Bob Froehlich and Julia Minton will join me to discuss logical and other argumentative fallacies in discourse.  7:00 p.m. as usual on KMUD.

Here’s a list of fallacies for homework.

MAMAs always, Sohum Parlance is an equal opportunity forum when it comes to promotion of political events.  If I can make it, I may have to find some space in between the marches – which as you can see are set for the same time and place.  Here’s hoping there can be a respectful dialogue.

I agree with some of what’s below, but disagree with some as well.  I’m not sure I understand what “We are all Monsanto” means, but I look forward to the explanation.

From the organizers:

We will meet at 2nd and I streets, and at 3:00 we march to the Humboldt County Courthouse, where we will listen to various speakers and have the opportunity to speak ourselves, if we so choose.

Also from the FB Page:

I will be attending the ”March against Monsanto” in Eureka this Saturday for the first ever counter March….. I don’t expect there to be enough of us to be noticed in any sort of ‘march’ without our protest being entirely drowned out by a majority. But I will be attending MAM to advocate for science to fight against psuedoscience and the entrenchment of science illiteracy which threatens food security in developing nations and the advancement of sustainable agriculture.

I hope you will join me. In the near future I will present a meet up plan so we can find each other. I am bringing a number of infographics and charts, some copies of studies, as well as handouts that will be supplied to me by MAMyths. If enough of us attend I’ll bring a table. I’ll bring my daughter if any of you are bringing kids, I’m on the fence.

I commend your courage, I understand how uncomfortable it is to step into the fray. The more of you that will join me, the less terrified I am going to be. We’ve learned how anger fills the space between ones certainty, and their lack of evidence, and how they use this tactic to silence dissenting voices enabling their delusions to spread.

I have many unanswered questions to ask of GMO opponents, and it is long over do that they face up to their own inconsistencies. We know the cognitive dissonance will ignite their ire, but it could also ignite some to inquire further and reconsider. Sure, many of them are unpersuadables, entirely unwilling to reconsider because they are so entrenched inside their belief systems, but many of them are simply victims of the intellectual dishonesty of others and just have never heard anyone speak positively about GMO’s, let alone a real life person.

We are not the adversaries of MAM protesters; WE ARE ALL MARCH AGAINST MONSANTO. Our message to them; ”WE ARE ALL MONSANTO”


Four stars for the 2012 film Hannah Arendt based on the historical intellectual figure of the same name.  It’s a definite left brain kind of movie relying on the ideas presented for its vitality and entertainment value.  It throws in a bit of her complicated love life, mostly to emphasize her prior romance to Heidegger.  To those of us who read her in college the intellectualism being expressed between the powerful minds represented in the film might seem a little sophomoric, but as heady as the film might want to be it obviously has to appeal to a broader base than those who’ve actually read her and the other NY Intellectuals extensively.

It’s a moral story about the importance of free thinking.  It centers on her coverage of the Adolph Eichmann trial and the controversy of her conclusion that Eichmann wasn’t a “monster,” but was a nobody who was simply part of a broader social evil which carried its own inertia and everyone along with it including Jewish leaders, some of whom collaborated in the demise of Jewish people.  The film does do a good job of elaborating on the nuances of her conclusions – it wasn’t compassion for Eichmann as she was fine with him being executed, maybe even slightly sanguine as opposed to her husband who calls it as a cop out.  Obviously though, her article (published first in the New Yorker) was misinterpreted by many as a defense of Eichmann and blaming the victims and the resulting tempest (which is a matter of record in various intellectual magazines of the time) makes very clear that we’ve never needed the Internet to engage in flame wars with appeals to emotion at the expense of reason.

Her premise – totalitarianism is a social evil which deprives individuals of the right to think and survive at the same time.  Eichmann was a “nobody” who simply took orders and wasn’t ideological, and although she despised him she believed him for reasons on which she elaborated in great detail.  Now, some of the articles slamming her in the aftermath raised questions about her factual support – I remember reading a Commentary article (Commentary wasn’t yet neo-con at the time, but it was on its way) which laid out some evidence that maybe Eichmann wasn’t as ideology-free as she argued, and there are plenty of questions to be asked about the extent to which her “banality of evil” theme can excuse individual behavior, but the point is that while everyone else was into the trial for the blood she was making an earnest attempt to understand what she was watching.  She’s accused of being “too philosophical” about a man who was a leader in a system that killed 6 million and almost killed her – the suggestion being that she was repressing her feelings and being overly dispassionate.  The film counters by suggesting it was her passion for Heidegger which blunted her hatred of those who compromised on their humanity during the war – there’s really no other point to his involvement in the story.

The film doesn’t mention, and probably it’s not necessary that it does, that her ideas were controversial even before her trial coverage.  In her book about totalitarianism she argued, among other things, that Jews were not “the operative factor” in Nazism and the Holocaust, but merely a “convenient proxy.”  And again, it’s very arguable, but it was also attacked somehow as a denial of anti-Semitism.

I think the movie could have underscored the point by working into the script her final paragraph in the New Yorker articles:

“Just as you [Eichmann] supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations—as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world—we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang.”

Read the rest of this entry »

You can watch the Kinetic Sculpture Race water crossing, then attend.

From the Humboldt March Against Monsanto

March Against Monsanto March Against Monsanto


Bring your kids, dogs, costumes (honey bees, bumble bees beekeepers, butterflies, ladybugs, the possibilities are endless!), dogs, signs, drums – whatever your imagination dictates, to this important part of the global movement to label, better yet, ban GMOs. Together, we will MARCH AGAINST MONSANTO!! Protect ourselves, our children, our CSAs, our bees, our mother earth, our organic farmers, ourselves, our rights, our very existence!

We will meet at 2nd and I streets, and at 3:00 we march to the Humboldt County Courthouse, where we will listen to various speakers and have the opportunity to speak ourselves, if we so choose.

THIS IS A FREE EVENT IN WHICH YOUR PRESENCE IS GREATLY NEEDED AND VERY IMPORTANT!! Come join us in a march for Seed Freedom, Food Freedom, Individual Freedom, and all sorts of Freedom!!

Vast majority of the funds going to the Sheriff, Fire, and District Attorney offices with some amounts allocated for social services.  Not the way I would prefer to allocate the funds, but I think fairly accurately representative of what was presented to the voters.

Thanks to Kym for the story.

I will be interviewing Rep. Jared Huffman on Thursday Night Talk on KHSU tomorrow night. We’ll talk about Transatlantic Trade, ACA, and other issues. He’ll be on for about 15 minutes.  7:00 p.m.

Kent State

May 4, 1970.

Jeffrey Glenn Miller; age 20
Allison B. Krause; age 19
William Knox Schroeder; age 19
Sandra Lee Scheuer; age 20

(Photo source: unknown. Original photo: John Filo; 1970.)

It’s about much more than schooling Geraldo or Fox News.

Love the line, “Talk to me!  A black man can raise his voice and you don’t have to be intimidated!”

Bernie SandersThis will make the primaries worth paying attention to.  There may not be any additional Democratic Party candidates.  Sanders is, of course, going to have to join the Democratic Party in order to run.

Sanders is the first official challenger for the Democratic nomination to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who announced her candidacy earlier this month.

Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist,” has been hinting that he would seek the White House for nearly two years.

The senator, who has been in the upper chamber since 2007, previously served as Vermont’s at-large congressman and as mayor of Burlington. He caucuses with the Democratic Party in the Senate and is categorized as a Democrat for the purpose of committee assignments.

Actually the Republican clown car is going to be pretty entertaining as well.

After all, we didn’t see sprinkler rainbows when we were kids!

May 2015
« Apr    

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers