits only himself.

Adam Smith pointed out the fallacy in this notion in 1776 in his treatise A Wealth of Nations. Smith pointed out when enterprising businesses work for their own benefit, unknowingly, they also benefit society. To earn income in a competitive market, the business must produce something others value. In Adam Smith’s eternal words, “By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”

This is Smith’ Invisible Hand, and it is the greatest engine of economic growth, wealth creation, easy, comfort, health and welfare the world has ever known. Private property and the right to pursue self interest is the fuel that drives this engine.

This brings to mind the story about the “Big Three” auto makers telling Robert William Kearns that he deserved no credit for inventing the intermittent windshield wiper systems used on most automobiles from 1969 and on into infinity because all he did was put together some existing technology that other’s had invented.

The legal argument that the auto industry posed in defense was that an invention is supposed to meet certain standards of originality and novelty. One of these are that it be “non-obvious.” Ford claimed that the patent was invalid because Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components. Kearns noted that his invention was a novel and non-obvious combination of parts.[12][13] Kearns’ position found unequivocal support in a precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals and from the Supreme Court of the United States. See, e.g., Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960) (“It is idle to say that combinations of old elements cannot be inventions; substantially every invention is for such a ‘combination’: that is to say, it consists of former elements in a new assemblage.”) (Hand., J.) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). From Wikipedia

This, in effect, is the same argument that Warren is making in the meme above. When she says that nobody got rich on their own for they moved their goods on the infrastructure that others have built is the same as saying Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components thus he deserves no patent. The Supreme Court found otherwise, and applied “flash of genius” patent law terminology, which was in effect from 1941 to 1952, which held that the inventive act must come into the mind of an inventor as a kind of epiphany and not as a result of tinkering, and made all use use his invention to pay him for it.

There are Progressive that made the argument that all governments services, such as roads, schools, law enforcement, etc., as socialistic Moore wrote in indignation, “my taxes are redistributed to plow someone else’s street! Socialism!” they say”

Government equals socialism.

Socialist programs in the U.S.: The Department of Agriculture, Amber Alerts, Amtrak, Public Beaches, Public Busing Services, Business Subsidies, The Census Bureau, The CIA, Federal Student Loans, The Court System, Dams, Public Defenders, Disability Insurance, The Department of Energy, The EPA, Farm Subsidies, The FBI, The FCC, The FDA, FEMA, Fire Departments, Food Stamps, Garbage Collection, Health Care, Public Housing, The IRS, Public Landfills, Public Libraries, Medicare, Medicaid, The Military, State and National Monuments, Public Museums, NASA, The National Weather Service, NPR, Public Parks, PBS, The Peace Corps, Police Departments, Prisons and Jails, Public Schools, Secret Service, Sewer Systems, Snow Removal Services, Social Security, Public Street Lighting, The Department of Transportation, USPS, Vaccines, Veteran Health Care, Welfare, The White House, The WIC Program, State Zoos.

Take that, capitalists! You’re all socialists, and you don’t even know it!

These claim serves primarily to demonstrate that there are far too many people in this country who do not know what the word “socialism” actually means:

Per Merriam-Webster, “socialism” is one, or all, of the following: 1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

To claim that all government services are a manifestation of socialism is to say that all kings and dictators of the past were in truth all socialists as they all provided services for their people. That aside, how many on the above list have anything whatsoever to do with the abolition of private property, the nationalization of industry, and putting the collective over the individual? Most of these are public goods, I wrote an essay on this some years back:

Public Good

Public good. We all hear the phrase, but I fear that we do not all understand the concept and readily confuse public benefits with public goods. To start with just. What is a public good? Paul A. Samuelson, the first economist to develop the theory of public goods, said, “goods which all enjoy in common in the sense that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no subtractions from any other individual’s consumption of that good.” The opposite of a public good is a private good.

Public goods like air, water, fish, game animals are normally referred to as common goods reserving the term ‘public goods’ to services provided by the government such as national defense, the police and judicial system, prisons systems, and as most people like to include the highway systems and education systems. I will get back to these last two in a short while.

