Pop songs of 1964

Pop songs of 1964 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lIqwpSFQp4w&feature=share

Cannabinoids as anti-inflammatory

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828614/

Viva Fidel ! Granma

Viva , Fidel, viva ! https://www.facebook.com/granmadigital/videos/1631972407013142/

Darwin : women selecting mates based on culture - courting

. wikipedia Darwin and women "Charles Darwin's views on women were based on his view of natural selection. Darwin believed that the difference between males and females were partly due to "sexual selection". Darwin's theory of sexual selection, which can be found in his book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, states that women, and some men, will choose to mate with someone that is most suitable to culture.[1] This proposition of sexual selection readily tied into his theory of natural selection in the way that evolution will have different outcomes depending on the traits of the suitor the females chooses to reproduce with. This also supports his principle of "survival of the fittest" in the human species.[1] Darwin concludes in his book, The Descent of Man, saying that men attain "a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands."[2] More research has been centered around letters that Darwin wrote and exchanged with about 150 women in his lifetime which includes both women close to him and women from other places in the world. The letters show private thoughts and actions which are different to the gender ideology held by common middle-class Victorians. The letters show that in private Darwin relied on various women for some of his work including his daughter Henrietta who helped in editing The Descent of Man. Darwin also helped many of these women progress their scientific careers. He wrote to Eleanor Mary Dicey in 1877 about his concern that some women might not want to study psychology only because they are women. There is also evidence of Darwin's correspondence with women of that time who challenged the gender ideology such as Florence Dixie, a traveler, writer and hunter who endorsed equality in marriage. She also wrote a book which created the fantasy of a world where men and women were equals.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_and_women ///////////////// "Abstract In his 1871 book The Descent of Man, Darwin exposed the idea of sexual selection as a major principle of human evolution. His main hypothesis, which was already briefly presented in The Origin of Species, is that there exists, besides "natural selection", another form of selection, milder in its effect, but no less efficient. This selection is operated by females to mate and reproduce with some partners that are gifted with more qualities than others, and more to their taste. At more evolved stages, sexual selection was exerted by men who became able to choose the women most attractive to their taste. However, Darwin insists, sexual selection in the human species is limited by a certain number of cultural practices. If Darwin's demonstration sometimes carried the prejudices of his times regarding gender differences he was the first who took into account the importance of sexual choices in his view on evolution, and who insisted on the evolutionary role of women at the dawn of humanity. Thus, he opened the space for a rich reflection, which after him was widely developed and discussed in anthropological and gender studies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20338532/ //// From Eve to Evolution: Darwin, Science, and Women's Rights in Gilded Age America Kimberly A. Hamlin University of Chicago Press: 2014. 9780226134611 | ISBN: 978-0-2261-3461-1 Two misplaced narratives dominate thinking on the historical relationship between feminism and evolutionary biology. The first is that nineteenth-century Darwinists presented a chorus of sexist views of women. The second is that feminism and evolutionary biology are wholly independent intellectual movements. In From Eve to Evolution, historian Kimberly Hamlin counters these misconceptions with the most comprehensive account so far of how nineteenth-century US men and women appropriated Darwinian ideas to argue for the equality of the sexes in the domestic and public spheres. The US women's movement gathered fresh energy in the decades following the end of the civil war in 1865, launching calls for women's suffrage, access to property rights and education, and the freedom to divorce. Hamlin shows how prominent women's rights advocates enlisted science “as a force for positive change”, even when excluded from lecture halls, as they often were. She demonstrates that evolutionary science offered US feminists a fresh intellectual framework from which to challenge the biblical dogma that stipulated women's inferiority to men and submissive role in domestic life. For social activists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, evolutionary theory “provided a new way for women to view the universe and their role in it, and a new language to describe what they saw”. Women's advocates (left to right) Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Antoinette Brown Blackwell and Maria Mitchell. Credit: L–R: Time Life Pictures/Getty; Lib. of Congress; Bettmann/Corbis As feminists rallied to respond to anti-woman screeds such as Harvard-trained physician Edward Clarke's 1873 Sex in Education, which warned that women's 'enfeebling' menstrual cycles legislated against their participation in higher education, they began to articulate the need for better science relating to women. With lively examples, Hamlin relates how educated middle- and upper-class US women of the era, such as physician Mary Putnam Jacobi, astronomer Maria Mitchell and author and suffragist Helen Hamilton Gardener, argued for the importance of training women in science and for a science of sex free of misogynistic bias. Gardener's brain, left to science to prove the equality of male and female intellect, still stands on display at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Other US feminists summoned the evidence of biology to argue for more-egalitarian marriage and child-rearing arrangements, and for the importance of women's work outside the home. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, the first US woman to be ordained a minister, cited Darwin's evidence of male provisioning and female extra-reproductive labour in animals to argue against the Victorian domestic division of the “eight-hour husband” working outside the home and the “fourteen-hour wife” within it. Feminist intellectual Charlotte Perkins Gilman drew on Darwin's sexual-selection theory to argue that women's economic dependence on men was unnaturally skewing evolution to promote “excessive sexual distinctions”. She proposed that economic and reproductive freedom for women would restore female autonomy in choice of mate — which Darwin posited was universal in nature, except in humans — and put human evolutionary progress back on track. Darwin himself opposed birth control and asserted the natural inferiority of human females. The adult female, he wrote in The Descent of Man (1871), is the “intermediate between the child and the man”. Nevertheless, appeals to Darwinist ideas by birth-control advocates such as Margaret Sanger led one critic to bemoan in 1917 that “Darwin was the originator of modern feminism”. Feminism in the late nineteenth century was marked by the racial and class politics of the era's reform movements. Blackwell's and Gilman's views that women should work outside the home, for example, depended on the subjugated labour of lower-class minority women to perform household tasks. And Sanger's birth-control politics appealed to contemporary fears of race and class 'suicide'. From Eve to Evolution acknowledges this legacy, but does not dwell on it. For example, Hamlin argues that the anti-biological determinist arguments of white nineteenth-century feminists are more “nuanced and complex” than generally appreciated and were a resource “not just for white women but for everyone”. On Gilman, Hamlin asserts that “at least most of the time, Gilman meant the 'human race' when she wrote the 'race' and that racism is not the defining characteristic of most of her writings”. Although context is clearly crucial to a careful reading of this complicated intellectual history, it is hard to evaluate such claims without a more detailed treatment of the words and deeds of these feminist writers on the matter of race and class. Nonetheless, this deeply researched and richly detailed picture of US feminism in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century is an important contribution to our understanding of the interrelation of gender politics and science. From Eve to Evolution firmly corrects the mistaken view that evolutionary biology and feminism are at odds. And it reveals a more diverse dialogue around the science of sexual equality in the era than is generally appreciated. Author information Affiliations Sarah S. Richardson is a science historian specializing in women, gender and sexuality at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Her latest book is Sex Itself. Sarah S. Richardson https://www.nature.com/articles/509424a

False equivalence of Dems and Reps is a dogmatic Left error

CB : Not equally committed to war now . That’s importantly wrong at this concrete period . Obama had already explicitly reversed the Bush bellicose doctrines . Democrats FDR , LBJ, OBAMA were _not_ phony populists . Working class won major reforms through them. It’s infantile leftism to maintain the US working class has won no significant reforms in 90 years . You all might as well give up if the working class hasn’t won anything in 90 years . The right wing Bourgeoisie moving in desperation to fascism should prove that the mild Obama reforms are a real threat to the ruling class . The right wing Bourgeoisie are openly , blatantly trying to discard majority rule , prevent the majority from voting . Obama peace treaty with Iran blocks the next big war the military-industrial complex had planned . There can be no war with China because of Mutually Assured Destruction. Tensions with Soviet Union were sharper than today , and there could be no war. There will be no war with China despite all the saber rattling. Economic imperialism of course ; but Leninists support peaceful competition between different social systems ; socialist China is proving to the world the superiority of socialism in peaceful competition. False equivalence of Democrats and Republicans is now for 20 years a severe error of the infantile left . respinding to the following : "No both parties are really committed to imperialism, the opposition to the CIA and forever wars on Trumps part was just the same phony populism as you get with many US politicians." "

Culturally inherited adaptations give human species high Darwinian fitness

Darwin’s natural laws , physiology laws , DNA-gene laws, and ecological laws are the central organizing principles of Modern Biology. The laws of symbolically constituted language and culture as the defining characteristics of humans are the central organizing principles of anthropology. Symbolic communication and behavior give humans a way of adapting ( in the Darwinian sense ) that is more efficient than adapting based on random genetic mutation, because cultural adaptations are caused by the adaptive problem ( problems in the struggle for existence) that they solve ; the adaptive problem causes humans to invent in symbolic thought , imagination, a solution to the adaptive problem .



With language and culture , Necessity is the mother of invention ( which is a materialist philosophical , not idealist , explanation, because the material survival necessity changes the ideas of the human inventor , changes her culture ) Culture allows non-random Darwinian adaption , unlike genetic adaptations ; the adaptive solution does not arise only coincidentally with the problem it solves , not just by luck as with genetic adaptations.



For example , we might hypothesize that Homo erectuses invented clothes or controlled fire in response to moving into colder regions North of Africa . The acts of invention were caused by the problem in the struggle for existence of cold body temperature. The adaptive problem caused its own solution. Relying on the adaptation by way of genetic changes ( maybe to grow fur) would mean waiting on a genetic mutation NOT CAUSED BY THE COLDER TEMPERATURE, a mutation not caused by the adaptive problem, but arising coincidentally with the problem it solves.



In this hypothetical thought experiment, survival in the struggle for existence, material necessity, changes the cultural ideas of the inventors , adds a custom of clothes , costumes to the their customs , their traditions , their culture.



Non-randomly arising solutions to adaptive problems are La Marckian-LIKE. In LaMarck’s famous thought experiment as to “how the giraffe got its long neck”, the adaptive problem of food only available high up _causes_ the giraffe to solve the problem by stretching its neck ( this is a fictional account). The solution does not arise _randomly_ relative to the problem it solves.


More adaptive problems are solved if the problem tends to cause its own solution than if the solutions just happen luckily to occur as with _random_ genetic mutations solving adaptive problems.



Thus , with culture, language (symbolic inheritance, symbolic imagination and symbolic communication ) humans have a more efficient adaptive process than all other life forms. Humans have both cultural , non-random adaptation and random genetic mutation adaptation . Other life forms , species , only have random genetic mutation adaptation.



How does symbolic thinking allow humans to invent solutions to adaptive problems in response to the problem arising ? Because symbolic thinking allows imaginative thinking or imagination is a form of symbolic thinking ; imagination empowers invention.


Furthermore, symbolic thinking allows SYMBOLIC INHERITANCE of adaptive inventions by future generations ! Genes and culture/words are inherited - IN DIFFERENT WAYS . For example , almost all the words in the vocabulary of a living generation were invented by dead past generations , inherited. (paragraph)


Ancestor veneration The difference between humans and all other species is that through symbolic communication , words and culture, dead generations have a certain immortality and are part of the society of living generations . Living generations share the experiences of dead generations through SYMBOLIC INHERITANCE . Thereby knowledge accumulates. All humans stand on the shoulders of giants , as the scientist Issac Newton put it . Accumulated knowledge gives a growing ability to adapt, in Darwin’s sense , to problems in the struggle for existence .


https://take10charles.blogspot.com/2017/09/symbolic-inheritance.html


Symbolic Inheritance For anthropology, culture-language-Symbolic Inheritance is the unique species characteristic of _homo sapiens_. In a sense, "culture-language-Symbolic Inheritance is another word for "wisdom", from the notion that humans are the species _homo wise_. It is humans socially learned practices, customs, language, traditions, beliefs, religion, spirituality that make us "wise" in so many ways, certainly clever and winners _as a species_ ( not just as a few "fit" Individuals) in the struggles and snuggles to survive as a species. Since the advent of civilization, sometimes it's not so clear how wise our culture makes us. Greed, slavery, war, male supremacy, Egoism originate with Civilization ! It is better termed Savagery and Barbarism. Therein lies the central drama of the history of the human species.


Nonetheless, clearly in the Stone Age, our having culture-language-Symbolic Inheritance was a highly adaptive advantage over species that did not have culture , stone tools , scientific knowledge (!) standing on the shoulders of dead generations , raising our species fitness. This is evidenced by _homo sapiens_ expanding in population and therefore migrating to an expanded area of living space across the earth , out of what is now Africa to the other continents. Stone Age foraging and kinship organized , peaceful and sharing societies were the mode of life for the vast majority of time of human species ' existence, 90% plus



Differentia specifica of human species is symbolic communication and behavior - language and culture .


I write here a critique of Engels’ essay “The Role of Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man” in part based on Marx’s claim that human labor is differentiated from all other species “ labor by the role of imagination “! ( (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm ) Otherwise , in his anthropological _The Origin of the Family , Private Property and the State _ , Engels is profoundly correct on the difference between the Stone Age and Civilization and other issues.



http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/01/panel-presentation-on-engelss-origin-of.html


My critique of Engels on this point is informed by the current biological ( human evolution) and cultural anthropological facts on origin of tool use , stone tool use ; and the nature of language and culture as SYMBOLIC communication and behavior . Origin of tool use and origin of language and culture is the issue Engels speculates concerning in “The Role of Labour in the transition from Ape to Man“. My basic difference with him is that language and culture allowed the invention of labor with Stone tools created by imagination; not labor created language and culture ( symbolic communication and behavior ; see definition of symbolic signs below ) ; I plead not guilty to the charge of philosophical idealism -smiles .



The origin of humans is the origin of language and culture , NOT the origin of bipedalism and hands freed from walking on all fours . ( see pre-human , habitually bipedal primates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecine) 



“Engels never finished Dialectics of Nature. Haldane, in his preface to the 1939 publication of Dialectics of Nature, regrets that it remained unpublished for a long time, and writes, “Had his remarks on Darwinism been generally known, I for one would have been saved a certain amount of muddled thinking.” One of its unfinished fragments is on the role of labor in human evolution, more specifically the evolution of the hand. It is the evolution of the hand through the process of labor—creating tools—that distinguishes humans from apes. Engels writes, “Thus the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the product of labour.” It is not the evolution of the hand that led to our evolution as a species but the coevolution of the hand and labor as a historical process.”



The bottomline of my critique in the blog below is : Language and culture , symbolic communication and symbolically guided behavior, originate 2.5 million years ago and enable homo habilis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis) to make the first Stone tools . ( THE ORIGIN OF HUMANS IS IN THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE AND CULTURE , SYMBOLIC COMMUNICATION AND BEHAVIOR) It is NOT that the ancestral bipedal species (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecine) to homo habilis started using its hands ( freed by bipedalism ; standing on two feet instead of four freeing the hands ) and that caused them to start symbolic communication and behavior as Engels speculates . ( this is not idealist philosophical error on my part ; I will explain why not below)




Here is Engels’ essay The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm




The following is my blog item critiquing Engels‘ essay.


http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2017/02/more-leisure-is-homo-sapiens-species.html


More Leisure is Homo sapiens species essence ; May Day demand More Leisure ( than our ancestral primate species had) is our species essence ( See "The Original Affluent Society" by my anthropological mentor and senior anthro major advisor ,Marshall Sahlins , in _Stone Age Economics_ ) . Foraging is a mode of direct appropriation from nature , not a mode of production; making a living by gigging smart not working hard. It was not that bi-pedalism and the origin of hands originated a new labor that caused the invention of tradition , names and words . The invention of culture and language in childcare by mothers ( I’m saying mothers invented names , words , symbolic communication to improve childcare, reproductive labor ) was extended to making a living ( the Darwinian struggle for existence) ; language and culture revolutionized the human struggle for existence by making it smarter, wiser, because of accumulation of knowledge over many generations . Language gives humans the capacity for dead generations to leave communications about their experiences to future living generations) . Also More leisure gives more time to think and thereby work even smarter.



