@Snode about anything related to the 99%.

Dems don't want anything to do with the 99%.

in fighting for the 99%. You can't go after the r's for corruption when you're corrupt your self. The r's are always upfront abut being bought by business and finance. The d's have to pretend to be for us, but never to the point of actually going to the mat for us. So we get Bushco2, Cheney. Rumsfeld, Rice skating along with Wall $treet bailouts and a republican forced insurance health plan. This going after Clinton is just the warning shots to lay off the r's or you'll be exposed,too. We need to elect people who are clean enough to go after the r's, and to rise in the democratic party today that's impossible without compromising yourself into a corner and irrelevancy .

@dkmich better at knowing it.

when we hear it? Everything we were ever told this country was is one big lie.

@Dr. John Carpenter

And if we all had better bodies, we wouldn't mind naked airport scans and groping for no actual reason - or roadside cavity checks carried out by police.

Seriously, who would carry anything they were planning to ingest in areas like that in the first place?

I mean, if you've got nothing to hide, why should you be afraid of a little government snooping into your life and dealings and phone calls and computers and emails and...

I mean, at least that's what we little people are told.

I’m quite familiar with. But your mention of Sensitization towards the end of the blockquotes kind of freaked me out a bit.

No doubt that habituation and desensitization is going on on many fronts , in media and politics in particular — violence, sex, class, ideology— but the idea of sensitization via media and politics is super interesting. It actually does a good job of explaining the cognitive dissonance from the party faithful.

I need to mull this over a bit.

@DonMidwest

From wikipedia

Habituation is a form of learning in which an organism decreases or ceases its responses to a stimulus after repeated presentations.[1] Essentially, the organism learns to stop responding to a stimulus which is no longer biologically relevant. For example, organisms may habituate to repeated sudden loud noises when they learn these have no consequences.[2] Habituation usually refers to a reduction in innate behaviours, rather than behaviours developed during conditioning (in which case the process is termed "extinction"). A progressive decline of a behavior in a habituation procedure may also reflect nonspecific effects such as fatigue, which must be ruled out when the interest is in habituation as a learning process.[3]

Is the media and the cover up of the criminal class which seems to include all the super wealthy and the mega corporations, does this induce "habitation" ??

Note this is for an organism. Could be large or small, or maybe even the highest level of organism, namely humans.

The new name for humans by the French polymath, Bruno Latour is EARTHBOUNDS. We have to return to the earth.

He posted a tweet today which included an HUGE headline from a French newspaper about the statement from 15,000 scientists about climate change. This is an automatic translation from the French. Bruno on the super large title/headline of a French newspaper.

Never the world titles were as big, as if it were a declaration of war. The result! A form of habituation sorry! As Voegelin said: "a civilization can progress and regress at the same time, but not forever." Here we go.

Interesting. Progress and regress at the same time, but not forever.

Latour's metaphysics includes both humans and non humans, and foreshadowed the water protectors making water a political actor. And land is a political actor. And the thin layer a kilometer down and a few kilometers up within which all human live has been lived, Gaia, is The New Climate Regime.

The attempt to "habitation" of earthbound is not working and conflicts continue. It is a war.

The wikipedia article continues

The habituation process is a form of adaptive behavior (or neuroplasticity) that is classified as non-associative learning. Non-associative learning is a change in a response to a stimulus that does not involve associating the presented stimulus with another stimulus or event such as a reward or punishment.[4] (Examples of associative learning include classical conditioning and operant conditioning). Habituation is the decrease of a response to a repeated eliciting stimulus that is not due to sensory adaptation or motor fatigue. Sensory adaptation (or neural adaptation) occurs when an organism can no longer detect the stimulus as efficiently as when first presented and motor fatigue occurs when an organism is able to detect the stimulus but can no longer respond efficiently. In contrast, habituation is a learned adaptation to the repeated presentation of a stimulus, not a reduction in sensory or motor ability.

I just looked this up and am posting it here. Maybe someone who has been around this topic for some time and in some depth can comment on this.

The third paragraph.

Some related phenomena to habituation include sensitization and stimulus generalization/discrimination. Sensitization is the opposite process to habituation, i.e. an increase in the elicited behavior from repeated presentation of a stimulus. There may also be an initial increase in response immediately prior to the decline (a sensitization process followed by a habituation process).[5] Another related phenomenon is stimulus generalization, when habituation occurs in response to other stimuli that are similar to the original stimulus.[6] The opposing process, stimulus discrimination, is when habituation does not occur to other stimuli that are dissimilar to the original stimulus.

@DonMidwest

Yeah, apparently many criminal gangs routinely use desensitization for low-level entries who are disposable and useful for janitorial work where brutality is required.

