Law School Discussion

INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL

Re: O'Reilly smeared "very shadowy" Human Rights Watch
« Reply #320 on: October 15, 2008, 01:20:30 PM »

[...] On occasion, a foreigner is targeted for recruitment; however, it is obvious that this potential agent would never knowingly work for the CIA or cooperate willingly with the US government. This individual, for example, might be vehemently anti-American. For that reason, the CIA might decide on a "false flag" recruitment approach, whereby the agent never knows that he or she is actually being recruited by the United States and the CIA. The CIA officer making the recruitment pitch poses as a representative of the false flag country or organization. It might be the case, for example, that an African official would never work for the Americans but might work for the French. An CIA officer uses a variation on false flag operations when he or she poses as a representative of an international organization, a think-tank, or a commercial firm. The agent might be induced to provide information on that basis, but would never knowingly provide information to the CIA.


Oftentimes these types of agents voluntarily may want to provide information (to the false flag organization). In such cases they are considered perfect volunteers and the CIA's job with volunteers is to set the table so they can accomplish whatever goals they have on their minds. As long as those goals are consistent with theirs, they are on solid ground.  The problem with these types of operations that you mention, however, is that they are unlikely to turn into stable operations. They'd be conducted in hostile environments with young and probably immature agents who will find themselves under increasingly heavy pressure. For that reason, the operation might blow and the organization being claimed to be the recipient of the information would be mentioned as the ostensible recipient of it.

Re: The Beatles', "I Am The Walrus"
« Reply #321 on: October 15, 2008, 06:28:01 PM »

A subliminal message is communicated below the conscious level of perception. By nature, you will not be aware of receiving one. Backmasking, an audio technique in which sounds are recorded backwards onto a track that is meant to be played forwards, produces messages that sound like gibberish to the conscious mind. Gary Greenwald, a fundamentalist Christian preacher, claims that these messages can be heard subliminally, and can induce listeners towards, in the case of rock music, sex and drug use. However, this is not generally accepted as fact.


The manual for the popular sound program SoX pokes fun at subliminal messages. The description of the "reverse" option says "Included for finding satanic subliminals."

Following the 1950s subliminal message panic, many businesses have sprung up purporting to offer helpful subliminal audio tapes that supposedly improve the health of the listener. However, there is no evidence for the therapeutic effectiveness of such tapes. Subliminal messages have also been known to appear in music. In the 1990s, two young men died from self-inflicted gunshots and their families were convinced it was because of a British rock band, Judas Priest. The families claimed subliminal messages told listeners to "do it" in the song "Better by You, Better Than Me". The case was taken to court and the families sought more than US$6 million in damages. The judge, Jerry Carr Whitehead, ruled that the subliminal messages did exist in the song, but stated that the families did not produce any scientific evidence that the song persuaded the young men to kill themselves. In turn, he ruled it probably would not have been perceived without the "power of suggestion" or the young men would not have done it unless they really intended to.

Subliminal messages can affect a human's emotional state and/or behaviors. They are most effective when perceived unconsciously. The most extensive study of therapeutic effects from audiotapes was conducted to see if the self-esteem audiotapes would raise self-esteem. 237 volunteers were provided with tapes of 3 manufacturers and completed post tests after one month of use. The study showed clearly that subliminal audiotapes made to boost self-esteem did not produce effects associated with subliminal content within one month's use. The effectiveness of any subliminal message has been called into question time after time and has led many to one conclusion, namely: that the technique does not work, as Anthony R. Pratkanis, one of the researchers in the field puts it: "It appears that, despite the claims in books and newspapers and on the backs of subliminal self help tapes, subliminal-influence tactics have not been demonstrated to be effective. Of course, as with anything scientific, it may be that someday, somehow, someone will develop a subliminal technique that may work, just as someday a chemist may find a way to transmute lead to gold. I am personally not purchasing lead futures on this hope however."


Try telling that to the underground scientific community!

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #322 on: October 16, 2008, 08:48:55 PM »

Herbert Marcuse analyzed the integration of the industrial working class into capitalist society and new forms of capitalist stabilization and questioned the Marxian postulates of the revolutionary proletariat and inevitability of capitalist crisis. He was concerned about the decline of revolutionary potential in the West. The "advanced industrial society" has created false needs, which integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption via mass media, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought. This results in a "one-dimensional" universe of thought and behavior in which aptitude and ability for critical thought and oppositional behavior wither away. Against this prevailing climate, Marcuse promotes the "great refusal" as the only adequate opposition to all-encompassing methods of control.