Symbolic communication allows : Ancestor veneration



The difference between humans and all other species is that through symbolic communication , words and culture, dead generations have a certain immortality and are part of the society of living generations . Living generations share the experiences of dead generations . Thereby knowledge accumulates. All humans stand on the shoulders of giants , as the scientist Issac Newton put it concerning his scientific ancestors .



Engels is wrong in "The Role of Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man" when he says "First labour, after it and then with it speech ..."


CB : First long childcare , then names and speech invented by mothers to do better childcare , and then a transition to LESS toil in the struggle for existence , to smarter struggle for existence informed by ancestral experience , and more leisure as compared with primate species ancestral to homo habilis and the origin of the Stone Age . Stone tools were invented to allow making a living less toilsome and more efficient .



Perhaps the topic would be better named the transition in the struggle for existence in the transition from ape to man : the origin of imagination.



Stone Age society is Societas ( anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan’s term in _Ancient Society_ ) beginning 2.5 million years ago ; to circa 6,000 years ago with the beginning of Civitas ( Morgan ) private property, greed , slavery and heavy labor ( as Engels teaches in _The Origin of the Family , Private Property and the State _ ) . Slavery is the origin of Hard work , work ethic. With so-called civilization, hard work ethic comes to dominate cultural ideas . So, hard labour is not our Stone Age, species-being , but civilization-being, which is a small fraction of the full time of our species history.



I think Engels anachronistically projects the determining role of labor on ideas ( the historical materialist principle ) back onto the Stone Age origins of language and culture . In fact the invention of language and culture revolutionized the bipedal primates’ struggle for existence by making it less of a struggle . Toilsome struggle was introduced with _slave_ labor in so-called civilization where historical materialist determination originates.



Nonetheless , Marx and Engels do propose transition from the Kingdom of Necessity to the Kingdom of Freedom . Freedom is Leisure and smart work through technology . Jobs lost to technological invention should be translated into more leisure time for the masses, a May Day demand.



[Marxism-Thaxis] The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man c b Thu, 27 May 2010 05:54:49 -0700 What about the transition in labor in the transition from ape to man ? This essay uses "labor" in the sense that it is something that apes do; it is their struggle for existence , for survival in the Darwinian sense . So, it is not the same "labor" ( or is it work ?) that produces capitalist surplus value in _Capital_I, but the “labor “ more general to all animals that Marx describes in Chapter so and so , where he says the difference between the labor of spiders and bees and that of man is imagining the project as a plan first ( this implies that spiders and bees labor).



"Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm



So, Marx’s implication ( contra Engels in “The Role of Labor “ ) is that in the transition from ape to man, labor transitioned in part by taking on more mental labor, imagination and planning , as a component. Imagination is a form of symbolic thinking . Symbolic thinking defines humans , differentiates humans from all other species despite the false and exaggerated claims for chimps and gorillas by some primatologists




[Marxism-Thaxis] The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man c b Thu, 27 May 2010 13:32:42 -0700 Engels: “But the decisive step had been taken, the hand had become free and could henceforth attain ever greater dexterity; the greater flexibility thus acquired was inherited and increased from generation to generation.”


^^^^^ CB: Ahhh but how ? How did the experience of repetition of use of _a_ hand by one individual get transferred to the brains of the next generation and the next , become the experience of _The_ hand ? If Patriarch/Matrirach uses his hands thousands of times his increasing dexterity is based on accumulated experience in that one individual's brain. The next generation's brains go back to "square one" at birth and childhood . The only way to accumulate the knowledge across generations is by mediating the learning experience with language, imagination, symbolic communication The only way to "stand on the shoulders of giants" is to receive messages from them through a system of symbols, words . ( as in those days there wasn't the technology to take enough pictures) "The" hand is not the hand of an individual, but The Hand, as a concept, an organ of the species.




( Symbolic signs - words being the best example - have an _arbitrary_ relation between the sign and the thing signified . They are using something to represent something that they are not.




In my class , I write my name on the board -Charles Brown . Then I point out that the marks on the board are not me; but they are used to represent me. So a name is using something to represent something it is not . There is an arbitrary relation between a name and the person named . “What’s in a name ? A rose by any other is just as sweet.




The opposite of a symbolic sign is an _indexical_ sign . There is a necessary ( not arbitrary ) relationship between the sign and the thing signified . A favorite example is smoke and fire . Smoke is an indexical sign of fire .



Only humans have symbolic signs . Humans and all other animals communicate or read indexical signs ; humans have both -despite the exaggerated claims for chimps and gorillas by some animals rights primatologists.



Symbolic and indexical signs are basic ideas of semiotics .( http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/)



The arbitrary relation between symbolic signs and thing signified gives humans a DISPLACEMENT capacity . Humans can communicate with each other about events that are not in their immediate sensory field , like things that happened a week ago , or things that are on the other side of town



See https://owlcation.com/stem/The-difference-between-animal-and-human-communication


I CLAIM TO HAVE DISCOVERED BY LOGICAL IMPLICATION THAT THE UNIQUE DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY OF HUMANS ALLOWS ACCUMULATION OF KNOWLEDGE OVER GENERATIONS BECAUSE A LIVING GENERATION CAN SHARE THE EXPERIENCE OF DEAD GENERATIONS , SHARE _DISPLACED_ EXPERIENCES . Therefore , it was the ability to experience the displaced experiences of dead generations, symbolic thinking , that allowed the first humans to make Stone tools ( reverse of Engels’ idea)



Again , Symbolic communication allows : Ancestor veneration


The difference between humans and all other species is that through symbolic communication , words and culture, dead generations have a certain immortality and are part of the society of living generations . Living generations share the experiences of dead generations . Thereby knowledge accumulates. All humans stand on the shoulders of giants , as the scientist Issac Newton put it concerning his scientific ancestors . @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/06/210602170624.htm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.335.4277&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Transforming Light into matter

http://asiatimes.com/2021/05/china-on-brink-of-laser-matter-breakthrough/ Nuclear weapons have already shown that it is possible to convert matter into large amounts of heat and light, but doing it the other way around, converting heat and light into matter, is much more difficult — but this is exactly what laboratories in China and the UK hope to achieve. If the intended objective is reached, it could open up a whole a new branch of physics, called nuclear photonics, full of technological potentialities still unimaginable. According to a report by Explica.co, The Station of Extreme Light, which China has been developing in Shanghai since 2018, has made significant progress in its goal of manufacturing lasers so powerful by 2023 that they could break through empty space and create matter. The Extreme Light Station (SEL) is a laser installation designed to produce a laser with 100 petawatts (PW) of maximum power (one petawatt equals one thousand trillion watts), a goal that is expected to be achieved within two years. Once completed, the laser will be the most powerful on Earth, with a power 10,000 times greater than that of all the electrical networks in the world combined and with an intensity 10 trillion times greater than that of sunlight, the report said. This technology is based on the fact that a vacuum is never really empty: it is like a pond filled with pairs of electrons and positrons (particles of matter and antimatter) that occasionally emerge to the surface (existence), although they annihilate each other as soon as they are formed. A laser could intervene in that process and separate the matter and antimatter particles before they collide, the report said. You can then get both of them to emit gamma rays and generate more electrons and positrons. That barrage of new particles and radiation could be detected when it acquires sufficient density. The laser would have thus succeeded in creating particles and antiparticles as if they had arisen out of nowhere: it would demonstrate that light can pull particles of matter and antimatter out of empty space, a phenomenon known as “breaking the vacuum.” According to The Guardian, the original idea was written down by two US physicists, Gregory Breit and John Wheeler, in 1934. They worked out that – very rarely – two particles of light, or photons, could combine to produce an electron and its antimatter equivalent, a positron. Electrons are particles of matter that form the outer shells of atoms in the everyday objects around us. But Breit and Wheeler had no expectations that their theory would be proved any time soon. In their study, the physicists noted that the process was so rare and hard to produce that it would be “hopeless to try to observe the pair formation in laboratory experiments.” If the operation is successful, it will directly create and measure the quantum properties of the vacuum, here on Earth. It will also show that matter and energy are interchangeable in any direction, as Einstein had put forward in his famous equation. Physicists at Imperial College London also claim to have cracked the problem using high-powered lasers and other equipment now available to scientists. “We have shown in principle how you can make matter from light,” said Steven Rose at Imperial. “If you do this experiment, you will be taking light and turning it into matter.” Writing in the journal Nature Photonics, the UK scientists describe how they could turn light into matter through a number of separate steps. The first step fires electrons at a slab of gold to produce a beam of high-energy photons. (continued )

Origin of Mother’s Day : Antiwar protest

https://fortune.com/2018/05/11/mothers-day-history/ BRIEFING MOTHER'S DAY The History of Mother’s Day: How an Antiwar Protest Became a Commercial Holiday And why the founder got arrested trying to protect it. BY GRACE DONNELLY AND ALEX SCIMECCA May 11, 2018 6:00 AM EDT Mother’s Day honors “the best mother who ever lived — your mother,” according to Anna Jarvis, who is widely credited with making the holiday an institution in the U.S. and across the globe. The idea dates back to the 1850s when women in West Virginia organized into Mother’s Day work clubs that worked to reduce infant mortality and improve sanitary conditions for mothers and families. During the Civil War, these groups also cared for wounded soldiers from both sides. http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-familial-not-commercial-origin-of.html The Familial and anti-War, not Commercial or Male Supremacist, Origins of Mother's Day Although Mother's Day has been criticized as a giant commercial for florists and greeting card companies, and as stereotyping or confining women to the role of mothers, it's origin and essence is politically progressive. Feminists who are men, especially, would best take the day to recognize that women do the predominance of , not only mothering children, but all forms of Caring Labor in our society, and around the World. It is women who possess and exercise the main REPRODUCTIVE LABOR POWER , in the larger sense of "reproductive". They reproduce people and personality, in pregnancy and birth , and everyday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Care_work http://www.shawnhaley.ca/soci110/pdf/CaringWork.pdf The role of Mother is assigned the greatest concentration of personal care work of all types, from childcare, to housework, cooking , nursing, school teaching, elder care , etc. All of these forms of work are personal services to many Individuals, children, husbands, relatives, friends, herself, in reproducing themselves and their personalities everyday and night. In "Why we should celebrate the real origins of Mother's Day", Samantha McGavin says: "... in the United States, where the origins of a national Mother's Day can be traced back to the activism of especially three women Ann Marie Reeves Jarvis, Julia Ward Howe and Jarvi's daughter Anna Jarvis. " "...The first, Ann Marie Reeves Jarvis, organized women in her area into Mothers' Day Work Clubs in 1858 to improve local health and sanitation conditions. During the American Civil War, they courageously nursed soldiers from both sides." "... Julia Ward Howe, a prominent anti-slavery activist and suffragist, was disgusted by the carnage of the Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War. Inspired by Mothers Friendship Day, Julia issued a "Mothers' Day Proclamation" in 1870, calling on women around the world to form a peace congress." Thus, not surprisingly, the original Mother's Day was a demand for Peace and against War. McGavin continues: "The third woman to play a role in the development of Mother's Day in North America was Jarvis's daughter Anna Jarvis, who, upon her mother's passing in 1905, vowed to realize her mother's dream of a day commemorating the "matchless service rendered to humanity" by mothers. She started a tradition in 1908 of an annual church service on the second Sunday in May, the anniversary of her mother's death, as a general memorial day for all mothers. Anna also began the tradition of wearing her mother's favourite flower, a carnation, as a simple and inexpensive symbol of love and respect for one's mother -- coloured if she were living, white if not." http://rabble.ca/news/2012/05/why-we-should-celebrate-real-origins-mothers-day#.UY-vxzqyd8Y.facebook Anna Jarvis, the daughter, had never married nor did she have any children. ." It was during one of her Sunday school lessons in 1876 that Anna Jarvis, the mother, allegedly found her inspiration for Mother’s Day, as Ann closed the lesson with a prayer, stating, I hope and pray that someone, sometime, will found a memorial mothers day commemorating her for the matchless service she renders to humanity in every field of life. She is entitled to it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Jarvis#Early_life_and_family_background "Although ...successful in founding Mother's Day , Anna Jarvis, the daughter, soon became resentful of the commercialization and angry that companies would profit from the holiday. By the early 1920's, Hallmark and other companies had started selling Mother's Day cards. Jarvis became so embittered by what she saw as misinterpretation and exploitation that she protested and even tried to rescind Mother's Day. The holiday she had worked so hard for was supposed to be about sentiment, not profit." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother%27s_Day#Founding_.28US.29 It is a truism that the role of mother is vital to any human society including ours. It is a most profound truism that paradoxically is trivialized perhaps reflecting children's inclination to take mothers and parents for granted. Everyone who was born should celebrate mothers, your own and others' mothers. (smiles) Egyptian Gods Isis and Horus Madonna and Child Old Mother Hubbard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2l6KB0VLX8 http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/antoinette-blackwell-quotes.html

Hartmann - Oligarchy ; Mussolini oligarchic Fascism

https://hartmannreport.com/p/life-will-dramatically-change-under?r=nl8r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3_7E9FGbgD45WkGeB-uWk8F_iqHHgw5OPQ-9kpCGIDSWQjXYn2H6u9n7I

Randy : “Is it any less of a fascist coup if it happens in slow motion? Asking for a friend.”

CB : “No It’s been going on for a while . I warned of fascist tendency in the Republican Party 15 years ago; there is no premature anti-fascism .

McConnell stealing the Supreme Court seat was a step . Then the vast , years long suppression of Democratic votes is exactly institution of oligarchy .

Republicans are Mussolini fascists , oligarchists

the fasces are the bundle of rods with SPQR ( Senatus Romanus Popilusque ) the coat of arms at head of Roman soldiers . Mussolini named the Fascist Party after them

Republicans subscribe to this oligarchic , anti-Democratic part of Mussolini fascism and other parts

“ After Socialism, Fascism ( US Republican Party - CB ) combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.... https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp?fbclid=IwAR0fGqzklsD129d5Oqbla9SyuL2KYFxhvNv_z3KTq2k28FXMmlLkJx7Qebc .

Identifying something with something it is not ; symbolic signs

“It was widely believed that, in order to get the first languages off the ground, our ancestors first needed a way to create novel signals that could be understood by others, relying on visual signs whose form directly resembled the intended meaning.” This quote is not exactly correct . Words or fully symbolic signs are using something to represent something they are _not_ - a so-called arbitrary relation between sign and thing represented .A picture of something is not fully symbolic, but iconic . The sign resembles what it represents with iconic signs ( though a picture is still not what it represents, its relation to what it represents is not arbitrary) . ( the third type of sign is indexical , like smoke and fire : the relation between sign and thing represented is necessary, not arbitrary) The first words were probably mothers naming children. Names are arbitrary. Not iconic like a picture of the named person . The key thing is developing fully symbolic signs with arbitrary relation between sign and thing signified. THIS ALLOWS DISPLACEMENT ( see attached article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(linguistics) ) . Only with displacement is there abstract communication, communication concerning experiences , perceptions, that are not in the communicators concrete current sensations. Displacement gives the capacity to communicate concerning the past and future , including communications from dead generations (!) . Why ? because the sign is _not_ what it represents, so it can go one even after the people whose actions it represents are dead or on the other side of the world . https://owlcation.com/stem/The-difference-between-animal-and-human-communication But at the same time, other animals also communicate: Your cat may let you know when its hungry, ants use pheromones and sound to indicate social status and distress, bees dance to tell one another where to find honey, and chimpanzees can learn sign language. So when we think of language as a way of setting ourselves apart, what is it about our language that is different than how other animals communicate? In the video below, Professor Marc van Oostendorp of the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics discusses three of the major differences between human and animal communication; this article will examine these differences and more. /// Duality of Patterning Distinctive sounds, called phonemes, are arbitrary and have no meaning. But humans can string these sounds in an infinite number of ways to create meaning via words and sentences. Other animals do not communicate by arranging arbitrary sounds, which limits the number of messages they can create. Creativity New words can be invented easily. Animals have to evolve in order for their signs to change. Displacement Humans can talk about remote, abstract, or imaginary things that aren't happening in their immediate environments. Animal communication is context driven—they react to stimuli, or indexes. Interchangeability Any gender of human can use the same languages. Certain animal communications in the animal world can only be used by one gender of that animal. Cultural Transmission Humans acquire language culturally—words must be learned. The way that animals communicate are biological, or inborn. Arbitrariness Human language is symbolic, using a set number of sounds (phonemes) and characters (alphabet), which allows ideas to be recorded and preserved. Animal communication is not symbolic, so it cannot preserve ideas of the past. Biology On a purely biological level, the human voice box and tongue are very unique, and are required to make the sounds we recognize as language. Other animals have different biological structures, which impact they way they make sounds. Ambiguity A word, or sign, can have several meanings. Every sign has only one meaning. Variety Human language can arrange words into an infinite number of ideas, sometimes referred to as discrete infinity. Animals only have a limited number of combinations they can use to communicate. The Main Differences: In Depth While many scholars may add to this list, this article will examine seven properties that are largely unique to human language: duality, creativity, displacement, interchangeability, cultural transmission, arbitrariness, and biology. Duality Duality of patterning: Distinctive sounds, called phonemes, are arbitrary and have no meaning. But humans can string these sounds in an infinite number of ways to create meaning via words and sentences. Duality of patterning: Distinctive sounds, called phonemes, are arbitrary and have no meaning. But humans can string these sounds in an infinite number of ways to create meaning via words and sentences. The primary difference is known as duality of patterning, or structure. Each human language has a fixed number of sound units called "phonemes." These phonemes are combined to make morphemes, the smallest unit of sound that contains meaning. Thus, language has got two levels of patterning that are not present in other animals' communication. Creativity Yet another distinctive feature is creativity. Human beings use their linguistic resources to produce new expressions and sentences. They arrange and rearrange phonemes, morphemes, words, and phrases in a way that can express an infinite number of ideas. This is also called the open-endedness of language. Animal communication is a closed system. It cannot produce new signals to communicate novel events or experiences. Displacement Displacement: Human language can talk about things that aren't happening here or now. Other animals react only to stimuli in the present. Displacement: Human language can talk about things that aren't happening here or now. Other animals react only to stimuli in the present. Human beings can talk of real or imaginary situations, places, or objects far removed from their present surroundings and time. Other animals, on the other hand, communicate in reaction to a stimulus in the immediate environment, such as food or danger. Because of this, human language is considered context-free, whereas animal communication is mostly context bound. Interchangeability Human language is interchangeable between sexes. But certain communications in animal world are performed only by one gender. For example, bee dancing is only performed by worker bees, which are female. Cultural Transmission Cultural Transmission: Human language is culturally transmitted, or taught. Other animals communicate largely with signs they are born knowing. Cultural Transmission: Human language is culturally transmitted, or taught. Other animals communicate largely with signs they are born knowing. Another important difference is that human language is culturally transmitted. Human beings brought up in different cultures acquire different languages. Man can also learn other languages via the influence of other cultures. Animals lack this capacity. Their communication ability is transmitted biologically, so they are unable to learn other languages. Arbitrariness Human language is a symbolic system. The signs, or words, in language have no inherent connection to what they signify, or mean (that's why one object can have so many names in different languages). These signs can also be written with the symbols, or alphabet, of that language. Both verbal and written language can be passed down to future generations. Animal communication is not symbolic, which means ideas cannot be preserved for the future. Biology Biological differences also play a vital role in communication. Human vocal cords can produce a large number of sounds. Each human language uses a number of those sounds. Animal and birds have entirely different biological structures, which impact the way they can form sounds. Does That Mean Animal Communication Never Displays These Properties? Wait: largely unique to human language? Does that mean that other animals can display these properties? It's a matter of debate. One of the most contested examples is Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee named after noted linguist Noam Chomsky, who was taught over 100 signs in sign language in the '70s. Turning hand gestures into meaning certainly displays arbitrariness. But Herbert Terrace, the psychology that led the study doubted that Nim had really learned a language. He noted that Nim very rarely signed spontaneously; instead, he would react to signs his teacher was making. The idea below shows other contested examples of when the line between human and animal communication becomes blurred. Bibliography 1 Kuriakose, K.P., An Introduction to Linguistics, 2002, Gayatrhri Publishers, 7-11 2 Hockett F Charles, A Course in Modern Linguistics, 1970, The Macmillan Company, 570-580 http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/05/culturally-inherited-adaptations-give.html Jacob Paul 1) Words are symbolic signs . Symbolic Signs are using something to represent something they are not; or identifying different things with each other . That’s a contradiction . Our language, our basic means of communication , is fundamentally contradictory , paradoxical. The technical terminology is that there is an arbitrary or artificial relationship between a symbolic sign and that which it signifies. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-arbitrariness-language-1689001 This is in contrast with an indexical sign in which there is a necessary or natural relationship between the sign and the thing signified. Smoke is an indexical sign of fire . ( See semiotics) I discovered that DISPLACEMENT IS POSSIBLE WITH SYMBOLIC SIGNS BECAUSE THE SYMBOLIC SIGN IS NOT WHAT IT REPRESENTS. 2) By human species’s unique communication form, individual brains can share the experiences of other brains, including brains that are dead . This is because words allow displacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(linguistics) . 3) Displacement allows dead generations to pass knowledge to future generations BECAUSE THE SYMBOLIC SIGN IS NOT WHAT IT REPRESENTS.