And on the whole, people are definitely overburdened by the continual assaults and displays of blatant corruption in the corporate criminal/political class. We call it 'becoming blase' about things which should trigger outrage and it seems that many will even support 'their team' in such corruption and brutality displays. Sad but true.

From wikipedia

Habituation is a form of learning in which an organism decreases or ceases its responses to a stimulus after repeated presentations.[1] Essentially, the organism learns to stop responding to a stimulus which is no longer biologically relevant. For example, organisms may habituate to repeated sudden loud noises when they learn these have no consequences.[2] Habituation usually refers to a reduction in innate behaviours, rather than behaviours developed during conditioning (in which case the process is termed "extinction"). A progressive decline of a behavior in a habituation procedure may also reflect nonspecific effects such as fatigue, which must be ruled out when the interest is in habituation as a learning process.[3]

Is the media and the cover up of the criminal class which seems to include all the super wealthy and the mega corporations, does this induce "habitation" ??

Note this is for an organism. Could be large or small, or maybe even the highest level of organism, namely humans.

The new name for humans by the French polymath, Bruno Latour is EARTHBOUNDS. We have to return to the earth.

He posted a tweet today which included an HUGE headline from a French newspaper about the statement from 15,000 scientists about climate change. This is an automatic translation from the French. Bruno on the super large title/headline of a French newspaper.

Never the world titles were as big, as if it were a declaration of war. The result! A form of habituation sorry! As Voegelin said: "a civilization can progress and regress at the same time, but not forever." Here we go.

Interesting. Progress and regress at the same time, but not forever.

Latour's metaphysics includes both humans and non humans, and foreshadowed the water protectors making water a political actor. And land is a political actor. And the thin layer a kilometer down and a few kilometers up within which all human live has been lived, Gaia, is The New Climate Regime.

The attempt to "habitation" of earthbound is not working and conflicts continue. It is a war.

The wikipedia article continues

The habituation process is a form of adaptive behavior (or neuroplasticity) that is classified as non-associative learning. Non-associative learning is a change in a response to a stimulus that does not involve associating the presented stimulus with another stimulus or event such as a reward or punishment.[4] (Examples of associative learning include classical conditioning and operant conditioning). Habituation is the decrease of a response to a repeated eliciting stimulus that is not due to sensory adaptation or motor fatigue. Sensory adaptation (or neural adaptation) occurs when an organism can no longer detect the stimulus as efficiently as when first presented and motor fatigue occurs when an organism is able to detect the stimulus but can no longer respond efficiently. In contrast, habituation is a learned adaptation to the repeated presentation of a stimulus, not a reduction in sensory or motor ability.

I just looked this up and am posting it here. Maybe someone who has been around this topic for some time and in some depth can comment on this.

The third paragraph.

Some related phenomena to habituation include sensitization and stimulus generalization/discrimination. Sensitization is the opposite process to habituation, i.e. an increase in the elicited behavior from repeated presentation of a stimulus. There may also be an initial increase in response immediately prior to the decline (a sensitization process followed by a habituation process).[5] Another related phenomenon is stimulus generalization, when habituation occurs in response to other stimuli that are similar to the original stimulus.[6] The opposing process, stimulus discrimination, is when habituation does not occur to other stimuli that are dissimilar to the original stimulus.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal don't have anything yet but speculation, educated guesses. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That's why I would love to see an investigation. Someone might come forward.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think selling uranium to another superpower is particularly intelligent or advisable, and the way she did it was highly corrupt and she should be prosecuted for it (and for a lot of other things).

But I'm still not particularly afraid of Russia. Even though Russia has a system which can apparently neutralize our navy's ability to attack, which I suppose should frighten me. But of all the geopolitical power players, Russia pretty much frightens me the least. I don't like their reliance on the petrochemical economy, and I don't like their corrupt oligarchs. But at least their corrupt oligarchs don't appear to be raving lunatics. They don't seem to want to burn the world down--quite the opposite. They even appear, at least, to want some kind of rule of international law, some system of customs and traditions that remains respected. They might want that system to be slanted towards them--I'm not saying they're angels. But they do seem to be in favor of human life and civilization continuing on this planet, which puts them ahead of a lot of the other power players. Their support of the petrochemical economy threatens both those goals, but there really is no way that Russia could afford under the political conditions of the past 25-30 years to get off oil. Because we decided to be an aggressive empire, and then devolved from there to being nothing better than well-funded bandits, both economically and militarily.

Ironically, had we leaped ahead in energy technology as we certainly should have, and moved to a primarily non-petroleum economy, it would have provided such an advantage to us against the other nations that it probably would have spurred other powers to try harder to do the same. How much more flexibility would it have given us if, for the past 25 years, petrochemical fuels had had primarily military and scientific applications, rather than being the lifeblood of our entire economy?