For the government to provide a “Public Good” for its citizens does not make a socialist government. To say that a plumber did not build his business is as delirious as saying that I did not writer this because someone else created all the words that I used!

Propaganda Is Thought Control, Or At Least The Attempt

“Trust your feelings”, hear it all the time and as time goes on more and more, but what does it mean?  Are feeling to be trusted?  I feel like a soda, like I need to go to bed, feel hungry, sure those feeling can be trusted.  Now how do you feel about Democracy, Capitalism, socialism, or a planned economy as opposed to a free market?   These are not thing that one should accept or reject based upon feelings rather these are the things that you should let your reason play with to come up with your support or rejection.  Regardless the propagandists will work on your feelings and try to bypass your thinking.  They will work on your subconscious to recruit to their way of seeing the world.

“Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.”  By this definition anyone who is working for a cause and is trying to convince you of it rightness is a propagandist.  We call something ‘spin’ we are referring to the propagandists to give information, or miss-information, that favorable to his point of view.  They will not bring up facts which does not favor their argument, and poo paw and negative facts that does come to light.  How many times have you heard it said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts”?

The Video below: Propaganda Techniques – 1950

Lying by omission is when someone knows certain detrimental fact to his cause but does not bring them up when making their case.   It is not the presentation of the truth that is the propagandist is concern with, rather to produce an emotional rather than a rational consideration to the argument he is making.  Propaganda when the word was coined was generally benign or innocuous persuasions, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to the police, among others.

But it has devolved Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell has provided a concise, workable definition of the term: “Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”    More to the point Richard Alan Nelson puts it in A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States (1996) pp. 232-233: “Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion.”

This Video is an Education For Death – Disney WWII Propaganda Cartoon

So I besiege you to be wary whenever someone is putting forth arguments that appeals to your feeling rather than to your understanding.  We find the propagandists in all sides, but on whichever side we encounter him we should not be manipulated by our feelings as to what is right and what is wrong about the argument, leave that to you reason and put your feelings aside.

In this current push to pass Gun Control laws you will find lots of  Propaganda employed, look for it and point it out to others.

The Trayvon Martin shooting media blitz is a good example of a successful propaganda campaign.  You do not hear about the racist Zimmerman any more for his role in their purposes is done.  When he is acquitted of the charges you may hear his name brought back up by the MSM,, now they have biger fish to fry, guns.

For a complete history of Trayvon/Zimmerman travesty read “EXCLUSIVE: ‘BULLIES’ EXCERPT: HOW THE LEFT CRUCIFIED GEORGE ZIMMERMAN”

Click HERE

According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt act of 1948 and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

In an apparent retaliation to the USA Today investigation, the two reporters working on the story appear to have been targeted by Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them.

According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt act of 1948 and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

In an apparent retaliation to the USA Today investigation, the two reporters working on the story appear to have been targeted by Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them.

(In fact, a second amendment to the authorization bill — in reaction to the USA Today report — seeks cuts to the Pentagon’s propaganda budget overseas, while this amendment will make it easier for the propaganda to spread at home.)

SORCE

 

Evolution of Propaganda

Propaganda!  The word has began to take on a new meaning, when the word first appeared in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for Propagating the Faith(Congregatio de Propaganda Fide). Propaganda was then as now about convincing large numbers of people about the veracity of a given set of ideas.
A Brief History of Propaganda:

Religious propagation

The term ‘propaganda’ first appeared in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for Propagating the Faith (Congregatio de Propaganda Fide).Propaganda was then as now about convincing large numbers of people about the veracity of a given set of ideas.

Of course, propaganda is as old as people, politics and religion. People with ideas will always want to persuade others about them and, if they have the power, they will pull every string they have to persuade everyone.

The notion of propaganda remained one of propagating beliefs and doctrines remained the primary definition until the first world war (1914-18).

Propaganda and war

Wars have always been a good reason to use propaganda, as governments seek to persuade populaces of the justness of their cause as well as hide the horrors and failures of the front line. Misinformation and disinformation are widely used to distract people from the truth and create new realities.