Republicans’ big lie on election

Trump is committing election fraud by saying the election was stolen ; it wasn’t ; that’s Trumpy fraud .And Trumpy tried to cheat by stopping mail-in voting . Trump is the one who committed fraud by damaging the POST OFFICES ; he explicitly said he was trying to block Democratic votes . https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus . EVEN Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to voter( see article . Why would this leading Republican , Liz Cheney insist on that her own Party is lying that it was stolen to the point that she is kicked out of leadership , why would she sacrifice her position if there was any evidence of fraud ??! https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/trump-faction-purges-cheney-big-lie-politics-ricochet-on-gop-establishment/ Trump is the one who committed fraud by damaging the POST OFFICES ; he explicitly said he was trying to block Democratic votes . https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus . EVEN Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to voters The Republican cheating claim is a big lie, Nazi-level demagogy and fraud Not even close . When Trumpy claimed after the election filing 40 lawsuits , he presented no evidence whatsoever ZERO , ZIP , NADA Also, it was Trumpy who tried to cheat by ordering wrecking of mailboxes. Republicans have been cheating since they stole the 2000 presidential. There’s a widespread saying that Republicans can only win by cheating , trying to block the number of people who vote , gerrymandering , etc. Republicans are lying at Nazi levels regularly On May 12, 2021, at 5:50 PM, Robert Gregory wrote:

Abolish the GOP before they kill us all -I

someone : "Well, of course ! What do you expect ??? When the Dems go right, the Republicans go further right. Hey, the Dems use to be the anti-war party. now, the Republicans are more anti-war. " ///////////// ////// /// CB : False half-lie ; Dems are going very left since Obama . Republican Prez ended Democrat Prez Peace treaty with Iran . Republican Bush started big wars Democrat Obama wound (?) them down got a big peace treaty You got it backwards: Dems started most of Cold Wars now Republicans start wars mostly since Reagan -Bush . ... Progressives attacking Democrats is fifth columb on the ultra-left aiding the fascist Republicans ; ultra-left demagogy , anti-working class , anti-99% . ////// ///// Campaign for Democratic votes everyday some kinda way; abolish the Republican Party before they kill us all Abolish the Republican Party as We know it. Catherine : "Charles Brown Abolish the Republican Party - PERIOD!!!!" CB : http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/08/abolish-economics-and-republican-party.html . Abolish the Republican Party as We know it by campaigning for Democratic votes . Only way to complete the job Republican division has started is to vote in Democrats in their place . I’ve been of the opinion since Trumpy won that if we defeated him , a large chunk of his fanatical followers would stop voting Republican. I think that’s going to happen now whether trump stays in the political arena or not. And a large chunk of Never Trumper Republicans will stop voting Republican. That’s likely to result in Democrats winning larger and new majorities at the state and federal level ; abolish the Republican Party as We know it. I don’t think any Republican can take Trumpy’s place with his fanatical followers. Abolish the Republican Party as We , the People , know it. Abolition is the American revolutionary method . Abolish the King, Abolish slavery, abolish male supremacy in voting. Abolish Jim Crow abolish the Republican Party Abolish the Grand Ole Party as We know it, as California has , at the ballot box . When Trump goes (BUT TRUMP HASNT GONE AND THE WHOLE GOP IS FASCIST-KKK BLOCKING VOTES !! EMERGENCY ! /// , We can abolish the Republican Party as We know it, because a large percentage of Republican voters will drop out of voting because they are Trump fanatics , so the Democrats will win large majorities in the House, Senate and state legislatures . Then We will be able to reverse Reaganism across the board and establish universal affordable healthcare ( as in Canada), decent minimum wage, rebuild labor union rights , voting rights, abortion rights, and a green economy , affordable student loans , public education etc. If We can defeat Trump, many of his fanatical followers will drop out of voting all together , and We will be able to wipe out the Republicans in subsequent elections at all levels of government . We'll have a Constitutional Convention after We abolish the Republican Party as We know it and go over the Supreme Court's head. That's how We, the People , will abolish the Republican majority in the Courts. Graham : "end of our party" Yes abolish the Republican Party as We know it. // "George Will performs an autopsy on Lindsey Graham." Text: "Back in the day, small rural airports had textile windsocks, simple and empty things that indicated which way the wind was blowing. The ubiquitous Sen. Lindsey O. Graham has become a political windsock, and as such, he — more than the sturdy, substantial elephant — is emblematic of his party today. When in 1994, Graham, a South Carolina Republican, first ran for Congress, he promised to be “one less vote for an agenda that makes you want to throw up.” A quarter-century later, Graham himself is a gastrointestinal challenge. In the past three years, he had a road-to-Damascus conversion. In 2015, he said Donald Trump was a “jackass.” In February 2016, he said: “I’m not going to try to get into the mind of Donald Trump, because I don’t think there’s a whole lot of space there. I think he’s a kook, I think he’s crazy, I think he’s unfit for office.” And: “I’m a Republican and he’s not. He’s not a conservative Republican. He’s an opportunist.” Today, Graham, paladin of conservatism and scourge of opportunism, says building the border wall is an existential matter for the GOP: “If we undercut the president, that’s the end of his presidency and the end of our party.” Well. Six years after its founding, the Republican Party produced the president who saved the nation. The party presided over the flow of population west of the Mississippi, into space hitherto designated on maps as the Great American Desert. (The Homestead Act of 1862 was enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress.) The Morrill Act of 1862 (Vermont Rep. Justin Morrill was a Republican) launched the land-grant college system that began the democratization of higher education and advanced the science-intensive agriculture that facilitated the urbanization that accelerated the nation’s rise to global preeminence. The party abetted and channeled the animal spirits that developed the industrial sinews with which 20th-century America defeated fascism and then communism. Now, however, Graham, whose mind might not have a whole lot of space for pertinent history, thinks this party’s identity and survival depend on servile obedience to this president’s myopia. During the government shutdown, Graham’s tergiversations — sorry, this is the precise word — have amazed. On a recent day, in 90 minutes he went from “I don’t know” whether the president has the power to declare an emergency and divert into wall-building funds appropriated by Congress for other purposes, to “Time for President . . . to use emergency powers to build Wall.” The next day, he scrambled up the escalation ladder by using capitalization: “Declare a national emergency NOW. Build a wall NOW.” Two days later, he scampered down a few rungs, calling for his hero to accept a short-term funding measure to open the government while wall negotiations continue. Stay tuned for more acrobatics. But stay focused on this: Anyone — in Graham-speak, ANYONE — who at any time favors declaring an emergency, or who does not denounce the mere suggestion thereof, thereby abandons constitutional government. Yes, such a declaration would be technically legal. Congress has put on every president’s desk this (to adopt Justice Robert Jackson’s language in his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 1944 Korematsu decision affirming the constitutionality of interning of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent) “loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.” Or an implausible one. However, an anti-constitutional principle would be affirmed. The principle: Any president can declare an emergency and “repurpose” funds whenever any of his policy preferences that he deems unusually important are actively denied or just ignored by the legislative branch. Why do they come to Congress, these people such as Graham? These people who, affirmatively or by their complicity of silence, trifle with our constitutional architecture, and exhort the president to eclipse the legislative branch, to which they have no loyalty comparable to their party allegiance? Seven times, Graham has taken the oath of congressional office, “solemnly” swearing to “support and defend the Constitution” and to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it, “without any mental reservation.” Graham, who is just 1 percent of one-half of one of the three branches of one of the nation’s many governments, is, however, significant as a symptom. When the Trump presidency is just a fragrant memory, the political landscape will still be cluttered with some of this president’s simple and empty epigones, the make-believe legislators who did not loudly and articulately recoil from the mere suggestion of using a declared emergency to set aside the separation of powers." "The fact is that the G.O.P., as currently constituted, is willing to do whatever it takes to seize and hold power. And as long as that remains true, and Republicans remain politically competitive, we will be one election away from losing democracy in America." CB: So, our goal must be to make the Republican Party not competitive, or as I've been saying abolish the Republican Party as We know it as California has. The G.O.P. Goes Full Authoritarian ~ Paul Krugman Only Trump’s flamboyant awfulness stands in the way of his party’s power grab. ...The Republic Party is composed of outright feudalists blended with devout fascists. Their goal is to put their "saintly" and moneyed boot on everyone's neck and for you to behave as they would have you behave (in abject obedience) or be forced to behave that way. Text: "Donald Trump, it turns out, may have been the best thing that could have happened to American democracy. No, I haven’t lost my mind. Individual-1 is clearly a wannabe dictator who has contempt for the rule of law, not to mention being corrupt and probably in the pocket of foreign powers. But he’s also lazy, undisciplined, self-absorbed and inept. And since the threat to democracy is much broader and deeper than one man, we’re actually fortunate that the forces menacing America have such a ludicrous person as their public face. Yet those forces may prevail all the same. If you want to understand what’s happening to our country, the book you really need to read is “How Democracies Die,” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. As the authors — professors of government at Harvard — point out, in recent decades a number of nominally democratic nations have become de facto authoritarian, one-party states. Yet none of them have had classic military coups, with tanks in the street. What we’ve seen instead are coups of a subtler form: takeovers or intimidation of the news media, rigged elections that disenfranchise opposing voters, new rules of the game that give the ruling party overwhelming control even if it loses the popular vote, corrupted courts. The classic example is Hungary, where Fidesz, the white nationalist governing party, has effectively taken over the bulk of the media; destroyed the independence of the judiciary; rigged voting to enfranchise supporters and disenfranchise opponents; gerrymandered electoral districts in its favor; and altered the rules so that a minority in the popular vote translates into a supermajority in the legislature. Does a lot of this sound familiar? It should. You see, Republicans have been adopting similar tactics — not at the federal level (yet), but in states they control. As Levitsky and Ziblatt say, the states, which Justice Louis Brandeis famously pronounced the laboratories of democracy, “are in danger of becoming laboratories of authoritarianism as those in power rewrite electoral rules, redraw constituencies and even rescind voting rights to ensure that they do not lose.” Thus, voter purges and deliberate restriction of minority access to the polls have become standard practice in much of America. Would Brian Kemp, the governor-elect of Georgia — who oversaw his own election as secretary of state — have won without these tactics? Almost certainly not. And the G.O.P. has engaged in extreme gerrymandering. Some people have been reassured by the fact that the Democratic landslide in the popular vote for the House did, in fact, translate into a comparable majority in seats held. But you get a lot less reassured if you look at what happened at the state level, where votes often weren’t reflected in terms of control of state legislatures. Let’s talk, in particular, about what’s happening in Wisconsin. There has been a fair amount of reporting on the power grab currently underway in Madison. Having lost every statewide office in Wisconsin last month, Republicans are using the lame-duck legislative session to drastically curtail these offices’ power, effectively keeping rule over the state in the hands of the G.O.P.-controlled Legislature. What has gotten less emphasis is the fact that G.O.P. legislative control is also undemocratic. Last month Democratic candidates received 54 percent of the votes in State Assembly elections — but they ended up with only 37 percent of the seats. In other words, Wisconsin is turning into Hungary on the Great Lakes, a state that may hold elections, but where elections don’t matter, because the ruling party retains control no matter what voters do. And here’s the thing: As far as I can tell, not a single prominent Republican in Washington has condemned the power grab in Wisconsin, the similar grab in Michigan, or even what looks like outright electoral fraud in North Carolina. Elected Republicans don’t just increasingly share the values of white nationalist parties like Fidesz or Poland’s Law and Justice; they also share those parties’ contempt for democracy. The G.O.P. is an authoritarian party in waiting. Which is why we should be grateful for Trump. If he weren’t so flamboyantly awful, Democrats might have won the House popular vote by only 4 or 5 points, not 8.6 points. And in that case, Republicans might have maintained control — and we’d be well along the path to permanent one-party rule. Instead, we’re heading for a period of divided government, in which the opposition party has both the power to block legislation and, perhaps even more important, the ability to conduct investigations backed by subpoena power into Trump administration malfeasance. But this may be no more than a respite. For whatever may happen to Donald Trump, his party has turned its back on democracy. And that should terrify you. The fact is that the G.O.P., as currently constituted, is willing to do whatever it takes to seize and hold power. And as long as that remains true, and Republicans remain politically competitive, we will be one election away from losing democracy in America." Cathy : "I'm opposed to the 2nd Amendment. We need to get rid of it, and the Republican Party. Guns are meant to kill, they serve no other purpose. Republicans are bad for our country. Trump's proof of that. There's not an intelligent one in our entire Congress! They're a bunch of greedy, assholes. They, and the 2nd Amendment have to go!" CB: Abolish the Republican Party as We know it. The important thing is to see Trump as part of the long term Republican disaster ( Nixonians, Reaganites ) and make Trump a reason to abolish the Republican Party as We know it. Trump is the symptom ; the Republican Party for 50 years is the epidemic. CB: Abolish the Republican Party as We know it ; follow the California example . 2012: "California here it comes: Perhaps the biggest surprise this year was the likely achievement of a two-thirds Democratic supermajority in both state legislative houses - a feat the party last achieved in 1883. While the state Senate's supermajority is assured, achieving it in the Assembly hinges on the outcome of two very tight races. A two-thirds majority would let Democrats raise revenues without votes of Republican legislators, all of whom have signed a no-new-taxes pledge. For years, lack of such a supermajority has allowed the Republican legislative minority to block any new revenues. "CB : Abolish the Republican Party as we know it. California has been a harbinger of the direction of the whole nation in politics in the last 40 -50 years. Steve : "Sorry to say, they're way too entrenched to be abolished." CB: They were entrenched in California, too. Nixon and Reagan came from California. They've been abolished as we knew them in California . If we had a series of landslides as with Franklin Roosevelt, you wouldn't recognize the Republican Party. On May 12, 2021, at 3:08 PM, Maure Briggs wrote:  Well, of course ! What do you expect ??? When the Dems go right, the Republicans go further right. Hey, the Dems use to be the anti-war party. now, the Republicans are more anti-war. Maure Briggs Maurejsa@aol.com www.facebook.com/maureen.cbriggsc www.flickr.com/photos/7279921@N03/page3/ www.pinterest.com/maureclaire/ https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/8476178?shelf=read -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brown To: a-list ; marxism-thaxis@lists.riseup.net Sent: Wed, May 12, 2021 12:15 pm Subject: [marxism-thaxis] Fwd: the far right has taken over the GOP -- we can't let them take over Congress Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: stop the QAnon caucus Date: May 11, 2021 at 8:00:35 PM EDT To: Charles Brown Subject: the far right has taken over the GOP -- we can't let them take over Congress Reply-To: democrats@hmpac.com  Charles, don't let far-right extremists take over Congress: Make a 3x MATCHED donation >>> House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has let far-right extremists run wild. The QAnon Caucus has already taken over the Republican party -- we can't let them take over Congress. But that's exactly what will happen if Democrats lose our EXTREMELY NARROW majority! We've been sounding the alarm about this threat to our democracy, which is why one of our top donors has agreed to TRIPLE MATCH all donations for a limited time. Rush a 3X-MATCHED gift right now > > 3X-MATCH: $5 >> 3X-MATCH: $35 >> 3X-MATCH: $50 >> 3X-MATCH: $100 >> 3X-MATCH: $250 >> Donate another amount >> Here's the problem: Kevin McCarthy and his extreme colleagues have already broken MULTIPLE FUNDRAISING RECORDS this year! There's nothing Kevin McCarthy wants more than to become Speaker McCarthy, and his wealthy mega-donors are lining up to help make it happen. Honestly, our current rate of donations is nowhere near what it needs to be to catch up to McCarthy's fundraising. But if [181] Democrats from Michigan chip in just $5 right now, we might be able to get back on track before the end of the month. Charles, if you want to make sure Kevin McCarthy and his QAnon Caucus NEVER get a hold of the Speaker's gavel, rush a 3X MATCHED contribution now >>> 3X-MATCH: $5 >> 3X-MATCH: $35 >> 3X-MATCH: $50 >> 3X-MATCH: $100 >> 3X-MATCH: $250 >> Donate another amount >> -- Democratic Majority: HMP This message was sent to: cb31450@gmail.com Click here to receive fewer emails. | Click here to unsubscribe. Consistent with federal law, House Majority PAC makes its federal contributions from one account (the “Contribution Account”) and engages in the rest of its political activity from the other account (the “Non-Contribution Account”). You may contribute up to $5,000 per calendar year to House Majority PAC’s Contribution Account. You may contribute an unlimited amount to House Majority PAC’s Non-Contribution Account. By donating through this email, you agree that the first $5,000 of your contribution will be deposited in House Majority PAC’s Contribution Account and the remainder in House Majority PAC’s Non-Contribution Account. You may also designate a different allocation formula below. You also agree that this allocation formula may change if following it would result in an excessive contribution to the Contribution Account. Corporations/Labor Organizations: You may contribute an unlimited amount to House Majority PAC’s Non-Contribution Account. You may not contribute to House Majority PAC’s Contribution Account. Contributions or gifts to House Majority PAC are not tax-deductible. Paid for by House Majority PAC, thehousemajoritypac.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Thank you for being a committed supporter of House Majority PAC. We’re working every day to protect our Democratic Majority. Because President Obama said it best: President Obama: You need to vote because our Democracy depends on it. Donate $5 to Protect Our House Majority >> President Obama is right, Charles. We can’t sit back and let Republicans ruin our democracy. That’s why we send you so many emails. We rely on grassroots supporters like you to fuel our efforts to take Republicans down. Our average online donation is $12.56. And we put every cent to good use to make sure our Democratic Majority has the resources they need to win. We know we send you a lot of emails, so if you’d like to receive fewer emails you can click here. If you’d like to unsubscribe from our emails altogether, you can click here. If you’d like to chip in and invest in our Democrats, you can click here. If you'd like to connect with us on Facebook, click here. If you'd like to follow us on Twitter, click here. From everyone here at team House Majority PAC, we’re so grateful for your support! Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.riseup.net To change your options or unsubscribe go to: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/marxism-thaxis

