They could care less about kids. They just need a new moral issue to use after all the disgraces they have suffered. I am sure they latched on to childhood obesity before Foley, but now their efforts will only intensify. Why bother with introspection or a little humility when they can step right back up on the pulpit with a safer issue? Same dynamics, they preach, judge, moralize and gain the upper hand through guilt. They are exploiting obesity the same way Joe McCarthy exploited communism. Funny, Disney was in on that too. The bright side for me as a sociologist interested in deviance scares created by social breakdown, I couldn't ask for any more text book examples than these folks. They are practically archetypical! (And don't expect any real change in the industry's marketing efforts any more than you should expect those in power to stop molesting children! The point is to turn your disfunction into an advantage for as long as you can get away with the charade!)
"Fat can be beautiful. Intolerance is ALWAYS UGLY!!!"
I heard somewhere that bottled water often has traces of unhealthy pollutants and therefore can be worse than tap water.
As with anything taken internally, this would be particularly true as an accumulation over time, for instance if bottled water (or perhaps particularly only one certain type of it) was all one ever drank. This would create an overload of the certain pollutant in one's body.
Also it is interesting how industry will theorize that only large amounts of pollutants can be harmful to the human body, when much evidence points otherwise --- that minute trace amounts have great detrimental effect on human health.
Anyway lately it is occurring to me how very "sociopathic" (of a sort) p.r. has become, and this seems to have become trend setter, or precedent setter for the rest of society, particularly younger people, to be sociopathic, or to think that bullying or sociopathy is cool or desirable, or even a virtue.
The Amish schoolhouse slayings would be an extreme example, and I do not unequivically know that p.r. agencies or their Tom-foolery can be traced to the recent slayings at the Amish school house. Or anyhow that is not what I mean to imply, necessarily.
BUT THE ATTITUDE OF PICKING OUT TOTALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS, or "by-stander" type people to serve as "enemies" or symbols of "the enemy" is very similar.
Often it is puzzling how the "fully matured" (so to speak, and there must be a better term) p.r., or fully jaded p.r., picks out totally innocent people as "enemies": people who simply are not in lock-step with their own agenda/s.
It does make me wonder, when I observe this sociopathic attitude of the school house murderer --- totally illogical: picking out CHILDREN (under age 20) to bear the brunt of something someone did to him twenty years ago. The children could have had nothing to do with this. This attitude is totally sociopathic. His actions seem to justify whatever was done to himself.
As a human, I can very much understand the "eye for an eye" type of vengeance. But the sociopathic attitude (perhaps like its opposite, love) is totally illogical. The guy (murderer) is doing essentially just exactly what was done to him --- victimizing the innocent, as he presumably was, once upon a time --- and in doing so, does he not essentially justify his own victimization?
Sometimes these sorts of murders or suicides are committed because of an attitude that the death preserves the innocence of a child, whereas life only continues to corrupt a person further. (I understand that this was Andrea Yates' delusion.) But this attitude is also of a very narrow perspective because it does not take into account the families and all other life that is affected by the senseless death, that is beyond being a freak accident, or caused by negligence even, but was deliberate.
Okay the sociopathic attitude is to victimize the innocent, thereby continuing the ripple effect of evil and trajedy, and knowing that the harm done was deliberate, all at the same time. All at the same time, the mourners must grapple with these known facts. A freak acccident is much easier to grapple with than either deliberate sociopathy or negligence. (Incidentally, the word "sociopathy" might just be a euphemism --- I wonder how that word originated.)
Okay in the world there are ripple effects of both evil (or bad will), and also ripple effects of good will.
Perhaps next time there is some kind of senseless death, or any kind of senseless evil (perhaps even only that one individual secretly knows about), instead of continuing the evil ripple effect by doing yet another sociopathic act, people can choose to decide to do something spreading good will in the name of the victim instead, like just some small secret thing, creating a good ripple effect in the world. (Incidentally, the ripple effect analogy is something I first read about in Betty Eadie's first book, of which I now forget the name.)
Then again, p.r. agencies will of course be "chomping at the bit" to be the benefactors of this good will.
Anyway in the midst of all said here, the main comment is that the attitude of sociopathy is too eerily similar --- picking out innocent people to serve as victims. The p.r. agencies do it simply when someone is not in lock-step with their particular agenda. The sociopath at the school house did it for whatever reasons justified it in his small universe of a world known as him.
It alarms me that maybe the trend or precedent setter for his illogical stance could have been the "Almighty" and prevalent illogic of p.r. agencies that abounds in our world today, which also picks out the totally innocent as victims, for only slightly more "logical" (albeit lewd and narcissistic) reasonings.
I've just started reading it so maybe I'm "jumping the gun" to post a comment. But I can't get "Source Watch" to come up right now, and this does fit in here in a way, being that commercialism is a major root of these sorts of social problems today.
Though we might never guess that(commercialism being a root problem), being that spin is so effective. (For instance an ad might state "trade your dentures for teeth" to keep up the positive attitude --- when actually dentures usually mean trading teeth for dentures. Also skimmed over are any other kinds of drawbacks that might accompany the different forms of false teeth, which maybe are better than no teeth. But why is their no focus on how to protect and maintain teeth in the first place, such as avoiding too much sugar?)
Anyway the "trendy" filthy attitudes out and about (PROMOTING EXTREME-ISM in thinking, instead of moderation) are amazing --- so commercialistic and they all stink.
For instance I saw a youth recently with a tee-shirt that said something like 'Winners always give their all' --- I might be paraphrasing as I don't recall the words exactly, but that was the definite jist.
(Okay now to the original point of this post):
And it reminded me of the EXTREME-ISM that is being promoted in our society.
Okay it is true that quite often to "win" in life, one must "give their all."
But this is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, and sometimes this just means things like burn-out, or sacrificing or sabataging one area of life for another (eg. thinking) --- or for instance raising the kids properly, or leaving them to the dog for a babysitter, etc., or any other thing like that --- where one area of life must be sacrificed or sabataged for the another.
This sort of "thinking" (that extreme-ism" is always the pat answer) does not address the issue of developing life priorities, and young people often have not developed much of any life priorities. It is as if a young inexperienced person can or should "have it all" --- and it is ridiculous to assume this. (Incidentally, young naive inexperienced people being put in big positions of authority was also a characteristic of The Third Reich in Nazi Germany.) Gullible people are easier to fool, and therefore have certain convenience to certain people.
Life around us seems to be full of young (or youngish) people who have not lived long enough to catch on to the fact that they cannot superimpose the ideals of how they have grown up to think things are supposed to be (or should be) onto actual life. (Dreams are nice, but often they can be quite skewed, or incomplete.)
For instance some of them (the young) think that if they are "good" or are of a certain political party, they therefore deserve to be "rich." (They are too young to even be able to define "rich" really.) Then they find hard workers who have actually worked hard and attained a little bit of "wealth" (even if not much), and while they want to stand on their shoulders, they do not appreciate them.
Instead they want to do a sort of "wealth" act (to others and for show), and superimpose their ideal that they learned somewhere in life, that God himself has "blessed" them, or that they are "wealthy" because of their attitude or political stance, etc. (This has nothing to do with whether a theif comes in to plunder spoils, etc. There is, unfortunately, such a thing as thievery in life.)
Okay I am getting off the subject again because what I started to say was that it is pathetic yet interesting to observe how youths are being used to bandy about commercialistic propaganda on things like tee-shirts, that imply that to "win" in life, one must be some kind of total unrelenting extreme-ist (give their "all,") instead of learn anything about personal autonomy or BALANCE (eg. a toddler learning to walk must also learn balance). It is like one does not have to think, but rather slavishly give their all (as the tee-shirt implied). Well someone is making a lot of money for society forfeiting their abilities and time to think for themselves, and defaulting to commercialistic tee-shirt "wisdom" instead.
Okay I wish I had time to write the above up better, but sorry I don't. The jist is just that this commercialist extreme-ist, "fast food" (if you will) tee-shirt wisdom (which is apparently all we have time for) is obnoxious and pathetic. Extreme-ism is not always the total be-all, end-all answer, and if we actually assume so, this is only to our own peril.
This might seem like it has nothing to do with the above book, but actually non-thinking extreme-ism, or letting others do one's own thinking, is what puts many of these crack-pot "puppets" into office, who end up effectively leading the rest of us around like so many dogs on a leash.
Of course there are two issues, however: one is "thinking" for one's own self, and the other is a general knowledge of the facts. And since compared to the earth, the perspective of one individual human is only something like a virus, it is not easy to always have a grasp of all the relevant facts. So we just let them be spoon-fed to us.
Okay I've gotta go -- have many other things to do today.
P.S. I do not mean to totally disparage the young. Their fresh ideas are often very helpful and often they are not jaded, etc. They have good and valuable characteristics. But neither should they be made kings, and the idea that they know it all is ludicrous.
They're all the same underneath --- whether they call themselves a "think tank" or a "lobby group." Their label is just their exterior.