And I really have nothing but contempt for the recent attempt to reinstitute the Cold War without even the shoddy reasoning with which the Cold War justified itself. The threat used to be Communism and the domino effect.

As Q says at 1:50, "The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men."

Let me just say that even if the domino effect scared me, which it didn't even at the height of Soviet imperialism, because it was plenty clear that we had a strong enough military and a strong enough economy that Russia was not going to be knocking on my door anytime soon, no matter which idiots screamed about Cuba being only 90 miles away--even if that had scared me, there's an obvious security difference between Cuba and the Crimea. Further, the ideological war that we were having, that we used to justify all this dick-measuring acquisitive bullshit, is over. We won. They're all capitalists now. Nonsense like talking heads on the television calling Russia "our enemy" as if we were Saxons and Normans and had a long history of conflict is just that. The last time we had a war that involved Russia, they were our allies, and a good thing too.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal don't have anything yet but speculation, educated guesses. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That's why I would love to see an investigation. Someone might come forward. But it will be a shocker if one ever gets underway imo.

Is Jeff Sessions really smarter than a chipmunk?
https://t.co/3YuLnq1VS6

— Frank O'Neill (@FRANKONEY) November 14, 2017

Benjamin Wittes, editor of the Lawfare blog, argues Sessions’s letter is actually a convoluted way for the Justice Department to, ultimately, reaffirm its independence, by allowing the federal prosecutors to decide against an investigation. “What I think DOJ may be doing here is declaring a process in which senior career prosecutors will review the matter and make recommendations to the AG or the DAG . . . Theoretically, this could lead to a special counsel,” he wrote on Twitter. “In practice, however, it will not. The reason is that the allegations are not substantial and—at least insofar as I understand them—they will not serve as a proper predicate for a criminal investigation, let alone require a special counsel.”

“In short, I think this letter is best understood not as a hint to Trump that Sessions will do as the President wants, but as a way of shunting the matter to a mechanism that will enable him not to act—or, to be more precise, that will enable Rod Rosenstein not to act.”

Don't get me wrong, I don't think selling uranium to another superpower is particularly intelligent or advisable, and the way she did it was highly corrupt and she should be prosecuted for it (and for a lot of other things).

But I'm still not particularly afraid of Russia. Even though Russia has a system which can apparently neutralize our navy's ability to attack, which I suppose should frighten me. But of all the geopolitical power players, Russia pretty much frightens me the least. I don't like their reliance on the petrochemical economy, and I don't like their corrupt oligarchs. But at least their corrupt oligarchs don't appear to be raving lunatics. They don't seem to want to burn the world down--quite the opposite. They even appear, at least, to want some kind of rule of international law, some system of customs and traditions that remains respected. They might want that system to be slanted towards them--I'm not saying they're angels. But they do seem to be in favor of human life and civilization continuing on this planet, which puts them ahead of a lot of the other power players. Their support of the petrochemical economy threatens both those goals, but there really is no way that Russia could afford under the political conditions of the past 25-30 years to get off oil. Because we decided to be an aggressive empire, and then devolved from there to being nothing better than well-funded bandits, both economically and militarily.

Ironically, had we leaped ahead in energy technology as we certainly should have, and moved to a primarily non-petroleum economy, it would have provided such an advantage to us against the other nations that it probably would have spurred other powers to try harder to do the same. How much more flexibility would it have given us if, for the past 25 years, petrochemical fuels had had primarily military and scientific applications, rather than being the lifeblood of our entire economy?

And I really have nothing but contempt for the recent attempt to reinstitute the Cold War without even the shoddy reasoning with which the Cold War justified itself. The threat used to be Communism and the domino effect.

As Q says at 1:50, "The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men."

Let me just say that even if the domino effect scared me, which it didn't even at the height of Soviet imperialism, because it was plenty clear that we had a strong enough military and a strong enough economy that Russia was not going to be knocking on my door anytime soon, no matter which idiots screamed about Cuba being only 90 miles away--even if that had scared me, there's an obvious security difference between Cuba and the Crimea. Further, the ideological war that we were having, that we used to justify all this dick-measuring acquisitive bullshit, is over. We won. They're all capitalists now. Nonsense like talking heads on the television calling Russia "our enemy" as if we were Saxons and Normans and had a long history of conflict is just that. The last time we had a war that involved Russia, they were our allies, and a good thing too.

@WoodsDweller
because the patronage than worms like Marshal rely on might dry up. Sounds like someone threatened to cut loose a few of the lower lever suck-ups.

"It's getting bad, folks" because prominent figures may be investigated? Because they don't get a pass because they were once someone's political opponent? Because we should only look forward, not back? Because being a political figure should insulate you from accountability? Because the rule of law might be applied to people of importance?