Today's Politically Incorrect Laugh:
(Click to Enlarge)
(Click to Enlarge)
Today's Politically Incorrect Headlines:
Paradigm Lost: Why the rEVOLution Has Not Been Televised
Robin Koerner
To those who care about such things, the silence of the media about the extraordinary events around Ron Paul's campaign is deafening.
Some see conspiracy. I don't. I see the expected reaction to a paradigm shift -- a complete change in the concepts we use to make sense of our politics and culture.
An excellent illustration of the power of a "paradigm" is the Perceptions of Incongruity experiment that was conducted at Harvard in 1949.
In this experiment, subjects were shown playing cards and asked to call out what they saw. They would consistently identify the cards correctly. After a while, however, the experimenters would slip in "incongruous cards" in which the colors red and black were switched, such as black hearts or diamonds and red clubs or spades.
What did the subjects see when shown those incongruous cards? They did not see the incongruous cards, but normal playing cards -- the cards they were expecting to see, without noticing the incongruity. For example, when shown a black six of hearts, they might call out simply "six of hearts" or "six of spades" -- neither of which was correct. The subjects didn't misunderstand or misinterpret anything -- they actually misperceived something according to the paradigm in which they were operating -- in this case, "the playing card paradigm," comprising everything they already knew (wrongly) about the cards they were looking at.
Subjects continued to fail to notice the incongruous cards. Eventually, they would exhibit a physiological reaction of discomfort, knowing that something was wrong, but not being conscious of what. Only when they had been forced to look at many incongruous cards for very long times did they "get" what was going on and see what they were looking at. Suddenly, they realized that "the playing card paradigm" did not apply. They finally knew that reality included non-traditional cards. They thus adopted a new paradigm (that included black hearts etc.), and thereafter saw what was in front of their eyes.
As Goethe said, "We see only what we know."
So what do we know about American politics? We "know" that there are two opposing ideologies, Left and Right. We know they are largely staked out by two established parties, Democrats and Republicans. We know that all political positions that are "reasonable" or "mainstream" are represented by them. The trends in American politics can be identified by listening just to them: other views are held by so few that they can be ignored because they can have no significant impact.
All this "knowledge" is false, but it comprises the prevailing paradigm, so we know it nonetheless.
Any paradigm worthy of the name -- such as this American political paradigm -- lasts for a long time and is hard to unlearn.
But when it is about to collapse, a few things happen.
A) Most people ignore or try to "explain away" the data that threaten the old paradigm. B) The old paradigm becomes stretched in increasingly artificial ways to fit all the threatening data. This is called, "saving the phenomenon." C) More parochially, people with a career interest in the old paradigm fight for it with increasing dogmatism.
"Saving the phenomenon" is particularly interesting, and history (as well as everyday life) provides many clear examples. Consider the cosmological paradigm that prevailed for centuries. To a first approximation, heaven is perfect; circles (actually spheres) are perfect; planets are bodies in heaven, and so being perfect, they move around circular paths.
Thus, for centuries the motions of the planets were explained... until enough people made enough observations of planetary orbits that were not, in fact, circular: the circles were actually squashed. But since an entire theology -- and an entire political establishment -- were based on the idea of heavenly bodies' following the particular divine design that was endorsed by society's paradigm makers, the data could not be allowed to make the paradigm false. The "phenomenon had to be saved." Clever men worked out that if the center of a small circle was imagined to travel around a large circle, and a heavenly body traveled around that small circle, then the body would appear not to be traveling around a circle, but the motions would really all still be circular: circles on circles are still circles, and the old paradigm is still correct!
More data had to come in, and people with especially open minds apply themselves to the problem, before observers could actually perceive what they were observing: that heavenly bodies travel in ellipses. When they did, the paradigm shifted: Kepler was then able to formulate his law of planetary motion, political power throughout Europe was redistributed, and soon Newton would formulate gravity.
Admittedly, changes in a prevailing political paradigm are, unlike planets, hard to observe directly if they occur in people's heads, but many important political and cultural changes of our time are much more visible.
For example, the average adult under 30 is expected to feel that there's not much point in engaging in politics because she can't make much of a difference. Politicians are not rock stars and their ideas don't inspire young people to congregate in their thousands in stadiums to get high on old-fashioned ideas like liberty or abstruse concerns like monetary policy, chanting their favorite lines from their candidate's "greatest hits" (unless of course, that candidate has already been nominated as his party's presidential candidate). People certainly don't make computer games out their favorite candidate's favorite positions. Hundreds of them don't spend hours writing songs and recording high-quality videos about political issues that turn them on. And, usually, people who read books about the history of central banking for fun don't number in the hundreds of thousands. In short, it's been several decades since so many people became more inspired by politics than by anything else in their lives, and felt so able to make a difference. It also used to be that most politically active, educated and non-religious under-30s voted Democratic, while the number of Americans who were politically active but felt completely unrepresented by either main party was too small to matter.
But the media are people too... and so, like everyone else, they do not see what their current paradigm does not allow.
That is why cable TV has not even considered the extraordinary rise of Independent political registration, the decline of party-political thinking, the upsurge of interest in America's political and historical identity, kids' climbing trees to hear an old white politician tell a story that no mass political movement, let alone party, has told for generations, or the remarkable scenes that are playing out in GOP caucuses around the country as the party breaks its own rules to ensure that those who don't like its anointed candidate cannot choose their own.
It is why the rEVOLution has not been televised.
But it will be.
The very fact that the prevailing paradigm cannot accommodate the cultural and political changes in the USA, or even the GOP, is evidence that those changes are radical enough to establish a new one.
Eventually, when the gap between what is so and what everyone "knows" becomes too large, it becomes impossible to carry on everyday life without seeing it, admitting it, and dealing with it. That point may finally be in sight.
This week, some people who both operate in, and shape, the prevailing paradigm came up against that impossibility for the first time. Two cable networks -- Fox and MSNBC -- discretely acknowledged that Ron Paul was now winning states (IA, MN etc.) and that it was likely (Fox actually ventured "inevitable") that he would win enough states to be on the ballot with Romney at the GOP convention for the presidential nomination.
Whether that happens is much less important than the paradigm shift that has led to it, for when paradigms shift, history is made.
We may not yet have a new narrative. But the old one just cracked.
Romney to skip Texas GOP convention
By Joe Holley
For their state convention in early June, Texas Republicans will have to settle for an also-ran after being spurned by the presumptive nominee for president.
Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator who suspended his White House campaign a few weeks ago, will be one of the featured speakers at the convention's June 8 banquet in Fort Worth. Mitt Romney will not.
"The (Romney) campaign was extended an invitation, and we never heard back," state party spokesman Chris Elam said.
Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams blamed a scheduling conflict.
"I am very pleased that we have been able to confirm Senator Santorum's appearance at our Convention Gala," said Texas Republican Party Chair Steve Munisteri in a statement. "His campaign was very active in Texas during the primary season, and I am excited to offer our convention attendees the opportunity to hear from a major national figure in our party," he said.
Rice University political scientist Mark Jones, acknowledging that he does not know the specific circumstances of Romney's Texas turn-down, said the political benefits of a convention appearance are overshadowed by the liabilities.
"Given his need to pivot back to the center, the state convention of the Texas Republican Party is not an ideal venue for that," he said. "The Texas Republican Party is one of the most conservative in the country, and the activists who will be attending the convention are even more conservative."
Jones also noted that Romney is likely to win Texas in November regardless, so spurning the convention probably is of no significance.
Minds are changing
According to the results of a Public Policy Polling survey released last week, Texas Republicans are coalescing behind Romney, however reluctantly. They initially supported their favorite son, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. When he dropped out of the race in January, they sashayed over to Santorum.
Now that the former Pennsylvania senator is out of the race, Romney leads Texas with 45 percent to 35 percent over Newt Gingrich - who is scheduled to withdraw from the race on Tuesday - and 14 percent for Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
Favorable poll
A Public Policy Polling survey in January showed Texas voters were divided in their feelings about the former Massachusetts governor, with 44 percent rating him favorably and 44 percent rating him unfavorably. The recent poll put him at 66 percent favorable, 23 percent unfavorable.
Romney is winning Tea Party voters, 44 percent to 38 percent, although evangelicals still support Gingrich, 45 percent to 40 percent.
"Strong might not be the word to describe Mitt Romney's position in Texas," Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling, said in a news release. "Voters in the state don't like him all that much, but he's still the favorite for both the primary and general elections."
Perry, who had his differences with Romney during the extended debate season and who endorsed Gingrich after his own campaign ended, switched his endorsement to Romney last week.
joe.holley@chron.com
Fox News anchor declares Obama IS eligible
| Fox News anchor declares Obama IS eligible ... |
|
"Here's the deal," says this prominent anchor on the Fox News Channel,
before trying to explain why Barack Obama is eligible to be president. Find out his explanation, and why he's not so correct ... Click here to read the full article. |
Rand Paul: Trap. Search. Abuse.
Sometimes our liberty slips away silently, and it is almost hard to notice what went wrong and where. The one fortunate thing about the TSA is that they certainly don’t fit that definition.
The American people shouldn’t be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane. As you may have heard, I have some personal experience with this, and I’ve vowed to lead the charge to fight back.
Please read the email below from my friend Matt Hawes at Campaign for Liberty. Campaign for Liberty is leading the fight to pressure Congress to act now and restore our liberty. It’s time to END the TSA and get the government’s hands back to only stealing our wallets instead of groping toddlers and grandmothers.
I hope you will join Campaign for Liberty in this fight.
In Liberty,
Senator Rand Paul
The government literally has its hands in our pants.
Everyone knows they've done it for years - reaching in and grabbing our wallets while forcing huge tax bills and piles of debt on us.
But now they've gone too far.
Every inch of our person has become fair game for government thugs posing as "security" as we travel around the country.
The TSA simply must be stopped.
It is out of control, and it gets worse every day.
And it's not even useful in protecting our nation from terrorism.
The TSA tells us that being harassed at the airport "makes us safer," but, time and again, only quick-thinking actions by passengers have stopped dangerous situations on airplanes - from people the TSA let right through security.
One Israeli security expert, who certainly knows a thing or two about how to guard against constant threats, referred to the full-body scanners as "useless."
And just recently, an activist exposed a critical flaw in the TSA's body scanners when he repeatedly got through them just by putting a metal object in a pocket he had sewn on the side of his shirt. Because the scanner uses a dark background, the item blended right in.
These are the kind of results you get when you leave security up to bureaucrats.
Senator Rand Paul has a plan to do away with the TSA for good, but he needs our help.
Will you fill out your petition urging your representative to support - and your senators to co-sponsor - Senator Paul's END THE TSA bill?
Senator Paul got a lot of attention recently for his own encounter with the TSA, where he was detained, harassed, and missed his flight before ultimately being "allowed" to continue his journey. If that is what happens to a U.S. senator at an airport, imagine what is happening to people across the country.
Actually, you don't have to imagine.
More and more Americans are coming forward to tell their stories of the abusive TSA.
The TSA has declared war. I think everyone from Janet Napolitano to Alex Jones would agree with that. What we don't agree on is on whom they have declared war.
Toddlers in wheelchairs. Mothers with babies. 94-year-old grandmothers. Well-known United States senators.
Do any of those sound like potential terrorist threats?
They do if you are the TSA.
Just recently, we heard about how a young mother was stopped and forced through some very extra-thorough screening. Her crime?
She was attempting to board the plane with a breast pump to provide milk during the trip for her infant. The distraught mom was forced to pump the milk in a public restroom to satisfy the TSA's demands.
In 2010, a three-year-old boy in a wheelchair was subjected to intensive screening and a thorough pat-down.
The parents were forced to stand by helplessly - not even allowed to touch their child to reassure him everything would be ok.
But everything is not ok.
The TSA is part of a growing problem in our government - where it now has the power to do whatever it wants without any regard to our rights:
*** The so-called "Patriot" Act allows for warrantless searches and wiretaps,
government snooping through your bank records, and the issuing of blatantly unconstitutional National Security Letters (NSLs);
*** The recently passed
National Defense Authorization Act codifies into law the idea that the government could indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen
without trial;
*** The National Counterterrorism Center is now authorized to store your personal information - even with no
suspicion of terrorist activity - for up to 5 years.
Our rights aren't simply eroding.They are being taken out to sea in the wake of a tsunami from our government.
Now, the TSA is working on assaulting Americans outside of the airport, too.
With its "VIPR" program, the TSA is expanding to train stations, bus terminals, and even checking vehicles on public roads.
Soon, we won't be safe from their grabbing hands anywhere.
And as the TSA keeps harassing more customers out of the airports, an already hurting airline industry will continue to struggle - ultimately costing jobs, further driving up the costs of travel, and creating calls from politicians for yet another government bailout to "save" an industry their TSA is helping to destroy.
So will you join Senator Rand Paul and Campaign for Liberty in fighting back?
For over 10 years, the TSA has increasingly become the most visible and harassing arm of the new police state. There are countless more examples of abuse from the TSA:
***
A TSA agent patting down a young girl at New
Orleans' Louis Armstrong
International Airport in 2011. The video shows a cooperative family,
and when the girl's mother asks, "Can't you just
re-scan her?" the agent replies, "No" and proceeds to grope the poor
child;
*** A cancer survivor in Charlotte was forced to
remove a prosthetic breast;
*** A young mother of a two-week-old infant in Florida was harassed to open the bottles of baby
formula she was traveling with on her flight, which would have spoiled the only food available to the infant;
*** Detroit TSA officers ignored a man's
warning about a colostomy bag, breaking it and forcing him to board a plane covered in urine.
The only limit to the stories of abuse that I could tell you in
this letter is space. There is no shortage of stories. There are
more every day.It is time you and I stood up and said "ENOUGH."
Senator Rand Paul has a plan to get the government out of your pants and the TSA out of your life.
His END THE TSA bill will fully privatize the TSA, getting the government out of the airport entirely.
And Campaign for Liberty has a plan to force action on this bill in the coming months, but to make this happen, we must have your support today.
First, please complete your END THE TSA petition.
Campaign for Liberty will deliver it, along with hundreds of thousands of others from outraged Americans.
If we can raise the necessary funds, Campaign for Liberty will also run a full, targeted media campaign to convince representatives and senators to either get on board or be held responsible for this continuing outrage.
But carrying out these plans requires you to chip in a contribution of $10 - or whatever you can afford - today.
Campaign for Liberty has certainly had our hands full this year with multiple battles on a variety of fronts. So we simply cannot take on this battle without your support.
Whatever you can chip in would go a long way toward fighting back against the out-of-control TSA.
So please, fill out your petition and chip in a contribution to Campaign for Liberty today.
As always, thank you for all you do for the cause of Liberty.
In Liberty,
Matt Hawes
Vice President
P.S. The TSA grows more and more out of control every day. Far from protecting us from terrorists, they are instead setting their sights on small children, mothers with infants, the elderly, and the disabled.
You and I must stop these abuses once and for all and take back our rights.
Please complete your petition in support of Senator Paul's END THE TSA bill, and chip in contribution of $10 to C4L right away.
Obama's evil 'Matrix' is alive and expanding
| Obama's evil 'Matrix' is alive and expanding ... |
|
There's an evil "matrix" of deceit and delusion enveloping America with
its toxic tentacles, and Obama and his minions on the dark side are
doing their best to keep their secret system alive. You really need to know this ... Click here to read the full article. |
ER visits after drinking may not be covered
Kaiser Health News
Up to half of the people who are treated at hospital emergency departments and trauma centers are under the influence of alcohol, experts say. That may be a sobering statistic, yet a recent study found that emergency departments can capitalize on this “teachable moment” to discourage problem drinking in the future.
But laws in more than half the states permit insurers to deny payment for medical services related to alcohol or drug use and that can derail hospitals’ best intentions, experts say. Faced with the prospect of not getting paid for care, some emergency department personnel may sidestep the problem by simply not testing patients’ blood or urine for alcohol.
In the study, published online in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in March, nearly 600 emergency department patients who were identified as hazardous or harmful drinkers (defined for men as drinking more than 14 drinks per week or more than four on any single occasion, and for women as more than seven weekly drinks or three on any one occasion) took part in a seven-minute interview. During the interview, an emergency department staff member discussed the link between a patient’s injuries and alcohol, as well as guidelines for low-risk drinking, and encouraged the patient to discuss what was stopping him from drinking less and to set a drinking goal.
Compared with those who received standard care, patients who took part in the sessions reduced their average number of weekly drinks significantly as well as their episodes of binge drinking and drinking and driving over the next 12 months.
“In the emergency department on a weekend, all the cases may be drug or alcohol related, and yet we don’t do” screening and intervention, says Gail D’Onofrio, the study’s lead author who is chair of emergency medicine at Yale University School of Medicine. “Our goal is to normalize this in the emergency department.”
Although some of the nearly 4,000 emergency departments screen patients for drug or alcohol use, it’s not required. Level 1 and 2 trauma centers, however, which are typically equipped to handle emergency patients suffering from serious injuries sustained, for example, in major car accidents, must screen for problem drinkers. Level 1 trauma centers must also be able to provide counseling.
Such screening and counseling can be effective, says Larry Gentilello, a trauma surgeon who has published studies on injury prevention and substance abuse.
“Most of the people who are injured don’t need to go into treatment,” he says. “They aren’t alcoholics or alcohol dependent. That’s why one counseling session can help them by talking about the risks of drinking.”
The extent to which so-called alcohol-exclusion laws deter emergency medical personnel from screening and counseling patients for alcohol or drugs is unknown.
The laws have a long history. Since 1947, more than 40 states have passed measures allowing health plans to refuse to pay for care if the patient’s injuries occurred while he was under the influence of alcohol or, in some states, drugs, say experts. As people came to understand alcohol addiction and the possibility of treatment, however, it became clear that the laws were counterproductive. In 2001, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners recommended against them.
Since then, at least 15 states have repealed or amended their laws and now prohibit exclusions of coverage for drinking or drugs, according to data from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Maryland and the District of Columbia are among them; Virginia’s law remains in place.
Regardless of state law, self-insured companies that pay their employees’ health care costs directly can refuse to cover employees for alcohol-related claims.
The laws have ensnared both problem and occasional drinkers.
Gentilello describes the case of a Seattle woman who was celebrating her 25th wedding anniversary and had a few glasses of champagne at dinner with her family. It was a rainy night and she was dressed up and wearing high heels. As she and her husband tried to hail a cab, she tripped on a curb, fell and broke her ankle. In the emergency department, her chart noted that she had a few drinks. Her insurer refused to pay. Washington subsequently adopted a prohibition on alcohol-related claims exclusions in 2004.
It’s unclear how frequently insurers continue to apply such laws to avoid paying claims. Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade organization, says the group doesn’t know what member practice is. Cynthia Michener, a spokeswoman for Aetna, says that “to our knowledge” the company doesn’t apply such exclusions. Other insurers, including UnitedHealthcare and Humana, didn’t provide information about their practices.
But a professor who has written about such laws says there are indications that health plans continue to use them to deny payment.
“There are tons of these cases,” says Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services. “The only evidence we have suggests that these cases go on.”
“There’s no reason to think that insurers, eager to hold down costs, wouldn’t continue” to deny payment based on such exclusions, she adds.
Related:
Up to half of the people who are treated at hospital emergency departments and trauma centers are under the influence of alcohol, experts say. That may be a sobering statistic, yet a recent study found that emergency departments can capitalize on this “teachable moment” to discourage problem drinking in the future.
But laws in more than half the states permit insurers to deny payment for medical services related to alcohol or drug use and that can derail hospitals’ best intentions, experts say. Faced with the prospect of not getting paid for care, some emergency department personnel may sidestep the problem by simply not testing patients’ blood or urine for alcohol.
In the study, published online in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in March, nearly 600 emergency department patients who were identified as hazardous or harmful drinkers (defined for men as drinking more than 14 drinks per week or more than four on any single occasion, and for women as more than seven weekly drinks or three on any one occasion) took part in a seven-minute interview. During the interview, an emergency department staff member discussed the link between a patient’s injuries and alcohol, as well as guidelines for low-risk drinking, and encouraged the patient to discuss what was stopping him from drinking less and to set a drinking goal.
Compared with those who received standard care, patients who took part in the sessions reduced their average number of weekly drinks significantly as well as their episodes of binge drinking and drinking and driving over the next 12 months.
“In the emergency department on a weekend, all the cases may be drug or alcohol related, and yet we don’t do” screening and intervention, says Gail D’Onofrio, the study’s lead author who is chair of emergency medicine at Yale University School of Medicine. “Our goal is to normalize this in the emergency department.”
Although some of the nearly 4,000 emergency departments screen patients for drug or alcohol use, it’s not required. Level 1 and 2 trauma centers, however, which are typically equipped to handle emergency patients suffering from serious injuries sustained, for example, in major car accidents, must screen for problem drinkers. Level 1 trauma centers must also be able to provide counseling.
Such screening and counseling can be effective, says Larry Gentilello, a trauma surgeon who has published studies on injury prevention and substance abuse.
“Most of the people who are injured don’t need to go into treatment,” he says. “They aren’t alcoholics or alcohol dependent. That’s why one counseling session can help them by talking about the risks of drinking.”
The extent to which so-called alcohol-exclusion laws deter emergency medical personnel from screening and counseling patients for alcohol or drugs is unknown.
The laws have a long history. Since 1947, more than 40 states have passed measures allowing health plans to refuse to pay for care if the patient’s injuries occurred while he was under the influence of alcohol or, in some states, drugs, say experts. As people came to understand alcohol addiction and the possibility of treatment, however, it became clear that the laws were counterproductive. In 2001, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners recommended against them.
Since then, at least 15 states have repealed or amended their laws and now prohibit exclusions of coverage for drinking or drugs, according to data from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Maryland and the District of Columbia are among them; Virginia’s law remains in place.
Regardless of state law, self-insured companies that pay their employees’ health care costs directly can refuse to cover employees for alcohol-related claims.
The laws have ensnared both problem and occasional drinkers.
Gentilello describes the case of a Seattle woman who was celebrating her 25th wedding anniversary and had a few glasses of champagne at dinner with her family. It was a rainy night and she was dressed up and wearing high heels. As she and her husband tried to hail a cab, she tripped on a curb, fell and broke her ankle. In the emergency department, her chart noted that she had a few drinks. Her insurer refused to pay. Washington subsequently adopted a prohibition on alcohol-related claims exclusions in 2004.
It’s unclear how frequently insurers continue to apply such laws to avoid paying claims. Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade organization, says the group doesn’t know what member practice is. Cynthia Michener, a spokeswoman for Aetna, says that “to our knowledge” the company doesn’t apply such exclusions. Other insurers, including UnitedHealthcare and Humana, didn’t provide information about their practices.
But a professor who has written about such laws says there are indications that health plans continue to use them to deny payment.
“There are tons of these cases,” says Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services. “The only evidence we have suggests that these cases go on.”
“There’s no reason to think that insurers, eager to hold down costs, wouldn’t continue” to deny payment based on such exclusions, she adds.
Related:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)