Which reminds me of front groups, which they almost are too. Just earlier today, some satire on front groups came to me:
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ---- haw! I got me a front group! And ye'd never guess what one!!!! The STATE BOARD of COFFEE POT SANITATION!!!!!!!
I mean, that's almost as good as guisin' around as the freshmen girls Bible study teacher!!!!
There's no tellin' how many coffee pots I'll sell, what with the new germ-free regulatin' that's comin' around the corner. I'm gonna get that competition but bad!
Those secretaries are gonna have ta spend a half hour every morning just cleaning all the germs outa the competition's coffee pots, what with this new disease scare we got cooked up. . . . .
What better front group could their possibly be, than THE STATE BOARD (and like all with hints of public health and all).
I know of a woman who thinks she is psyhic, and actually she probably is somewhat psychic. But because she had a psychic incident once long ago in her life (where she somehow picked up on an either murder or suicide that happened in a house she passed --- I forget the exact details), she now apparently assumes she knows about all situations where there has been a murder. So once she swore up and down to me that she was sure the mother killed the daughter in this Jon Benet case.
Okay I think the mother was somewhat naive and had flimsy priorities, to put a small child into those contests, dressed up like an adult. And small children simply trying to grow up are not meant to be in those sorts of vicious competitions, also, in my opinion. Yeah it could be nice to have nothing else to do but focus on one's appearance. What a life. Maybe it would seem to be "over" though when the first wrinkle appeared, if one had their every priority and focus on appearances.
ANYWAY BACK TO THE SUBJECT: it is nice to be psychic and/or intuitive and lots of people (if not everyone) are somewhat that way, or at least I think they are --- to some degree, anyway.
But there is a danger also if someone who is inclined to be psychic or intuitive starts confusing their own thoughts or presumed intuitions, like because they ONCE (upon a time) got it right or were "on target," like thinking they are now instant, total absolute judges of every situation they ever hear about, such as the case of this woman being so sure the mother was guilty in the Jon Benet case.
I really do not believe the mother did this to her daughter. Some pervert snuck into the house and did it. If the mother had anything to do with it, it would have to have been because of something like she was withdrawing from one of those anti-depressant type drugs, or was otherwise going through a fit of insanity and didn't even know what she was doing. (IF she somehow did it or had anything to do with it, she certainly did not INTEND to, and if I remember correctly there has to be INTENT -- like not accidents and such --- to prove murder. So why then was this "psychic" so disparaging towards a mother who only would have had anything to do with the crime if she was insane? To me, that does not add up. I am more inclined to believe that this "psychic" had a personal agenda against women who put their small daughters through the superficial world of beauty pageants. And this was maybe a valid point. But it did not constitute murder, and in no way indicated motive for murder.
That mother was guilty of nothing except not raising her child exactly like most of us would. She was a believer in beauty pageants, in my opinion, to a fault --- to the extreme of subjecting a small child to that superficial world --- as if it was the only world out there to discover and live or focus on.
Anyway I apologize if I am harping too much on this whole subject, but I truly am bothered --- not ONLY at the idea of a murder of a little girl --- but also by the way I heard this presumed "psychic" lash out accusing the mother of being guilty of this crime, and it makes me think that even if a person really has a few psychic incidences in their lives, they should not presume they are therefore some kind of all-knowing God on every situation they ever happen to hear about in life. This sort of attitude genuinely bothers me --- that because someone had a psychic incident once upon a time in their lives, they now are using the egotistical "high" from having been once right or on target --- as a stage or arena to work out their own unresolved dramas about how they think world "should" be (eg. imperfect mothers must murder their children as well, etc.) --- it is quite narcissistic to presume upon oneself that sort of deity.
They could care less about kids. They just need a new moral issue to use after all the disgraces they have suffered. I am sure they latched on to childhood obesity before Foley, but now their efforts will only intensify. Why bother with introspection or a little humility when they can step right back up on the pulpit with a safer issue? Same dynamics, they preach, judge, moralize and gain the upper hand through guilt. They are exploiting obesity the same way Joe McCarthy exploited communism. Funny, Disney was in on that too. The bright side for me as a sociologist interested in deviance scares created by social breakdown, I couldn't ask for any more text book examples than these folks. They are practically archetypical! (And don't expect any real change in the industry's marketing efforts any more than you should expect those in power to stop molesting children! The point is to turn your disfunction into an advantage for as long as you can get away with the charade!)
"Fat can be beautiful. Intolerance is ALWAYS UGLY!!!"