Entry into the first world war was apparently accompanied with many stories of atrocities that were false. Things have not changed and more recent wars have also had more than their fair share of propaganda and false excuses.

One of the basic successful home messages of the war was that everything Germans said was a lie and everything Americans said was the truth. This gave a platform for sustaining faith in ultimate victory and cast Germany as an evil to be destroyed.

In 1933, Hitler realized the potential of propaganda and appointed Joseph Goebbels as Minister for Propaganda. Goebbels was remarkably effective and much of the propaganda literature discusses in detail the methods they used.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA)

In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Although it did not last long, they did produce a list of seven propaganda methods that have become something of a standard.

The modern world

Propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality (and some theorize about improbable conspiracies), most people are taken in and see nothing of how they are manipulated.

Books such as Bernays’ Propaganda in 1928 still treated it as a force for good and an effective method of mass social persuasion, even though the ethics of its use varied greatly. His book starts with a sentence that would cause much concern today, yet which then seemed practical and acceptable:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society.
The dominant view of the populace then was of an uneducated, ill-informed mass whose views should be directed rather than allow them to think. Thinking on higher matters was really for managers and rulers who could decide what was best for lesser people.

The discipline of public relations (PR) started as a profession after the first world war as the commercial benefits of careful propaganda were realized.   Source:

More and more people are labeling as propaganda any information, or the source of the information, in which they disagree.  Here is an example:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s Supreme Leader, told the IRAN Farsi newspaper of his opinions on Eastwood’s film, which he admitted he has not seen but was informed of the plot by others.
“The movie ‘Sniper’ that is made by Hollywood encourages a Christian or non-Muslim youngster to harass and offend the Muslims as far as they could,” Ali Khamenei told the outlet, according to CBS News.
This is the basic they use for that claim:From Wikipedia
Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.
Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.

Thus any truth uttered by someone or group in which you disagree can be dismissed as propaganda because they only tell the truth to advance their agenda.

Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding a biased approach (“what they do is propaganda, what we do is education”). Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: “Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”[4] More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: “Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion.”[5]

The question I put to you is if a white racist group such as the Council of Conservative Citizens, who are an American political organization that supports a large variety of conservative and paleoconservative causes, in addition to white separatism tells a true story about the first slaveholder in America  and other stories about rich black slaveholders in the Antebellum South, is that just propaganda to be discounted as such, or should you consider its ramifications regardless of the source?

In politics the manufacturing of propaganda is now called spinning.  So what is political “spin”? “Spin” is an interpretation of a particular position to garner public support. Sometimes, it relies on the creative interpretation of the facts to move that position forward.  Should all spin be disregarded because it is merely propaganda?
In public relationsspin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often implies disingenuous,deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.
Propaganda is most well known in the form of war posters. But at its core, it is a mode of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position, and that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Although propaganda is often used to manipulate human emotions by displaying facts selectively, it can also be very effective at conveying messages and hence can be used in web design, too.

Notice that propaganda uses loaded messages to change the attitude toward the subject in the target audience. When applied to web design, you may experiment with techniques used in propaganda posters and use them creatively to achieve a unique and memorable design.

In this article, we look at various types of propaganda and the people behind it, people who are rarely seen next to their work. You will also see how the drive for propaganda shaped many of the modern art movements we see today. Notice that this post isn’t supposed to be an ultimate showcase of propaganda artists. Something or somebody is missing? Please let us know in the comments to this post!
Advertisers use deceptive propaganda all the time, one of the first use of it changed the perception of American’s to believe that breakfast is the most important meal of the day:
In the 1920s, the Austrian-born Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was approached by the Beech-Nut Packing Company – producers of everything from pork products to the nostalgic Beech-Nut bubble gum. Beech-Nut wanted to increase consumer demand for bacon.  In the video above Edward L. Bernays describes his work with the Beech Nut Packing Company and how bacon and eggs became America’s favorite breakfast.

He turned to his agency’s, the Public Relations Counselor, internal doctor and asked him whether a heavier breakfast might be more beneficial for the American public. Knowing which way his bread was buttered, the doctor confirmed Bernays suspicion and wrote to five thousand of his doctor friends asking them to confirm it as well. This ‘so called study’ of doctors encouraging the American public to eat aheavier breakfast – namely ‘Bacon and Eggs’ – was published in major newspapers and magazines of the time to great success. Beech-Nut’s profits rose sharply thanks to Bernays and his team of medical professionals.

[snip]

Bernays was quite good at using psychology, i.e., brainwashing, to get people to buy a product or an idea. He was hired by the Aluminum Company of America to use the American Dental Association to convince people that water fluoridation was safe and healthy for the public. This allowed them to sell a very toxic by product that was costing them a lot to dispose of and have the cities of the nation dump it for them and pay for the privilege.
Yes your government will lie to you, and then lie about lying, but that isn’t the point, the point is that people are trying to persuade to accept their version of reality, their vision of the future, and many will deceive to persuade you.  Be aware and think things through, just because someone says something is propaganda does not mean the information is not true and worthy of consideration.  The propagandist will do their utmost to come across as most trustworthy, but then so will someone who truly believes what they are preaching.  It is your choice, not theirs.
Published in: on March 2, 2016 at 11:12  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

The Ocean Is Coming For Us, The Global Sea levels Rising Hoax

From the Global Warming Hoax Department:

Here is the spiel :

“The ocean is coming for us. Global sea levels are now rising by 3.4 millimeters per year, up from an average rate of 1.4 mm per year last century. In just 80 years, the ocean could be a full 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) taller than it is today. That kind of planetary sea change can be hard to fathom — unless you live in a low-lying place like Miami, the Maldives or the Marshall Islands, where the effects of sea-level rise are already apparent. But within just a few decades, the problem will become unavoidable in major coastal cities around the world, from New Orleans, New York and Amsterdam to Calcutta, Bangkok and Tokyo. We all know why this is happening. Rising seas are one of the most salient effects of man-made climate change, triggered by thermal expansion of seawater as well as the influx of melting glaciers. Yet many people still see it as a distant risk, failing to grasp how (relatively) quickly the sea is swallowing shores worldwide. And since half of all humans now live within 60 kilometers (37 miles) of a coast, this isn’t a niche issue.”

Now I looked up Fort Lauderdale Sea Level because I lived there in the mid 1960s, that was 52 years back, I still have friends that live there that can attest that the sea level has not climbed since then, consider this, Posted on October 25, 2014, about a year and a half ago, and the level then was the same as it was in 1960, 56 years ago now. if the above assertion were true should we not see some indication of it at Fort Lauderdale, that is an ocean is it not? Is not the Caribbean a global ocean? Or is it immune to the 3.4 millimeters per year global rise?

Propaganda bull shit is what it is. Trump will put an end of all the US Government give to support this Hoax.

Then

screenhunter_4022-oct-25-08-20

Now
ShowImage-id=536&t=635377779220830000
Update 3/24/2016

Yes, We Protest Shell Oil with Products Made from Oil. Duh. Now Join Us. Not!

They came in automobiles fueled by oil, wearing clothing made from oil, to protest oil, in kayaks made from oil. Then they tweeted their photos on phones made from oil and drove home. Share the irony.

They came in automobiles fueled by oil, wearing clothing made from oil, to protest oil, in kayaks made from oil. Then they tweeted their photos on phones made from oil and drove home.
Share the irony.

Form SLOG

 

Yes, We Protest Shell Oil with Products Made from Oil. Duh. Now Join Us.

Hey, kids. Let’s dispense with this pernicious meme, which we’ve all been seeing across the social medias, real quick. It goes like this: BUT THEY’RE PROTESTING OIL DRILLING USING KAYAKS MADE FROM PLASTICS HURR DURR. Someone even made a meme-image and tweeted it at me.