In contrast to orthodox Marxism, Marcuse championed non-integrated forces of minorities, outsiders, and radical intelligentsia, attempting to nourish oppositional thought and behavior through promoting radical thinking and opposition.


Global capitalism is in crisis and morphing into something new. Megabrands are losing market share as people question the values they stand for and the power they have over our lives. Now a new kind of cool is bubbling up. It's about a greener, more local, more politically charged way of living, and it starts with dumping megabrands and flowing your money into the small, indy stores and websites that are now popping up everywhere. Let us unswoosh the swoosh and create a vibrant new kind of capitalism that actually works.

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #323 on: October 17, 2008, 03:28:10 PM »

[...]

Charles Darwin writes in "The Descent of Man" that a tribe which consisted of many members who were always ready to give aid to each-other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. Nietzsche reversed this scenario. Let the tribe sacrifice itself, if necessary, to preserve the existence of one great individual. It is not the quantity but the the quality of humanity that we must seek to increase. He goes on to say, "A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at six or seven great men. Yes, and then to get around them!" A struggle, not for existence (Darwin), but rather a struggle for greatness -- and with that, a struggle for power. This highly undemocratic view of humanity as a kind of "raw material" out of which a few great individuals will emerge, leads to one's political views, which are far from ordinary...

[...] 


Again, wheres, your post is more appropriately placed (situated) here


Friedrich Nietzsche used to say that if you seek something, you wish to multiply yourself tenfold, a hundredfold, that is seek followers, you have to seek zeros!


Nice contribution to the thread, usehername! Keeping the posts relevant to the subject really matters! :)

Re: O'Reilly smeared "very shadowy" Human Rights Watch
« Reply #324 on: October 17, 2008, 04:12:03 PM »

[...] On occasion, a foreigner is targeted for recruitment; however, it is obvious that this potential agent would never knowingly work for the CIA or cooperate willingly with the US government. This individual, for example, might be vehemently anti-American. For that reason, the CIA might decide on a "false flag" recruitment approach, whereby the agent never knows that he or she is actually being recruited by the United States and the CIA. The CIA officer making the recruitment pitch poses as a representative of the false flag country or organization. It might be the case, for example, that an African official would never work for the Americans but might work for the French. An CIA officer uses a variation on false flag operations when he or she poses as a representative of an international organization, a think-tank, or a commercial firm. The agent might be induced to provide information on that basis, but would never knowingly provide information to the CIA.


I am sure there's an ethical issue here. I don't doubt that there are many of you out there who might think there's not; I was discussing the other day this other scenario with a few people and, to my astonishment, most of them thought there's nothing wrong with it: Here it is:

X serves as a diplomatic officer of the Dominican Republic in Spain. He's being transfered to the US, in New York City to serve as an officer for his country. The CIA and FBI conduct surveillance of his activities while he's in NYC and find out he frequents gay bars and has promiscuous homosexual sex with many men. They take pictures of him to serve as evidence of his homosexuality. He is approached to become an agent for the CIA, otherwise his country authorities would be provided with the above-mentioned proof of his homosexuality. In his country being overtly homosexual is a bar to employment in the diplomatic service. Is it ethical for the CIA to do such a thing? Well, all of the people I was having the discussion said "yes," except for two of us. 

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #325 on: October 17, 2008, 08:28:38 PM »

Herbert Marcuse analyzed the integration of the industrial working class into capitalist society and new forms of capitalist stabilization and questioned the Marxian postulates of the revolutionary proletariat and inevitability of capitalist crisis. He was concerned about the decline of revolutionary potential in the West. The "advanced industrial society" has created false needs, which integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption via mass media, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought. This results in a "one-dimensional" universe of thought and behavior in which aptitude and ability for critical thought and oppositional behavior wither away. Against this prevailing climate, Marcuse promotes the "great refusal" as the only adequate opposition to all-encompassing methods of control.

In contrast to orthodox Marxism, Marcuse championed non-integrated forces of minorities, outsiders, and radical intelligentsia, attempting to nourish oppositional thought and behavior through promoting radical thinking and opposition.


