Our Government... Teaches The Whole People By Its Example. If The Government Becomes The Lawbreaker,

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

Louis D. Brandeis

As long as injustice exists, resistance is the duty of every humanistically socialized person, because it is the only way to ensure that history changes for the better.

mod

The ensemble of musical instruments that collectively constitute jazz are capable of influencing one another to achieve a collective peak performance.

mod

The mutual play of rocking upwards is as impressively beautiful as it is confusing.

The allusions to jazz in The Simpsons are a source of great enjoyment.

mod

John Coltrane Quartet - Naima / Live In Comblain-La-Tour 1965

Personnel:

John Coltrane - tenor saxophone

McCoy Tyner - piano

Jimmy Garrison - double bass

Elvin Jones - drums

Nobody is illegal in stolen land.

The last of the Muhhekunneuw ... more or less

Tribal name

Since they originally established their settlements along the Hudson River (Mahicannituck - ‘waters that are never still’, ‘water that is always flowing’), they referred to themselves in their language simply as Muhhekunneuw or Muh-he-con-ne-ok (‘the people of the waters that are never still’, ‘the people of the water that is always flowing’). Therefore, the Dutch and English referred to them as River Indians along with the tribes living along the Hudson, such as the Munsee (Northern Delaware) or Wappinger (Wappani). The Dutch distorted the name of the Wolf Clan (‘Manhigan’) into Mahigan, Mahikander, Mahinganak, Maikan or Mawhickon. The English simplified the word to Mahican or Mohican. The French referred to them as Loups (‘wolves’).

Demography

All Algonquin tribes living between the Hudson River and Connecticut River were generally referred to as Mahican and were estimated to have numbered around 35,000 people by 1600. The Albany tribes, known as the Mahican Confederacy, had a population of around 8,000. By 1672, the number had been decimated to around 1,000. At the low point in 1796, there were only 300 Stockbridge (The Last of the Mohicans) living with their former Iroquois enemies, the Oneida, in Brotherton, New York. Including the Mahican living with the Wyandot and Lenni Lenape in Ohio, their total number at that time was about 600 people. Today, 1,500 Stockbridge (recognised by the state) live on or near their reservation west of Green Bay, and an estimated 1,700 Brotherton Indians (Mahican) (not recognised by the state) live on the eastern shore of Lake Winnebago.

Wikipedia more or less

It is perhaps worth noting that every white American citizen currently alive can trace their lineage solely to immigrants.

mod

It's ironic that a nation full of emigrants and immigrants doesn't want emigrants and immigrants.

The Truth About Immigrants and the Economy

Immigrants are good for the economy and our society! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

For centuries, immigration has been America’s secret sauce for economic growth and prosperity.

But for just as long, immigrants have been an easy scapegoat.

One of the oldest, ugliest lies is to falsely smear immigrants as criminals.

It’s just not true. Crime is way down in America. Anyone who says otherwise is fearmongering.

And whatever crime there is is not being driven by immigration. Immigrants, regardless of citizenship status, are 60% less likely to be incarcerated for committing crimes than U.S.-born citizens.

Maybe that’s why border cities are among America’s safest.

Immigration opponents also claim immigrants are a drag on the economy and a drain on government resources.

Rubbish!

Quite the opposite, the major reason immigrants are coming to America is to build a better life for themselves and their families, contributing to the American economy.

The long-term economic benefits of immigration outweigh any short-term costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that adding more immigrants as workers and consumers — including undocumented immigrants — will grow America’s economy by about $7 trillion over the next decade. And those immigrants would increase tax revenue by about $1 trillion, shrinking the deficit and helping pay for programs we all benefit from.

Immigrants of all statuses pay more in taxes than they get in government benefits. Research by the libertarian Cato Institute found first-generation immigrants pay $1.38 in taxes for every $1 they receive in benefits,

This is especially true for undocumented immigrants, who pay billions in taxes each year, but are excluded from almost all federal benefits. After all, you need documentation to receive federal benefits. Guess what undocumented immigrants don’t have. Hello?

And of course, one of the most common anti-immigrant claims also isn’t true.

No. Immigrants are not taking away jobs that Americans want. Undocumented immigrants in particular are doing some of the most dangerous, difficult, low-paying, and essential jobs in the country.

Despite what certain pundits might tell you, immigration has not stopped the U.S. from enjoying record-low unemployment.

And as the Baby Boom generation moves into retirement, young immigrants will help support Social Security by providing a thriving base of younger workers who are paying into the system. The fact that so many immigrants want to come here gives America an advantage over other countries with aging populations, like Germany and Japan.  

What’s more, immigrants are particularly ambitious and hardworking. They are 80% more likely to start a new business than U.S. born citizens. Immigrant-founded businesses also impressively comprise 103 companies in last year’s Fortune 500.

And immigrants continue to add immeasurably to the richness of American culture. We should be celebrating them, not denigrating them.

