More Taxonomic Issues > Condescending vs. Horizontal Empowerment

In the universe of social discourse, how do we describe and identify:
Kingdoms? > Phyla? > Classes? > Orders? > Genera? > Species?

For example: Regarding the alt-Right's and various, empty, social-media echo-bots' use of the word:

Condescending: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescending

. . . .

If I say something is green, are you to assume that it is identical with all other phenomena having not only the quality that we refer to as "greenness" and, further more, that the degree and quality of greenness is the same in all green phenomena, but also, are you to assume that green thing is identical in all other traits, whatever those traits are, with other green things?

Of course, this assumption is absurd; we're talking about the phenomenal universe here, not to mention intrinsic allusions to the diversity not only of humans but also of the human facility for language, but how common is this type of invalid and unreliable semantic assumption? and where do we encounter it at its densest?

Substitute the word "condescending" for the word "green" in the preceding paragraph.

Which is more condescending: 1. to assume what you think is "superior" is assumed to be, or is in actual fact, superior to all others, or 2. to assume people speak ask peers with other peers whatever their differences?

Isn't it condescending to assume that all speech is the same pissing-contest for power that you say it is and that there is no speech that occurs for the love of sharing freely? Which of these two attitudes would be more characteristic of proponents of Citizens United > Corporate Personhood > Money-as-"free"-speech?

And if we obfuscate, and thus auto-exclude, what isn't condescending with what is condescending, what will the effect upon horizontal power-sharing be and to whose advantage?  For example, here's a sample of the use of that word from Stephen King, which Merriam-Webster Dictionary included with their definition of the word "condescending", linked above. Please excuse my bolding and the underline in some of the typeface for emphasis:

"The next big sequel to roll off the assembly line (awful, condescending phrase, BUT THIS IS A CASE OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO WHEN THE SHOE FITS) is going to be a sequel to 'Rebecca,' Daphne du Maurier's classic 1930's suspense novel. - Stephen King, New York Times Book Review, 6 June 1993"

King is referring to film production that is, in fact, mass produced, so he's saying that, though his reference to those "assembly line(s)" appears "condescending", it isn't condescending, since he's speaking from an aesthetic, and an ethos, btw, that he is identified with because he shares that with others who are his peers.

Perhaps you sense that this little sketch is motivated by some pique at being called "condescending" by some anonymous person somewhere in the social e-verse. To some extent, you'd be correct in that, but I'd like to add that my frustration stems from a lifetime of fascination with what can most efficiently be referred to by means of the shorthand in the word "phenomenology". Empiricism, stripped of all of our abstractions about it (or to at least identify the abstractions, and, hence, UNTESTED assumptions, that we are using), has motivated me for almost 70 years now (68 years, to be exact, as of today).

Empirical knowledge excites me. I feel enthusiastic about it, so I am concerned when experiential learning is shut down, before it even gets on its own two feet, by the absurd, but extremely common, invalid, and unreliable assumptions we make about the words we use about ourselves and others. Those errors will only compound invalidity and unreliability, what is true will be obfuscated by what is false, until we, as peers horizontally sharing the power of relatively valid reliable information, openly, honestly, courageously, and completely discuss the similarities and differences in the things that words ONLY refer to.

What is Facism?

Some people say fascism doesn't apply to anything that is not a combination of state and corporation, but I say, if a corporation is something that in - corp - orates, that means that it forms a "body", so if elements coalesce into a relatively coherent whole, that's a body/a corporation, whether it incorporates legally or not, so fascism extends beyond corporations, especially since, such in - corp - orations can also cohere around a single motive that is also intrinsic to what a state is, i.e. a body formed to govern others, and fascism coheres for the SOLE purpose of acquiring power over others for power's sake alone, not for results for those whom they control.

This means that relatively small political coalitions, e.g. Libertarians + Greens, which coalesce for the sole purpose of EXTORTING the vote, are fascist too, because extorting the vote is the only thing they CAN do, despite what they claim about their issue objectives, since, because of their numerically minor status, NONE of their (inherently and anarchically diverse) issue objectives are attainable without that extortion, whether that results in them delivering those issue objectives or not, because it is power that is their objective, not outcomes.