Global capitalism is in crisis and morphing into something new. Megabrands are losing market share as people question the values they stand for and the power they have over our lives. Now a new kind of cool is bubbling up. It's about a greener, more local, more politically charged way of living, and it starts with dumping megabrands and flowing your money into the small, indy stores and websites that are now popping up everywhere. Let us unswoosh the swoosh and create a vibrant new kind of capitalism that actually works.


Here it is as Noam Chomsky describes the purpose of our economic system as individual material gain, and explains why a society based on this principle will destroy itself in time.

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/blackspot/noam_chomsky_rethinking_capitalism.html

Homosexual Blackmail
« Reply #326 on: October 19, 2008, 11:34:27 AM »

I am sure there's an ethical issue here. I don't doubt that there are many of you out there who might think there's not; I was discussing the other day this other scenario with a few people and, to my astonishment, most of them thought there's nothing wrong with it: Here it is:

X serves as a diplomatic officer of the Dominican Republic in Spain. He's being transfered to the US, in New York City to serve as an officer for his country. The CIA and FBI conduct surveillance of his activities while he's in NYC and find out he frequents gay bars and has promiscuous homosexual sex with many men. They take pictures of him to serve as evidence of his homosexuality. He is approached to become an agent for the CIA, otherwise his country authorities would be provided with the above-mentioned proof of his homosexuality. In his country being overtly homosexual is a bar to employment in the diplomatic service. Is it ethical for the CIA to do such a thing? Well, all of the people I was having the discussion said "yes," except for two of us. 


It is a shame that in this day and age this is still going on! It is totally unacceptable to use homosexual blackmale to recruit him. I have a close relative who is gay. I am sensitive to the repercussions of "outing" a homosexual; he is subject to ostracism by friends, family, and society in general -- and to depression and suicidal ideation at a rate much higher than the general population. Under the best of circumstances, blackmail is repugnant. In this instance, it is punitive, with potentially serious unforeseen ramifications. While working it is easier to get caught up in the enthusiasm and to remain focused on your mission, rather than looking critically at the ethical issues involved in the work. But the latter should always be in the mind of the person making the decisions.

Re: Homosexual Blackmail
« Reply #327 on: October 19, 2008, 08:04:35 PM »

[...]

X serves as a diplomatic officer of the Dominican Republic in Spain. He's being transfered to the US, in New York City to serve as an officer for his country. The CIA and FBI conduct surveillance of his activities while he's in NYC and find out he frequents gay bars and has promiscuous homosexual sex with many men. They take pictures of him to serve as evidence of his homosexuality. He is approached to become an agent for the CIA, otherwise his country authorities would be provided with the above-mentioned proof of his homosexuality. In his country being overtly homosexual is a bar to employment in the diplomatic service. Is it ethical for the CIA to do such a thing? Well, all of the people I was having the discussion said "yes," except for two of us.
 

X's homosexuality should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to recruit him. Blackmail, regardless of what he sought to hide, would be morally unacceptable because it would objectify him in such a way that he would become wholly dehumanized and transformed into a mere instrument and means for the CIA and FBI. The only wage the CIA and FBI would pay X would be the promise to keep his secret. He would be faced with the situation of losing universal freedom in order to sustain his right to privacy. Privacy is never privacy when it is under the duress of extortion. This kind of extortion is tantamount to slavery and slavery is always morally unacceptable.

Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #328 on: October 20, 2008, 06:54:00 PM »

In an amazing scientific discovery, we have now come to know that antihomicidal defenses start early in life -- even before we are born, when we still inhabit the presumably cozy environment of our mother's womb. As Harvard biologist David Haig has discovered, even the womb presents its own dangers; a chief one of those is what is known as spontaneous abortions, many of which happen before a woman even knows she is pregnant. Indeed, we now know that many women who experience late periods and worry that they are pregnant, only to be relieved later when their periods begin again, have actually experienced spontaneous abortion of the growing fetus. According to Haig's findings, these often undetected miscarriages occur when the mother's body has sensed that the fetus is in poor health or possesses genetic abnormalities.

Remarkably, Haig also discovered that a defense mechanism has evolved to outwit the mother's body and protect the fetus. This is the fetal production of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is a hormone the fetus secretes into the mother's bloodstream. The female body appears to "interpret" high levels of hCG as a sign that a fetus is healthy and viable, and so does not spontaneously abort. Even the womb is a hostile environment where one's own interests must be protected at the cost of another's. Even in that most sacred place we are potential murder victims.