It’s time to speak the facts and the truth. We need immigrants to keep our economy — and our country — vibrant and growing. They are not “poisoning the blood” of our nation. They’re renewing and restoring it.

The humanities teach us the value, even for business, of criticism and dissent. When there's a culture of going along to get along, where whistleblowers are discouraged, bad things happen and businesses implode.

Martha C. Nussbaum

Chelsea Manning, who's now set to be free May 17th [2017], after Obama shortened her sentence from 35 years to seven. According to her attorneys, she is already the longest-held whistleblower in U.S. history.

Amy Goodman

States and organizations that want to deny, hunt down, criminalize and lock away any corrective action have ultimately thrown their moral compass overboard in order to hide their ethical and moral depravity. This only goes to show that the so-called responsible parties really don't want to take responsibility.

A state or organization that creates special rights denies the principle of equality of a humanistic legal system and can therefore be considered criminal.

mod

Those who adhere to ethical and moral principles serve as beacons that bring the shadows of the world to light for us.

mod

NEW YORK (AP) — Peter Buxtun, the whistleblower who revealed that the U.S. government allowed hundreds of Black men in rural Alabama to go untreated for syphilis in what became known as the Tuskegee study, has died. He was 86.

Buxtun died May 18 of Alzheimer’s disease in Rocklin, California, according to his attorney, Minna Fernan.

Buxtun is revered as a hero to public health scholars and ethicists for his role in bringing to light the most notorious medical research scandal in U.S. history. Documents that Buxtun provided to The Associated Press, and its subsequent investigation and reporting, led to a public outcry that ended the study in 1972.

Forty years earlier, in 1932, federal scientists began studying 400 Black men in Tuskegee, Alabama, who were infected with syphilis. When antibiotics became available in the 1940s that could treat the disease, federal health officials ordered that the drugs be withheld. The study became an observation of how the disease ravaged the body over time.

In the mid-1960s, Buxtun was a federal public health employee working in San Francisco when he overheard a co-worker talking about the study. The research wasn’t exactly a secret — about a dozen medical journal articles about it had been published in the previous 20 years. But hardly anyone had raised any concerns about how the experiment was being conducted.

“This study was completely accepted by the American medical community,” said Ted Pestorius of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, speaking at a 2022 program marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the study.

Buxtun had a different reaction. After learning more about the study, he raised ethical concerns in a 1966 letter to officials at the CDC. In 1967, he was summoned to a meeting in Atlanta, where he was chewed out by agency officials for what they deemed to be impertinence. Repeatedly, agency leaders rejected his complaints and his call for the men in Tuskegee to be treated.

He left the U.S. Public Health Service and attended law school, but the study ate at him. In 1972, he provided documents about the research to Edith Lederer, an AP reporter he had met in San Francisco. Lederer passed the documents to AP investigative reporter Jean Heller, telling her colleague, “I think there might be something here.”

Heller’s story was published on July 25, 1972, leading to Congressional hearings, a class-action lawsuit that resulted in a $10 million settlement and the study’s termination about four months later. In 1997, President Bill Clinton formally apologized for the study, calling it “shameful.”

The leader of a group dedicated to the memory of the study participants said Monday they are grateful to Buxtun for exposing the experiment.

“We are thankful for his honesty and his courage,” said Lille Tyson Head, whose father was in the study.

(continue reading)

Thanks for the photo, so what do we see here?

@x-heesy 🙃

The picture composition consists of some room, two young women, two tables plus three chairs whereby only one is somehow almost completely visible. A plastic bag that is reusable, a charger on the table of one of the young women and probably a mobile phone next to the charger. And a fork, we hope. We'll leave the rest out of the equation.

We can see that, but what does the picture tell us?

If we assume that the young woman still lives at home, the picture would be a testimony to the unsustainability of the young woman's mother*. Giving her child spaghetti in a reusable plastic bag is the ultimate in disposable society. We assume that the plastic bags are thrown in the unsorted garbage, as little attention is paid to sorting garbage at school or university.

What do we see, however, is a mother who is practical and whose daughter has accepted that food culture is not a part of education.

Is the young woman loved? Yes, at least someone has made food for her.

What else do we see? The young woman has the plastic bags almost under her chin, which conversely means she doesn't want to spill. Which suggests a basic cleanliness and attentiveness to her clothes.

We leave the summary to you.... Thank you

Of course, there was another photographer, most likely using a cell phone with this quality, and the photo is older.

We don't want to read any more from this picture, because seeing pictures doesn't mean understanding pictures. But this is a matter of attitude and people often confuse or misinterpret images. We have seen pictures that are beautiful but say something else. The sea right in front of the terrace is beautiful, but it doesn't mean anything good in the context of rising sea levels.

*(we are assuming statistical data which means that more mothers still prepare their children's food for school than men)

@brute000

Y⃘u⃘m⃘ ⃘Y⃘u⃘m⃘ ⃘

Sociopath

Sociopaths are people who suffer from a dissocial personality disorder. They have difficulty forming long-term relationships. Others often describe them as unscrupulous, callous or manipulative. You are extremely willing to take risks and behave irresponsibly in the eyes of others. Sometimes you come into conflict with the law.

What is the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

In specialist literature, the two terms sociopath and psychopath are not always strictly separated, although a distinction is useful. Psychopathy is the most extreme form of a dissocial personality disorder. While the sociopath acts impulsively, the psychopath plans his actions precisely and acts coolly and deliberately. There are the following differences in behaviour:

Sociopaths have feelings such as fear or anger. They quickly feel attacked and then react aggressively. This behaviour gets them into trouble and ensures that relationships are usually only superficial and short-lived.

Psychopaths, on the other hand, have themselves well under control. They also lack compassion, but they are very good at covering up this lack of empathy.

Psychopaths are highly functional and usually well integrated into society. They are extremely manipulative and easily gain the trust of others. As they can exploit others cold-bloodedly and unscrupulously, they are very dangerous.

There are also thought to be differences in the development of both clinical pictures. Experts believe that sociopathy is more likely to be triggered by a childhood trauma. The typical sociopath has almost always experienced abuse, violence or neglect as a child. Their antisocial behaviour often even serves as a survival strategy. Psychopathy, on the other hand, appears to be innate.

In psychopaths, the areas of the brain responsible for impulse control and empathy are not properly developed from birth.

The treatment options and prognoses are correspondingly different. While a dissocial personality disorder can be treated psychotherapeutically - an approach that plays a major role in the reintegration of offenders into society - it is apparently not possible to cure a genuine psychopath. Some experts even assume that the symptoms can be exacerbated by treatment. Accordingly, psychopaths have the highest recidivism rate among offenders.

Why pursue therapeutic measures when one can simply engage in the overtly illicit act? One need only join a party, and the criminal behaviour will be resolved when one has sufficient influence to petition a judge.

mod

Regardless of the fact that the act is an assassination, the assassin has given the emotionally unstable individual and his party, which acts without moral constraints, a considerable advantage.

mod

Causes of dissocial personality disorder

How an antisocial personality develops has not yet been conclusively clarified. Most scientists today assume a combination of genetic and environmental factors:

Genetic disposition: the likelihood of antisocial behavior is higher if one or both parents have already been affected by the disorder. A scientific study of twins has also confirmed that there is an overall genetic predisposition to all personality disorders. Other favorable factors are probably anxiety disorders, depression, alcoholism, drug addiction and suicide risk in the family.

Traumatic childhood experiences: Physical violence, sexual abuse and other traumatic relationship experiences in childhood increase the risk of developing antisocial personality disorder.

Serotonin deficiency: A lack of the neurotransmitter serotonin presumably ensures that sociopaths are unable to react adequately to emotional signals and generally feel less fear. On the one hand, this explains the lack of empathy for the suffering of others, but also the strong tendency towards risk-taking behavior. Some experts assume that people with a dissocial personality are generally understimulated. This is why they are constantly looking for a "kick" - on the one hand in dangerous sports, but also in criminal acts on the other.

Neurophysiological factors: Imaging studies indicate dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex of the brain in antisocial personalities. This is likely to be the trigger for the extreme emotional coldness, especially in the strongest form of psychopathy.

Signs: How to recognize a sociopath

People with antisocial disorder stand out due to their socially intolerant behavior. This often becomes apparent in childhood and adolescence.

Possible signs of a dissocial personality can be

Lack of empathy

emotional coldness

pronounced egocentric behavior

Lack of a sense of guilt and responsibility

Low frustration tolerance

strong impulsiveness

violence

Problems entering into long-term relationships

High willingness to take risks

Disregard for social norms and laws

Diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder

Both the ICD-10 and DSM-V classification criteria can be used to diagnose the personality disorder.

According to ICD-10, dissocial personalities must have

character abnormalities such as egocentrism, lack of empathy and a lack of conscience and

there must be a considerable discrepancy between the behavior displayed and social norms. Criminal acts may occur, but are not essential for the diagnosis.

For a clear diagnosis, organic causes must have been ruled out.

In addition, at least three of the following characteristics must be fulfilled:

The affected person has a lack of empathy and shows callousness towards others.

He (or she) shows a clear and persistent irresponsible attitude and repeatedly disregards social norms and obligations.

He (or she) is unable to maintain lasting attachments or relationships with other people, although he (or she) has no difficulty forming relationships.

He has a low frustration tolerance and often behaves impulsively or aggressively.

The affected person feels little or no guilt and is unable to learn from negative experiences, especially punishment.

He tends to blame others or make excuses to explain his behavior, which has brought him into conflict with society.

The DSM-V is based on similar behavioral patterns, but emphasizes the criminal component, which manifests itself, for example, in violations of the law. In addition, according to this classification, the person affected must be at least 18 years old for the disorder to be reliably diagnosed, and the conspicuous behavior must have been apparent since at least the age of 15.