(a) As Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes told The Nation when asked about the “but we all use fossil fuels” argument: “Of course we do, and people in the North wore clothes made of cotton picked by slaves. But that did not make them hypocrites when they joined the abolition movement. It just meant that they were also part of the slave economy, and they knew it. That is why they acted to change the system, not just their clothes.”

(b) As 350.org Chair K.C. Golden tells me, speaking by phone from today’s rally at the Port of Seattle: “We all get that we’re part of the fossil-fuel economy. No one’s trying to be sanctimonious about it. We’re not going to make the transition overnight. We don’t need to blame ourselves for living our lives. We don’t need to forsake all fossil-fuel usage tomorrow. We need to put one foot in front of the other toward a clean energy future. This is an echo of the fossil-fuel industry’s attempts to get everyone to blame themselves… That’s exactly the fossil-fuel industry’s game—to make us internalize that weak point of view… I mean, I drove [to this weekend’s flotilla protests] in a ’76 Chevy pickup. It’s not about blaming or shaming or telling people they can’t live their lives. It’s about telling Shell they can’t lock us into this catastrophe anymore.”

(c) Some kayaktivist named Ansel Herz says, “If someone—or, say, the planet—is getting beaten up with a baseball bat, is it immoral to use a baseball bat to fight back? Inanimate objects that come from our inescapable oil-based economy are inanimate. They can be used for good or bad. We’re using them for good, to move the economy away from oil and stop climate change. Fucking herp derp, people.”

Let us consider his point serratum”

Hillary on Bullying!

It seems obvious to me that the girl’s scrip writer either does not understand just what bullying is, or are hoping to expand its definition, first read the exchange and then I will explain:

10-year-old Hannah Tandy was conveniently seated in the front row; even Morning Joe speculated on whether the situation was a set-up. Tandy tried to deliver her lines, but they got stilted as she recited: “What are you going to do about all this bullying? Not just because of just people who want to be mean but mental and physical and diseases that have people that they’re able to live with every day.”

Hillary, doing her best impression of a child psychologist, intoned, “Can you tell me a little bit more about why that’s on your mind?”

The girl responded, “I have asthma and occasionally I’ve heard people talking behind my back about not wanting to be near me because I have asthma.” Then, rushing through the next line so she could get through it without the appropriate commas, she sang out, “I mean people it’s not contagious.”

One would think she meant to ask, “I mean, people, it’s not contagious.”

Where is the bullying in this story?  Since when did talking behind someone’s back become bulling?  is shunning, that what this would fall under, a new form of bullying?  I sure as hell wish that the bullies that used to beat the crap out of a liot of kids when I was going to school would have just decided not to be near the ones that they left on the school playground when the bell rang.

Hillary’s speech followed:

That was really brave. I can’t even imagine what it’s like to be, you know, a young person in today’s world where that’s coming at you all the time. So I do think we all have to speak up and speak about trying to create an atmosphere where bullying is not appropriate, where it’s not allowed. I really do think we need more love and kindness in our country. I think we are not treating each other with the respect and the  … and the care that we should show toward each other and that’s why it’s important to stand up to bullies wherever they are, and why we shouldn’t let anybody bully his way into the presidency. Because that is not who we are as Americans.

How did that make the girl brave?  Is she going ton get the crap beat out of her when she goes back to school?  I don’t think so.

Trump, as I, believes that the girl was a plant, and had been supplied both the question, and the reason she asked it.  The problem is that her scrip writers just do not understand what constitute bullying.

When CNN called Hannah Tandy at home, she initially said that the moment at the event was only a “blank” to her, but then suddenly launched into eloquence: “I learned that not everybody has this opportunity, but when you get a reaction from someone as powerful and as famous as Secretary Clinton, you realize everybody has something in common, from the most powerful to the most poor people in the world. We all have something in common. We all have human ingenuity and we all have feelings.”

Just a normal 10-year-old here, folks. Move along.

UN: Eating Meat Will Kill You

By now I am sure that you have heard how the UN has condemned meat, red meat, but processed meat in particular, as a carcinogenic worse that tobacco.