Facebook wisdom : the Real Right to Life

CB :The 4th of July We , American revolutionary patriots , hold these Truths to be self-evident All People have a right to Life, to make a living , continue living, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. From the Declaration of Independence the right to a living is an inalienable right for all Americans ( right to life does not mean anti/abortion in that text; it means right to a job) "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Wolves in sheep’s clothing: Republicans are gonna take Democrats right to life away Right now they’re spreading the virus . Poison breath suicide “bombers “ ; Republican mass murdering malfeasance According to the Declaration of Independence We’re all supposed to have the Right to Life We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Here Right to Life means right to make a living , a job , income for essentials of a decent Life. Here Right to Life means right to make a living , a job , income for essentials of a decent Life. Individual has a divine right to Life , right to Liberty, right to pursue Happiness- Jefferson Individual has a divine right to Life , right to Liberty, right to pursue Happiness. Life is right to Make a Living , Self-Preserve , a Job or Income. Adam : “You ever notice in “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that life comes before liberty and happiness? Think about those inalienable rights for a moment. Life must come first because without life the other two don’t mean shit. So to all the people protesting and filing lawsuits against state governments over covid restrictions/stay at home orders because they infringe on your “liberty”, you are forgetting the fact that these orders and mandates are instituted to preserve the most fundamental and inalienable right to life for every American. I would argue that sacrificing a little liberty and happiness to preserve life is completely constitutional and the sole reason why the founding fathers put life first. Without life, liberty and pursuing happiness do not matter. So please everyone, let’s continue to do our part by following the restrictions and orders to not only preserve our own lives but the lives of every other American. We will get past this. #covid19 #coronavirus” Joe : “I don’t want to be too hard on any group, but what kind of Mississippian would I be if I couldn’t throw folks into a group for baking into whatever I want? I’m always interested in the Cult of the Haters of the Mainstream Media. It’s one of those alarm flag rhetorics, always associated with other maladies. A MSM hater says a lot about themselves and very little about news. The news from any source might not be perfect, but it tends to be more perfect than whatever the Cult approves. There are some liberal MSM haters, and a lot of us who know nothing is perfect, but most MSM haters also hate liberals. Hating liberals is what hating the MSM is all about. I was around when it hatched back even before Reagan. Back then they called it “liberal bias” when anybody didn’t narrate news like they wanted. It always looked to me that the liberal bias translated to anything they didn’t understand on a few hot topics. It was most obvious as bitching out a choice about even discussing aspects of many issues. You could see them bristle when race issues were even mentioned. Race details were less than worth listening to, unless they agreed with them. When I first saw it, was in the old white racists in my parents family friends, as liberal bias haters . People that use the modern term would not like what I thought of the people who introduced it as a concept. MSM haters tend to be Hillary Haters, Nancy Haters, Liberal Haters, BLM Haters, Tea Partiers (or whatever they morphed into), and they think they know exactly what Antifa is, but don’t. They tend to be science deniers, they suspect college professors, and basically are legends in their own minds. And xenophobia is a favorite pastime, because who wouldn’t hate anybody different that you don’t know? And of course, they view themselves as authorities first and foremost. How could a country doofus with holes in his drawers or a smart well dressed one ready to go out on the town, NOT know more than professional journalists, and scientists, for that matter? Global Warming? Masks? Puleeze! And these people tend to be people of faith, and are just as accurate about their idea of God as they are anything else. For them being people of faith means having unwavering faith in whatever it is they already believe. For these folks, details are a nuisance. Conclusions first is the idea. Conversation with them goes from one conclusion to the next. The way the President says grand things about people, wild condemnations, super plans and how well he is doing tend to be accepted by the MSM hater without fact or question, and that is who he is talking to. Being this kind of hater is an expedient. It’s a bonding ritual in undereducated cultures that sees MSM haters bonding with each other over how much smarter they are than all those other fools. No facts required, just the right conclusions are needed to become brothers and sisters. No single entity has done more than Fox News, to solidify the MSM hater into a common feature of the South and West, and any place that considers itself rural or wishes it was. Just remember when you hear one, what to expect from them. Look at them as authoritarians driven to the point they don’t need facts, because usually, that’s what they are.” // “I abhor political violence. But I understand that it comes from a long term combination of injustice and inaction, usually. Politicians exist to help us avoid getting to that point. People die all the time from bad political choices in daily life. Covid will kill a hundred thousand more than we ever needed to happen in the pandemic. Lack of health care kills people daily even without Covid. The Second Amendment costs us many thousands. Sanctions against the people of, for instance, Iran, and Venezuela, kill people in other lands, as simple political decisions, here. We choose to hurt the people of a nation so badly, that we get political change, but we are going to have to hurt ordinary people first, to do it. The political people that find the political reasons to ignore things like Covid and health care actually are killing people to make their political decisions, and almost all of them know it full well. It’s what governing is about. Politicians put their own value, on others’ life. Compared to a rioter or a demonstrator, or a poor person that won’t act right for the cops, these politicians at their most extreme are the equivalent of mass killers. When they lie about it, is when it turns into more killing innocents, than governing. They leave a trail of sad people mourning their loved ones, and they want to be praised for their choices, with more power. Some of these politicians act like they will kill more people quicker, if they need to, to keep power. We are the closest I have ever seen, to having a President and a Party willing to do exactly that. Vote, and if you’re in a swing state, bring someone to the polls who would not be voting, otherwise.”