I heard somewhere that bottled water often has traces of unhealthy pollutants and therefore can be worse than tap water.
As with anything taken internally, this would be particularly true as an accumulation over time, for instance if bottled water (or perhaps particularly only one certain type of it) was all one ever drank. This would create an overload of the certain pollutant in one's body.
Also it is interesting how industry will theorize that only large amounts of pollutants can be harmful to the human body, when much evidence points otherwise --- that minute trace amounts have great detrimental effect on human health.
Anyway lately it is occurring to me how very "sociopathic" (of a sort) p.r. has become, and this seems to have become trend setter, or precedent setter for the rest of society, particularly younger people, to be sociopathic, or to think that bullying or sociopathy is cool or desirable, or even a virtue.
The Amish schoolhouse slayings would be an extreme example, and I do not unequivically know that p.r. agencies or their Tom-foolery can be traced to the recent slayings at the Amish school house. Or anyhow that is not what I mean to imply, necessarily.
BUT THE ATTITUDE OF PICKING OUT TOTALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS, or "by-stander" type people to serve as "enemies" or symbols of "the enemy" is very similar.
Often it is puzzling how the "fully matured" (so to speak, and there must be a better term) p.r., or fully jaded p.r., picks out totally innocent people as "enemies": people who simply are not in lock-step with their own agenda/s.
It does make me wonder, when I observe this sociopathic attitude of the school house murderer --- totally illogical: picking out CHILDREN (under age 20) to bear the brunt of something someone did to him twenty years ago. The children could have had nothing to do with this. This attitude is totally sociopathic. His actions seem to justify whatever was done to himself.
As a human, I can very much understand the "eye for an eye" type of vengeance. But the sociopathic attitude (perhaps like its opposite, love) is totally illogical. The guy (murderer) is doing essentially just exactly what was done to him --- victimizing the innocent, as he presumably was, once upon a time --- and in doing so, does he not essentially justify his own victimization?
Sometimes these sorts of murders or suicides are committed because of an attitude that the death preserves the innocence of a child, whereas life only continues to corrupt a person further. (I understand that this was Andrea Yates' delusion.) But this attitude is also of a very narrow perspective because it does not take into account the families and all other life that is affected by the senseless death, that is beyond being a freak accident, or caused by negligence even, but was deliberate.
Okay the sociopathic attitude is to victimize the innocent, thereby continuing the ripple effect of evil and trajedy, and knowing that the harm done was deliberate, all at the same time. All at the same time, the mourners must grapple with these known facts. A freak acccident is much easier to grapple with than either deliberate sociopathy or negligence. (Incidentally, the word "sociopathy" might just be a euphemism --- I wonder how that word originated.)
Okay in the world there are ripple effects of both evil (or bad will), and also ripple effects of good will.
Perhaps next time there is some kind of senseless death, or any kind of senseless evil (perhaps even only that one individual secretly knows about), instead of continuing the evil ripple effect by doing yet another sociopathic act, people can choose to decide to do something spreading good will in the name of the victim instead, like just some small secret thing, creating a good ripple effect in the world. (Incidentally, the ripple effect analogy is something I first read about in Betty Eadie's first book, of which I now forget the name.)
Then again, p.r. agencies will of course be "chomping at the bit" to be the benefactors of this good will.
Anyway in the midst of all said here, the main comment is that the attitude of sociopathy is too eerily similar --- picking out innocent people to serve as victims. The p.r. agencies do it simply when someone is not in lock-step with their particular agenda. The sociopath at the school house did it for whatever reasons justified it in his small universe of a world known as him.
It alarms me that maybe the trend or precedent setter for his illogical stance could have been the "Almighty" and prevalent illogic of p.r. agencies that abounds in our world today, which also picks out the totally innocent as victims, for only slightly more "logical" (albeit lewd and narcissistic) reasonings.
I've just started reading it so maybe I'm "jumping the gun" to post a comment. But I can't get "Source Watch" to come up right now, and this does fit in here in a way, being that commercialism is a major root of these sorts of social problems today.
Though we might never guess that(commercialism being a root problem), being that spin is so effective. (For instance an ad might state "trade your dentures for teeth" to keep up the positive attitude --- when actually dentures usually mean trading teeth for dentures. Also skimmed over are any other kinds of drawbacks that might accompany the different forms of false teeth, which maybe are better than no teeth. But why is their no focus on how to protect and maintain teeth in the first place, such as avoiding too much sugar?)