PARIS (AP) — The World Health Organization’s cancer agency says that processed meats such as ham and sausage can lead to colon and other cancers, and red meat is probably cancer-causing as well.”

“Researchers from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, released an evaluation of more than 800 studies from several continents about meat and cancer. Based on that evaluation, they classified processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans” — in the same category as cigarettes — and red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

I decided to run the number, using colon cancer to see what the added risk of eating meat actually is: “Not counting skin cancers, colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer found in men and women in this country. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 20.  The death rate from colorectal cancer has been going down for more than 20 years. Last Medical Review: 10/15/2014″

I was unable to find a report citing the increase in risk for those who eat meat as compared to one who does not, but I did hear a Fox News’ doctor say that it was an 18% increase, so the question then becomes what is 18% of 1/20 (or .05%) and how much does that add to the general population’s risk. To get that I multiplied 1.18 times .05 getting getting .059%.

So the additional risk you incur eating your sausages, hot dogs, etc., is 0.009%. I would remind you that the UN has been pushing for a meat free diet for a very long time. Using the search phrase, “the United Nations says don’t eat meat” you get this (I use Yahoo instead of Google):

Click Here:

Update: 13:59, 10/27/2015:

Here is an extract post by James Delingpole:

Here’s what their Vice President of Scientific Affairs Betsy Booren had to say in a statement:

“They tortured the data to ensure a specific outcome.”

“Red and processed meat are among 940 agents reviewed by IARC and found to pose some level of theoretical ‘hazard.’ Only one substance, a chemical in yoga pants, has been declared by IARC not to cause cancer.”

I still can’t work out whether the yoga pants thing is a joke or not but I like this woman’s style.

She’s quite right though. If we paid any heed to all the things researchers tell us can give us cancer, then we’d probably have to give up eating and drinking altogether.

This study from 2013Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review – illustrates the problem well.

Asthma Link To Global Warming

Chris Horner of CEI gave SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project) a copy one of the communications to Lisa Jackson he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The email was addressed to a Richard Windsor, an alias used by Jackson to avoid the Freedom of Information Act. The subject was Strategic Communications and was dated March 18, 2009 – early in the Administration.

Unfortunately, climate change in the abstract is an increasingly – and consistently – unpersuasive argument to make. However, if we shift from making this about the polar caps and about our neighbor with respiratory illness, we can potentially bring this issue home to many Americans …

…By revitalizing our own Children’s Health Office, leading the global charge on this issue, and highlighting the children’s health dimension to all our major initiatives – we will also make this issue real for many American who otherwise would oppose many of our regulatory actions.

Now we learn this:

Is asthma being overdiagnosed?

A potentially alarming figure that emerged in the UK news last week was that “1 million” UK adults may have been wrongly diagnosed with asthma – a claim reported in various forms by BBC News, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror and the Mail Online.

[snip]

So, where did the figure of 1 million come from? All the UK press rallied round a statement in the draft guideline that said: “studies of adults diagnosed with asthma suggest that up to 30% do not have clear evidence of asthma”. What followed was clearly a “back of the envelope” calculation extrapolating this to the number of people receiving treatment for asthma in the UK, which is around 4.1 million. This gave the magic figure of 1.23 million potentially misdiagnosed people.

Confirmation of Asthma in an Era of Over diagnosis

We recently showed that 30% of adults with a physician diagnosis of asthma did not have asthma when objectively assessed using a 4-step algorithm involving serial spirometry, bronchial challenge testing, and subsequent tapering of asthma medications. The objective of this study was to determine how many steps in the algorithm were required to confirm asthma, and whether any patient-related variables were associated with earlier asthma confirmation.

And not just in England, while I have been unable to find a study on America’s  over diagnosis, but if this one from Canada is any guide we can rest assured that it is as well: Asthma may be over-diagnosed in Canada: study from 2008 indicated:

Asthma may be over-diagnosed by as much as 30 per cent in Canadian adults, according to a new study, which suggests that doctors may be missing the signs of a more serious problem.