For the sake of truth, clog, hCG is produced by the placenta, not the fetus itself. Shortly after a woman's egg is fertilized by her male partner's sperm and is implanted in the lining or the womb (uterus), a placenta begins to form. This organ will help nourish the developing new life. The placenta produces hCG, whose presence, along with other hormones, helps maintain the early stages of pregnancy. After implantation, the level of detectable hCG rises very rapidly, approximately doubling in quantity every two days until a peak is reached between the weeks 6 and 8. Over the next 10 or more weeks, the quantity of hCG slowly decreases. After this point, a much lower level is sustained for the duration of the pregnancy.



Here it is a placenta delivery (well, it features the baby's delivery as well, but right after that part you can see the placenta being taken out)

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-yd8qBexzgF4/cesarean_section_part2/

Narcissism
« Reply #329 on: October 22, 2008, 12:06:51 PM »

Hitler was a visionary. Such an individual may be quite successful in his early life only to end up throwing it all away once an internal rebellion arises and he begins questioning, long before middle-age, "Is that all there is?" And the higher the rung and the more monnies involved, the less meaningful it all seems to become. The treadmill of youth that once ran so smoothly, now jerks along mindlessly. Their natural drive and curiosity are replaced by apathy. Disillusionment and dissatisfaction mount, until one day the hollowness inside them erupts, into a roaring crescendo of deafening, threatening, self-doubt. Without invitation or shove, they leap off the treadmill. Stepping on every sidewalk crack along the way, they head home, where in profound soberness, they take stock of their self and their life. What they learn decides whether they'll begin living as born and meant, or countinue much as before; by dictate of circumstance.

A visionary is born with a burning need to do something significant with his life; something meaningful and people-bettering. Others can imagine what ringing in the ears is like, but only a visionary knows what an internal clock sounds and feels like. For him, time is always running; always winding down. Why they, alone, have and hear this tick-tock is unknown. Characteristically, and in one form or another, their earliest and most frequently asked questions is, "What purpose, this human?" They intrinsically feel a need to do something significant, "but what?" niggles and bothers endlessly. However long it takes, however many libraries of opinion they swallow, or trails they traipse, pursuit of purpose can have a visionary chewing up life in a virtual feeding frenzy, searching for reasons to justify their being. They go through careers, through friends and experiences, like an August prairie grassfire -- and all to the accompainiment of an internal tick-tock marking time's passage.

Visionaries focus on the whole, with two assumptions. Assumption 1: If they can envision, then doing MUST be possible. Assumption 2: Essential parts and pieces will assemble, and arrange appropriately within the larger context, when wanted and as needed. These individuals won't give up. To them, obstacles mean that alternatives have yet to be found and tried. Their 360-degree perspective glasses are the secret behind a visionary's creativity, but it's their unwavering confidence in outcomes, based on 2 firm assumptions, that proves their power and leads to uncommon success. These individuals tend to be the most boldly risk-taking of all. When visionary stops rationalizing, stops trying to fit into logic-built molds and starts trusting intuition instead, they tap into unfathomable good luck. Timing...in, trying...in, doing...in, life, is the second secret of his success. Their now is one tick-tock faster than others'. Intellect and ego become a formidable combination, when the intuitive bee settles in a visionary bonnet. Changing is to was, by replacement with next, is their name's fame and claim. Their birth responsibility is betterment, of others and world. Their tend is to do both frequently.

Charisma is their default birth setting, and it proves one thing -- the Creator's favorite form of humor is irony. A visionary has a "presence thing" that others initially sense as intimidating. It's an energy born of confidence, that pulses and vibrates, yet belies the often shy individual. This irony is no secret to them. Rather than rail at the unfairness, they overcome their presence anomaly, by moving beyond shyness and approaching others first. Otherwise, they may spend much time alone. Such an individual relates readily and easily with almost any other. However, when wanted or when advantageous, they can and will lean on their default intimidation, to control others and situations, personally and/or professionally. Visionaries both feel and think as they speak, and often think clearest when challenged or pressured. Leather breath -- putting their foot in their mouth -- is not a trait of them, though razor-barbed rebuttal is. As others speak, they intuitively follow along, conjuring pictoral images of the conversation. They can be totally unabashed about asking questions, regardless of how simple or inane their query doth seem to others. Some want to know, some like to know, some prefer not knowing; but visionary must. If cats, they would have long been extinct, due to curiosity.


FYI, a visionary may well be a narcissist! Some narcissism is an essential part of all of us from birth, with exclusive self-love possibly not being as abnormal as previously thought. Narcissism is the libidinal compliment to the egoism of the instinct of self-preservation, or more simply, the desire and energy that drives our instinct to survive. Freud, who coined the term, observes in "Totem and Taboo" that children and primitive people exhibit what he calls "magical thinking". An example of magical thinking would be believing that you can have an effect on reality by wishing or willpower. This demonstrates a belief in the self as powerful and able to change external realities, which Freud believed was part of normal human development (primary narcissism). Secondary narcissism is a pathological condition which occurs when the libido withdraws from objects outside of the self. Freud further claimed that it is an extreme form of the narcissism that is part of all of us.

To care for someone is to convert ego-libido into object-libido by giving some self-love to another person, which leaves less ego-libido available for primary narcissism and protecting and nurturing the self. When that affection is returned so is the libido, thus restoring primary narcissism and self worth. Any failure to achieve, or disruption of, this balance causes psychological disturbances. In such a case primary narcissism can only be restored by withdrawing object-libido (also called, object-love), to replenish ego-libido. According to Freud, as a child grows, and his ego develops, he is constantly giving of his self-love to people and objects, the first of which is usually his mother. This diminished self-love should be replenished by the affection and caring returned to him.



There are two types of narcissists: the somatic narcissist and the cerebral narcissist. The somatic type relies on his body and sexuality as Sources of Narcissistic Supply (NS). The cerebral narcissist uses his intellect, his intelligence and his professional achievements to obtain the same. Narcissists are either predominantly cerebral or overwhelmingly somatic. In other words, they either generate their N supply by using their bodies or by flaunting their minds. The somatic narcissist flashes his sexual conquests, parades his possessions, puts his muscles on ostentatious display, brags about his physical aesthetics or sexual prowess or exploits, is often a health freak and a hypochondriac. The cerebral narcissist is a know-it-all, haughty and intelligent "computer". He uses his awesome intellect, or knowledge (real or pretended) to secure adoration, adulation and admiration. To him, his body and its maintenance are a burden and a distraction. Both types are autoerotic (psychosexually in love with themselves, with their bodies or with their brains). Both types prefer masturbation to adult, mature, interactive, multi-dimensional and emotion-laden sex.

The cerebral narcissist is often celibate (even when he has a girlfriend or a spouse). He prefers pornography and sexual auto-stimulation to the real thing. The cerebral narcissist is sometimes a latent (hidden, not yet outed) homosexual. The somatic narcissist uses other people's bodies to masturbate. Sex with him – pyrotechnics and acrobatics aside – is likely to be an impersonal and emotionally alienating and draining experience. The partner is often treated as an object, an extension of the somatic narcissist, a toy, a warm and pulsating vibrator. It is a mistake to assume type-constancy. In other words, all narcissists are both cerebral and somatic. In each narcissist, one of the types is dominant. So, the narcissist is either largely cerebral – or dominantly somatic. But the other, recessive (manifested less frequently) type, is there. It is lurking, waiting to erupt.

While many psychologists would call narcissism a disorder, this trait can be quite beneficial for top bosses, and it's certainly less pathological than psychopathy. The narcissistic CEO can be portrayed as a grandiose egotist who is on a mission to help humanity in the abstract even though he's often insensitive to the real people around him. Apple's Steve Jobs, General Electric's Jack Welch, Intel's Andy Grove, Microsoft's Bill Gates, and Southwest Airlines' Herb Kelleher are counted as "productive narcissists," or PNs. Narcissists are visionaries who attract hordes of followers, which can make them excel as innovators, but they're poor listeners and they can be awfully touchy about criticism. These people don't have much empathy. When Bill Gates tells someone, 'That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard,' or Steve Jobs calls someone a bozo, they're not concerned about people's feelings. They see other people as a means toward their ends. But they do have a sense of changing the world -- in their eyes, improving the world. They build their own view of what the world should be and get others recruited to their vision. However, productive narcissists can become "drunk with power" and turn destructive.

Sexual narcissism is the erotic preoccupation with oneself as a sexual being: a desire to merge sexually with a mirror image of oneself. The singer Madonna and Paris Hilton have displayed sexual narcissism.