Jon Stewart Explains Ultrasound Law To GOP: ‘A TSA Pat-Down In Your Vagina’ | Mediaite

Damn! I mentioned the “Handmaids Tale” (read the comments on that review, written a few years ago) only a couple of days ago and this political crime is right in its crosshairs…

As the medics have pointed out there is no medical requirement or justification for this proposed vaginal penetration and it is clearly not going to involve the informed consent of most women, such an invasion very clearly qualifies as State Rape.

I think you could easily make a sound ethical argument for assassinating any politician who mandates any one of a number of extreme sociopathic policies. Cannibalism and genocide are obvious examples, Then there are a bunch of lesser but still significant evils that the Totalitarian mind can dream up, like, for example, a proposal to recriminalise homosexuality; or to make religion (or atheism) compulsory. State Rape is about on a par with those for ethical value.

My proposal is for a constitutional amendment which would impose a lifetime prohibition on participation in the political process for anyone making a serious attempt to enact such a policy as law.


Jon Stewart Explains Ultrasound Law To GOP: ‘A TSA Pat-Down In Your Vagina’ | Mediaite.

Scientists identify link between size of brain region and conformity | Wellcome Trust

my lateral orbitofrontal cortex must have atrophied according to this research. But hang on, I’m extremely sensitive to conflict situations and do try hard to avoid them. I just don’t equate conflict avoidance with conformity. Makes you wonder, though, if this is the brain region exposed by the famous Milgram Experiment and under attack by Fascists and the Media when they try to engage the herd instinct. If so, perhaps we ought, routinely, to teach kids how to suppress it…

Scientists identify link between size of brain region and conformity | Wellcome Trust.

US General: “Iran a Rational Actor”, but is US one?

sound, if frightening, analysis (especially about the rationality of the US)

US General: "Iran a Rational Actor", but is US one?.

Noam Chomsky: America’s Decline Is Real — and Increasingly Self-Inflicted | World | AlterNet

only the weak and defeated are called to account for their crimes

– which is why Cheney and Rumsfeld are still at liberty…

.Noam Chomsky: America's Decline Is Real — and Increasingly Self-Inflicted | World | AlterNet.

Why Patriarchal Men Are Utterly Petrified of Birth Control — And Why We’ll Still Be Fighting About it 100 Years From Now | Visions | AlterNet

I have heard others arguing in favour of the historical importance of Contraception, not least Germaine Greer. But all the examples that spring to mind focussed on the importance of Contraception to Women. What I like about Sara Robinson’s argument is her focus on it’s importance to Men, particularly those patriarchal men who, of course, I normally refer to as the Authoritarians. (Yes there are Authoritarian Women too, but the vast majority of them are conditioned by their religious beliefs as we’ll discuss)

It is obvious to all observers that Authoritarianism is primarily testosterone driven. But I hadn’t made what, after reading this essay, now looks like the obvious connection between Contraception and Authoritarianism, viz Religion.

Religion has provided the pseudo ethical justification for the authoritarian control of society for at least two and a half thousand years. Almost every religion throughout human history has been patriarchal and tightly focussed on preserving the subservient status of Women for a variety of reasons, many of which were plausible right up until cheap effective mass FEMALE contraception became available. Suddenly, in one massive swipe, Male Authority was completely undermined, and, I would add, so too was Authority in general.

I disagree with Sara on one thing. Her pessimism (which echoes Margaret Atwoods “Handmaids Tale”) is unjustified. I certainly agree that the battle is not over. They will continue, until their kind has ceased to exist, to try to force many of our new liberties out of existence. I believe this will be the basis for the “Final War”. But I don’t believe they’ll succeed. The “only” risk is that they might render our species extinct in their attempt to regain control…

Why Patriarchal Men Are Utterly Petrified of Birth Control — And Why We'll Still Be Fighting About it 100 Years From Now | Visions | AlterNet.

Government spy programme will monitor every phone call, text and email | Mail Online

What is so objectionable about this kind of proposal is not what is implied by the headlines.

It isn’t a “Spy” program. It won’t “monitor” anything. Spying/monitoring is real time surveillance in hot (or at least warm) pursuit of a suspected criminal or foreign agent. This proposal is for a data retention exercise and its single merit is that the data will be held by the service providers and not in a government owned central database. That dramatically reduces the risk of abuse, not least because it maintains the difficulty of marrying data sources together and keeps it difficult to probe too deeply into individual lives.

The law also offers partial protection (except, of course, in the USA and other countries further along the Police State path than the UK) because access to the data will require the authority of the Courts in a procedure which will be on the public record. That’s not good enough (it ought to be overseen by an appropriate Jury, not Judiciary) but it’s certainly better than the USA PATRIOT Act which allows the FBI unfettered access and penalises data holders for revealing that access.

Nevertheless, it is profoundly disturbing because the proposal reveals either deep ignorance or deep deception.

Security services are said to be concerned about the ability of terrorists to avoid tracking through modern technology and are believed to have lobbied Home Secretary Theresa May to introduce the scheme.

Let’s take it at face value that that “excuse” is real. Most of us would approve or at least tolerate our tax funded security professionals going after serious targets like terrorists, paedophiles and people traffickers etc.

However, such targets are already well aware of the need to avoid tracking and they aren’t going to be remotely concerned at these new measures because they can easily avoid them (as can you or I if we give a shit). Indeed, the small amount of effort required would probably be a useful constant reminder – to those intent on that kind of attack – about the need to maintain good security at all times and thus make it much more difficult to track them.

“Security Services” should know this better than I do – or else we really have got a serious problem. So why would they peddle such a line to the politicians? The answer is likely to be deception rather than ignorance. The deception is that this proposal has very little to do with those meaningful targets at all. It’s about making it possible for the authoritarian state to pursue much more petty crime carried out by the ordinary citizen.

How petty will be a matter of fine political judgement. Initially, they will probably only use it in serious cases where the public could be expected to endorse the required “data mining”. When some naive estranged spouse tries to use the internet to contact and make a deal with a kidnapper to target their ex, or a stalker uses social networking to gather sensitive data on their target, the fact that the police are able to use the stored data to mount a successful prosecution of the miscreants will produce a small ripple of relief and allow the tabloids to trumpet a triumph for the nanny state.

Once that level of intervention has become normalised we can expect the “trigger level” to drop to less serious offences, like those who avoid small amounts of tax by selling goods on ebay or Amazon, or plan their next secret Rave online, or arrange to buy cheap cigarettes abroad and bring them into the country for a smoker friend etc etc.

This kind of “mission creep” is inevitable – as we saw with previous “spy” laws allegedly aimed at terrorism but which resulted in councils using “permitted” surveillance against people overfilling their bins or security staff using terrorist legislation to evict hecklers at party conferences.

We can be moderately confident that such petty oversight is the real aim because it would work. It would oppress most of the population into submissive compliance. In contrast, these measures have no chance whatsoever against the alleged serious targets. Their role is merely to present the convenient excuse for the introduction of measures the STASI would have died for…

Government spy programme will monitor every phone call, text and email | Mail Online.

Technological signs for the end of times

always worth reminding yourself from time to time that the Muslims have an “end times” myth just as psychotic as the Xtian one and here is the technological evidence to prove it…

Technological signs for the end of times.