“The myth-busting part of this study may be that there are a lot of Canadians who are labeled as asthmatics who believe they have the disease, but they may not have it,” Dr. Shawn Aaron, a senior scientist at the Ottawa Health Research Institute and the head of respiratory medicine at the Ottawa Hospital, told CTV News.

The question posed by this is the increased diagnostic of asthma is coincidental  with the Alarmist need for a propaganda issue to hype the need to limit co2 production, or has it been a concerted effort by fellow travelers?  Of course the Alarmist may just be benefiting from Big Pharma vested interested in selling its high priced drugs to treat asthma.  In any case it has worked well for them as a whipping horse to  push their agenda, i.e., control how and what we use for energy.

False Equivalency vs True Equivalency

From the Immigration Wars:

In this battle to control the language of the debate the picture at the top is an example of a false equivalency, that is, equating being human with being legal regardless of if you are in the country legally or not. The picture on the bottom offers a true equivalency, that is, a person who comes into the country illegally is indeed illegal human being or animal.

The argument can be stated that no animal are illegal, but the ones smuggled into the country are. Being an animal or human is not in of itself illegal, but breaking the law to get into the country make man or animal illegal.

 

border-protest-AP-640x480 no-human-is-illegal-sign-immigration-rally-Reuters (1)

Picture  credits unknow

From Control the Language, Control the Debate

When issues come up that divide people upon what course of action should be decided upon each side attempts to pick the word(s) that define the issue. Both, as to how they wish to present their side, and how they wish to portray the other(s) side’s position(s). The first side to lay claim to the words use to tag the issues gain a huge advantage in presenting their arguments. Picking a slogan is an exercise in propaganda, the goal is to get people to accept your argument without thinking. Examples abound…

Also see the Evolution of Propaganda

 

 

 

Evolution of Propaganda

Propaganda!  The word has began to take on a new meaning, when the word first appeared in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for Propagating the Faith (Congregatio de Propaganda Fide). Propaganda was then as now about convincing large numbers of people about the veracity of a given set of ideas.

A Brief History of Propaganda:

Religious propagation

The term ‘propaganda’ first appeared in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for Propagating the Faith (Congregatio de Propaganda Fide). Propaganda was then as now about convincing large numbers of people about the veracity of a given set of ideas.

Of course, propaganda is as old as people, politics and religion. People with ideas will always want to persuade others about them and, if they have the power, they will pull every string they have to persuade everyone.

The notion of propaganda remained one of propagating beliefs and doctrines remained the primary definition until the first world war (1914-18).

Propaganda and war

Wars have always been a good reason to use propaganda, as governments seek to persuade populaces of the justness of their cause as well as hide the horrors and failures of the front line. Misinformation and disinformation are widely used to distract people from the truth and create new realities.

Entry into the first world war was apparently accompanied with many stories of atrocities that were false. Things have not changed and more recent wars have also had more than their fair share of propaganda and false excuses.

One of the basic successful home messages of the war was that everything Germans said was a lie and everything Americans said was the truth. This gave a platform for sustaining faith in ultimate victory and cast Germany as an evil to be destroyed.

In 1933, Hitler realized the potential of propaganda and appointed Joseph Goebbels as Minister for Propaganda. Goebbels was remarkably effective and much of the propaganda literature discusses in detail the methods they used.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA)

In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Although it did not last long, they did produce a list of seven propaganda methods that have become something of a standard.

The modern world

Propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality (and some theorize about improbable conspiracies), most people are taken in and see nothing of how they are manipulated.

Books such as Bernays’ Propaganda in 1928 still treated it as a force for good and an effective method of mass social persuasion, even though the ethics of its use varied greatly. His book starts with a sentence that would cause much concern today, yet which then seemed practical and acceptable:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society.

The dominant view of the populace then was of an uneducated, ill-informed mass whose views should be directed rather than allow them to think. Thinking on higher matters was really for managers and rulers who could decide what was best for lesser people.