Anyway the "trendy" filthy attitudes out and about (PROMOTING EXTREME-ISM in thinking, instead of moderation) are amazing --- so commercialistic and they all stink.
For instance I saw a youth recently with a tee-shirt that said something like 'Winners always give their all' --- I might be paraphrasing as I don't recall the words exactly, but that was the definite jist.
(Okay now to the original point of this post):
And it reminded me of the EXTREME-ISM that is being promoted in our society.
Okay it is true that quite often to "win" in life, one must "give their all."
But this is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, and sometimes this just means things like burn-out, or sacrificing or sabataging one area of life for another (eg. thinking) --- or for instance raising the kids properly, or leaving them to the dog for a babysitter, etc., or any other thing like that --- where one area of life must be sacrificed or sabataged for the another.
This sort of "thinking" (that extreme-ism" is always the pat answer) does not address the issue of developing life priorities, and young people often have not developed much of any life priorities. It is as if a young inexperienced person can or should "have it all" --- and it is ridiculous to assume this. (Incidentally, young naive inexperienced people being put in big positions of authority was also a characteristic of The Third Reich in Nazi Germany.) Gullible people are easier to fool, and therefore have certain convenience to certain people.
Life around us seems to be full of young (or youngish) people who have not lived long enough to catch on to the fact that they cannot superimpose the ideals of how they have grown up to think things are supposed to be (or should be) onto actual life. (Dreams are nice, but often they can be quite skewed, or incomplete.)
For instance some of them (the young) think that if they are "good" or are of a certain political party, they therefore deserve to be "rich." (They are too young to even be able to define "rich" really.) Then they find hard workers who have actually worked hard and attained a little bit of "wealth" (even if not much), and while they want to stand on their shoulders, they do not appreciate them.
Instead they want to do a sort of "wealth" act (to others and for show), and superimpose their ideal that they learned somewhere in life, that God himself has "blessed" them, or that they are "wealthy" because of their attitude or political stance, etc. (This has nothing to do with whether a theif comes in to plunder spoils, etc. There is, unfortunately, such a thing as thievery in life.)
Okay I am getting off the subject again because what I started to say was that it is pathetic yet interesting to observe how youths are being used to bandy about commercialistic propaganda on things like tee-shirts, that imply that to "win" in life, one must be some kind of total unrelenting extreme-ist (give their "all,") instead of learn anything about personal autonomy or BALANCE (eg. a toddler learning to walk must also learn balance). It is like one does not have to think, but rather slavishly give their all (as the tee-shirt implied). Well someone is making a lot of money for society forfeiting their abilities and time to think for themselves, and defaulting to commercialistic tee-shirt "wisdom" instead.
Okay I wish I had time to write the above up better, but sorry I don't. The jist is just that this commercialist extreme-ist, "fast food" (if you will) tee-shirt wisdom (which is apparently all we have time for) is obnoxious and pathetic. Extreme-ism is not always the total be-all, end-all answer, and if we actually assume so, this is only to our own peril.
This might seem like it has nothing to do with the above book, but actually non-thinking extreme-ism, or letting others do one's own thinking, is what puts many of these crack-pot "puppets" into office, who end up effectively leading the rest of us around like so many dogs on a leash.
Of course there are two issues, however: one is "thinking" for one's own self, and the other is a general knowledge of the facts. And since compared to the earth, the perspective of one individual human is only something like a virus, it is not easy to always have a grasp of all the relevant facts. So we just let them be spoon-fed to us.
Okay I've gotta go -- have many other things to do today.
P.S. I do not mean to totally disparage the young. Their fresh ideas are often very helpful and often they are not jaded, etc. They have good and valuable characteristics. But neither should they be made kings, and the idea that they know it all is ludicrous.
They're all the same underneath --- whether they call themselves a "think tank" or a "lobby group." Their label is just their exterior.
Which reminds me of front groups, which they almost are too. Just earlier today, some satire on front groups came to me:
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ---- haw! I got me a front group! And ye'd never guess what one!!!! The STATE BOARD of COFFEE POT SANITATION!!!!!!!
I mean, that's almost as good as guisin' around as the freshmen girls Bible study teacher!!!!
There's no tellin' how many coffee pots I'll sell, what with the new germ-free regulatin' that's comin' around the corner. I'm gonna get that competition but bad!
Those secretaries are gonna have ta spend a half hour every morning just cleaning all the germs outa the competition's coffee pots, what with this new disease scare we got cooked up. . . . .
What better front group could their possibly be, than THE STATE BOARD (and like all with hints of public health and all).
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-haw!
Pages