091216 The Deplorables

The Deplorables: You have probably met them, just by pure chance when events take a stressful turn, or maybe even when everything seems to add up to a beautiful afternoon or evening in the heartland, or on a bright fall morning in NYC, maybe in traffic, or when you might have been selling something door-to-door, or you're more or less stone-cold-calling some marketing leads, or doing volunteer work, or just hanging out somewhere . . . . You have met the Deplorables. You know they are real.

If you're canvassing to get people registered to vote, the Deplorables are the ones who just spontaneously growl at you as though you are up to no-good and treat you like a suspicious nuisance - and - if you identify yourself as a Democrat, the Deplorables, often, are likely, not to just say, but to proclaim with feverish and vicious fervor, eyes alight, "That country should just be bombed until there's nothing left but a sheet of glass!" True stories.

Even under the best of happenstance with the Deplorables, one walks away knowing for absolutely certain sure that if the deplorable behavior you just experienced had a means to act upon its violent death-dealing wishes, they would do exactly, and in full, everything that so deeply motivates them no matter the consequences to powerless others. This is why appealing to their "best interests" doesn't work and why, therefore, their behavior no matter how much it is delegated or displaced onto others, is so deplorable.

No one wants the Deplorables to be real, but we don't have the luxury of pretending that they aren't.

Limitations in Regulation of Direct Contract (Arms) Sales

 "It should be noted, however, that the Leahy law applies only to what is called “Foreign Military Sales,” (FMS) and not to what is called “Direct Contract Sales” (DCS.) In other words, there are tremendous limitations to the Leahy law. . . .

As mentioned above, the “Leahy Law” is only applicable to Foreign Military Sales (FMS), not to the more heavily used Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). Foreign Military Sales are facilitated by the US Department of Defense and cover the sales of US arms, training, and other defense equipment to foreign governments, while Direct Commercial Sales are sales in which foreign governments buy directly from US weapons manufactuerers. FMS is an entirely governmental process, where the vetting process applies. DCS includes the sale and transfer of weapons and other defense articles, services, and training between private US companies and foreign recipients. FMS is far more regulated than DCS. As international exports, DCS must meet all eligibility requirements, such as valid export licenses and permissibility of materials, contained in the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Furthermore, the US is required by Congress under the FAA to prepare an annual report on this category of military assistance and exports (a provision made possible in part by Senator Leahy). These ‘655’ reports are the most detailed account available of specific Direct Commercial Sales of US weapons exported to governments or private buyers around the world. The 655 report, as called for by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, is compiled from the annual records of the State Department and each yearly report can be found online at www.pmddtc.state.gov. "

http://facingteargas.org/bp/37/understanding-us-weapons-exports

Speaking of Corporations . . .

U.S. Commercial Arms Exports: Policy, Process, and Patterns - by - Dr. Joseph P. Smaldone, Chief, Arms Licensing Division, Office of Munitions Control, U.S. Department of State

" (The following was reprinted with the permission of the publisher of Marketing Security Assistance: New Perspectives on Arms Sales, edited by David J. Louscher and Michael D. Salomone, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1987, Chapter 9, pp. 185-213.)

. . . In the mid-1980s commercial arms sales began to rival the long-dominant security assistance program. Licensed export authorizations approached the value of FMS (Foreign Military Sales) agreements, commercial arms exports were conservatively reported at more than 30 percent of FMS deliveries, and the number of U.S. contract personnel implementing commercial arms exports abroad was about double the security assistance personnel contingent overseas. If these trends continue, commercial arms exports will overtake the FMS program as the main channel of U.S. arms transfers in the 1990s.

The most remarkable feature of this growth of commercial arms sales has been its steadiness, notwithstanding the major shifts in legislative and policy directions since the 1970s. Neither the new and changing legal regime of the AECA (Arms Export Control Act) nor the abrupt arms transfer policy shifts of the Carter and Reagan Administrations has had discernible effect on this historical trend. Even more striking is the fact that this unprecedented expansion of commercial arms exports has occurred during a period characterized by more complex and comprehensive regulations, intensified enforcement of export controls, and declining license approval rates.

The implications of the trends and patterns are evident. As commercial sales assume even greater prominence, the State Department's munitions control function will require greater policy attention. Increased public, congressional, and interagency interest is also likely to accompany this continued shift from government-controlled to commercial arms sales. It is incumbent on the department to keep pace with these developments to preserve and carry out properly its statutory and institutional roles in the regulation of arms exports. A three-fold strategy seems to be in order to address this emerging policy and managerial challenge: sustained and determined interest in arms export control by department principals; continued investment of resources as needed to fulfill the department's administrative and leadership functions; and a strong and responsive organizational structure for policy direction and management."

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2010-3/Smaldone.pdf 

From the Federation of American Scientists (FAS)

http://fas.org/asmp/profiles/worldfms.html

U.S. Arms Transfers: Government Data

For a general guide to key sources of data and analysis on the arms trade, check out the "For More Information" chapter of The Arms Trade Revealed: a Guide for Investigators and Activists.

FAS.ORG

A President Who Is Damned If He Does and Damned If He Doesn't

There's just so much that a president with as little domestic backing as this one has can do. That's the bottom line, all, and I recall President Obama saying so in the early days of his administration, in effect, that people were going to have to learn how to come together to advocate for themselves. We need to grow up and stop expecting "daddy" to make it happen for us.

I REALLY struggle with WHY people don't get this. He's a Centrist. He's never hidden that fact, even though he knows it means politically that he MUST be attacked from both the Right and from "the Left", because Centrism draws numbers of persons out of those Right-"Left" bases, reducing their own ability to extort something out of political events.

Presidents aren't kings. The bottom line IS the number of people backing them up ON ALL OF THE ISSUES instead of balkanizing themselves into competing issue cohorts and, thus, handicapping ALL of their own effects on any given issue.

Barack Obama can't manufacture results out of thin air! To do so would risk getting it wrong and not only failing immediately, but, at best, failing eventually even after initiating something right and "successful", because, without the MASSIVELY SOLID backing that even a good new policy/program requires to survive (and that's survive despite the inevitable ISSUE TRADE OFFS that must happen in order to achieve any given issue success), that issue "success" can be de-constructed by the very next change in political winds.

President Obama knows this and it is a tribute to his strength and integrity that he does not pretend otherwise in order to impress you.

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/the-green-lantern-theory-of-the-presidency-explained

090616 Re: DOL regulation to mandate overtime pay for certain classes of employees working > 40 hr/wk

If income is an indicator of where the pathway up lies, one of the inhibitors for those climbing up from the bottom is how those first tiers of low-level management and supervisory positions, though you're just beginning to earn more significant compensation, are also accompanied by serious increases in hours "on the job" and other effects upon an employee's quality-of-life. Some employers rely very heavily on value-added work from such employees, because they know their personal motives and ambitions will make them pay the price in terms of their personal - uncompensated - time. This means that a significant amount of worker-added value can be "stolen": families suffer the de facto loss of a family member with no consequent increase in benefits to the families such as improved child-care, or real family vacations, or better, more expensive food, and the worker creating that value can be worked until these stresses cause burn out and s/he is disposed of or tracked into some dead-end. On the institutional side, this can mean that those levels just above the low-level, high responsibility/burn-out positions, employees earning something more than the median income, are usually filled from outside because filling them from below causes a loss of the value added by cheaper employees. Many of us have probably seen how these mid-level positions can be filled with people having more connections than fit in their professional credentials or educational degrees, let alone aptitudes. Because they are coming into an organization above the first-tier burn-out inducing level, if mid-level does add value, the price-tag is higher than that created at lower levels. All of which adds up to some degree of programmed churn and inefficiency and loss of economic value, not to mention what could be characterized as a taking, hours of life taken without compensation, from workers, and their families, who lack the means and opportunities to set the price for what their own labor is worth. Is it just for us as a state or society to stand by and knowingly benefit from this taking?