The discipline of public relations (PR) started as a profession after the first world war as the commercial benefits of careful propaganda were realized.   Source:

More and more people are labeling as propaganda any information, or the source of the information, in which they disagree.  Here is an example:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s Supreme Leader, told the IRAN Farsi newspaper of his opinions on Eastwood’s film, which he admitted he has not seen but was informed of the plot by others.

“The movie ‘Sniper’ that is made by Hollywood encourages a Christian or non-Muslim youngster to harass and offend the Muslims as far as they could,” Ali Khamenei told the outlet, according to CBS News.

This is the basic they use for that claim: From Wikipedia

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.

Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.

Thus any truth uttered by someone or group in which you disagree can be dismissed as propaganda because they only tell the truth to advance their agenda.

Again From Wikipedia

Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding a biased approach (“what they do is propaganda, what we do is education”). Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: “Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”[4] More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: “Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion.”[5]

The question I put to you is if a white racist group such as the Council of Conservative Citizens, who are an American political organization that supports a large variety of conservative and paleoconservative causes, in addition to white separatism tells a true story about the first slaveholder in America  and other stories about rich black slaveholders in the Antebellum South, is that just propaganda to be discounted as such, or should you consider its ramifications regardless of the source?

In politics the manufacturing of propaganda is now called spinning.  So what is political “spin”? “Spin” is an interpretation of a particular position to garner public support. Sometimes, it relies on the creative interpretation of the facts to move that position forward.  Should all spin be disregarded because it is merely propaganda?

In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.

From 100 Years Of Propaganda: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Propaganda is most well known in the form of war posters. But at its core, it is a mode of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position, and that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Although propaganda is often used to manipulate human emotions by displaying facts selectively, it can also be very effective at conveying messages and hence can be used in web design, too.

Notice that propaganda uses loaded messages to change the attitude toward the subject in the target audience. When applied to web design, you may experiment with techniques used in propaganda posters and use them creatively to achieve a unique and memorable design.

In this article, we look at various types of propaganda and the people behind it, people who are rarely seen next to their work. You will also see how the drive for propaganda shaped many of the modern art movements we see today. Notice that this post isn’t supposed to be an ultimate showcase of propaganda artists. Something or somebody is missing? Please let us know in the comments to this post!

Advertisers use deceptive propaganda all the time, one of the first use of it changed the perception of American’s to believe that breakfast is the most important meal of the day:

In the 1920s, the Austrian-born Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was approached by the Beech-Nut Packing Company – producers of everything from pork products to the nostalgic Beech-Nut bubble gum. Beech-Nut wanted to increase consumer demand for bacon.  In the video above Edward L. Bernays describes his work with the Beech Nut Packing Company and how bacon and eggs became America’s favorite breakfast.

He turned to his agency’s, the Public Relations Counselor, internal doctor and asked him whether a heavier breakfast might be more beneficial for the American public. Knowing which way his bread was buttered, the doctor confirmed Bernays suspicion and wrote to five thousand of his doctor friends asking them to confirm it as well. This ‘so called study’ of doctors encouraging the American public to eat a heavier breakfast – namely ‘Bacon and Eggs’ – was published in major newspapers and magazines of the time to great success. Beech-Nut’s profits rose sharply thanks to Bernays and his team of medical professionals.

[snip]

Bernays was quite good at using psychology, i.e., brainwashing, to get people to buy a product or an idea. He was hired by the Aluminum Company of America to use the American Dental Association to convince people that water fluoridation was safe and healthy for the public. This allowed them to sell a very toxic by product that was costing them a lot to dispose of and have the cities of the nation dump it for them and pay for the privilege.

Yes your government will lie to you, and then lie about lying, but that isn’t the point, the point is that people are trying to persuade to accept their version of reality, their vision of the future, and many will deceive to persuade you.  Be aware and think things through, just because someone says something is propaganda does not mean the information is not true and worthy of consideration.  The propagandist will do their utmost to come across as most trustworthy, but then so will someone who truly believes what they are preaching.  It is your choice, not theirs.