Saturday, August 13, 2011

Via Climate Progress: What’s the Best Strategy for Dealing with Deniers?

David Roberts, in a Grist cross-post.

The other day, I wrote about a study that attempted to explain why conservative white men (CWM) are so loathe to accept the threat of climate change. It has to do with system justification and identity-protective cognition. Go read it!

The question remains: What should we do about it? The denialism or indifference of CWM toward climate is a huge barrier to getting anything done. In this post, I’m going to argue that the typical strategies are doomed to failure. It may be that the simplest, least clever strategy — kick their [metaphorical] asses — is still the way to go.

Repeat it

The original and still most popular approach to dealing with climate deniers is reasoned persuasion: facts and figures and reports and literature reviews and slideshows and whitepapers. This hasn’t ever really worked, but climate types keep trying, like American tourists in a foreign country who try to overcome the language barrier by talking louder and more slowly.

While the study postulated a lot of interesting things about CWM, one thing it didn’t ascribe to them is ignorance. In fact, the CWM who know the most about climate science are the most likely to reject the consensus account. And this isn’t a new finding. Yale’s “Six Americas” report found that the highly skeptical are more informed about climate change science than those who report a high degree of concern about it (the latter of whom still regularly confuse climate with the ozone hole, etc.).

A large number of CWM have taken pains to seek out information on climate change so that they can dispute it. You’ve no doubt encountered them in comment sections online. This is called motivated reasoning: reasoning aimed at justifying a pre-existing conclusion or social identity, gathering supporting facts and ignoring disconfirming evidence.

Motivated reasoning is something all human beings do; we all defend and justify our social identities. In fact, some interesting new social science argues that motivated reasoning is not a bug but a feature — what reason evolved to do. Nevertheless, there’s a difference between motivated reasoning and complete epistemic closure, which is what the right has achieved on climate (and other issues as well).
Which suggests that giving CWM still more facts and arguments is not going to achieve anything.

Drop it
One sentiment, lately growing in popularity, is that the best way around the CWM climate conundrum is just to stop talking about it. If climate has become divisive and partisan, then drop it; there’s plenty of good policy that doesn’t require climate as a premise. That’s the thrust of the recent “Climate Pragmatism” report and the idea seems to be catching on. I addressed that notion in a post last week and said most of what I need to say there. I’ll just add that there’s an implicit premise in the “pragmatism” argument. It assumes that climate is a unique barrier to cooperation with CWM in positions of power and that there are other areas where CWM can be brought around to support clean energy. But what if climate isn’t unique? What if CWM reject it because it came from a tribe they see as their enemies and they’ll reject anything that comes from that tribe? Then dropping climate has won nothing and sacrificed moral authority and simple honesty.

Finesse it
A somewhat more sophisticated take says that we should talk about climate differently, in a way that does not trigger CWM defenses. David Ropeik (whose work on risk perception everyone should be reading) has a post on the CWM study in which he says:
We have stop making climate change a zero sum if-you-win-I-lose battle. We have to frame the issue in ways that work within everybody’s underlying cultural/tribal perspectives. We have to realize that answers are more likely to be found, and solutions are more likely to be reached, if the goal is finding common ground …
In the abstract, this makes plenty of sense, though it’s rarely spelled out in any detail. Offer CWM an entree into the issue that doesn’t require them to give up their tribal affiliations and commitments. Find common ground. Who could argue?

Notice the gigantic underlying assumption, though: that climate change can be rendered benign to the current cultural/tribal perspectives of CWM. Is that so? It’s often claimed that if climate is discussed as a national security issue, an economic opportunity, or a religious/moral imperative, it will bring skeptics over. But those claims have not born out in practice, despite years of attempts. CWM grow steadily more skeptical even as the military, the private sector, and religious institutions grapple with the truth.

The fact is that climate change triggers system justification among privileged classes because it really does carry a threat to the system! It implies an argument for global governance when CWM are nationalistic, an argument for egalitarianism when they are hierarchical, an argument for conservation when they love capitalism, an argument for investment and regulation when they hate government. It also implies that hippies have been right and the conservative movement wrong, for decades.

In communications among individuals, the psychology of communication can be helpful. But framing — which is where lots of wonks and academics seem to begin and end — is not a sufficient political solution. There’s a reason CWM have the cultural/tribal perspectives they do. They are heavily influenced by people and institutes whose interests are threatened by the solutions to climate change.

Denialism in context
Where climate scientists, energy wonks, academics, and eco-journalists go wrong is in abstracting climate change from the larger political situation. They approach it in isolation, wondering what characteristics of this particular phenomenon invoke this particular reaction in these particular people. That distorts their reactions.

The fact is, as I’ve written before, climate denialism is part of something much larger. The most significant driving force behind climate change denial among CWM is not any ineffable psychological mystery but simply the increasing intensity and radicalization of the American conservative movement. The same dynamic afflicting climate change is afflicting the debate over fiscal policy, the economy, jobs, and health care. The right is rejecting empirical reality and adopting a stance of unshakeable ideological opposition to anything the non-right does, even policies they have supported in the past (see: individual mandate in health care, cap-and-trade in environmental policy). The core of the CWM tribal perspective is loyalty to the tribe and hostility to outsiders.

There is a serious asymmetry between the left and right in America that lots and lots and lots of people, for whatever reason, don’t want to acknowledge. The left remains a broad, fractious coalition composed of all sorts of competing interests. The right, by contrast, has become increasingly clarified. Since Reagan, but accelerating since Gingrich, the right has become more and more homogenous, composed of CWM who share a visceral sense of being besieged, of “losing their country,” of seeing their privileged normative place in U.S. culture slip away. They view liberals not as fellow Americans with differing policy views but as a threat to the moral fiber and even the existence of the country.

Manicheanism has always been part of the conservative temperament, but that propensity has been hugely accelerated by the construction of a self-contained media machine that runs on fear. They need everything divided into two buckets: good and evil.

In those circumstances, the chances of luring CWM into the climate hawk coalition seem exceedingly slim, no matter how clever and psychologically adept the messaging.

Let’s remember the goal. The goal is action. The support of CWM is a means to that end, but not necessarily the only means to that end. Perhaps instead of hiding from the fight, or transcending the fight by finding common ground, climate hawks could win the fight. A crazy notion, I know.

CWM are blocking the entire, diverse climate coalition from taking action by virtue of intensity (not to mention a broken and utterly dysfunctional political system). The poll numbers are consistently on climate hawks’ side, but their support is shallow and fickle. The Tea Party, on the other hand, views even efficient lightbulbs as incipient tyranny. As I’ve said many times, intensity wins in politics.
If that’s true, perhaps the answer is not to reduce intensity in hopes of attracting CWM. Perhaps the answer is to increase intensity in order to overcome CWM. Intensity is increased first and foremost through organizing, but also through clear, inspiring messages that draw sharp lines between those fighting for progress and those fighting against it.

The implicit premise of climate “pragmatism” and similar efforts is that CWM are stronger, that climate hawks can’t win a direct clash. And for now, that seems to be true. Beating back the radical conservative resurgence is something that nobody on the left has figured out yet. But the alternative, attempting to win over CWM by soft-pedaling climate, doesn’t exactly have a record of success either.
In the end, everyone has to make their own bet. Do you make progress by attempting to please the Very Serious People running the system or by speaking truth to power and subverting the system? For my part, when I see people denying facts and bullying scientists in order perpetuate the dominance of fossil fuel interests that are killing people and threatening my children’s futures, I am inclined to tell them to go f*ck themselves. That won’t resonate with their social/tribal perspectives, but that’s because I find their social/tribal perspectives repugnant and worthy of social censure. I want to beat them.

– David Roberts

Festa na Caixa de Fósforos - 50 anos - O Aniversário de Milton 12 de agosto 2011

Ação na cozinha com Milton, Heloisa e Cidinha
"If you build it they will come"

Milton & Tânia
Carlos e João

Rafael e Heloisa

Mirian planejando o seu futuro doutorado em Sacramento  
Who's who? // Quem é quem?


Quando os matemáticos alterados jogam com os números   

Foto tirada por um matemático alterado...

Friday, August 12, 2011

Via JMG: WaPo Poll: Will You Re-Elect Obama?

Via Washington Post:
Support for Obama has softened considerably on the left: In the new poll, 31 percent of liberals say they are certain to vote for Obama next year, down from 46 percent in June. One in five liberals says they “definitely will not” vote for him, while a 43 percent plurality says they’ll considering casting a ballot for Obama. Obama’s 2008 election was fueled by winning majorities of key swing groups, including political independents, women and voters under age 50. But with 15 months left before Election Day, more than three times as many independents say they “definitely will not” vote for Obama in 2012 as say they “definitely will” — 45 percent versus 14 percent. And among women and those under 50, more say they’ll definitely oppose than definitely support Obama next year.

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: TX Gov. Rick Perry: Social Security And Medicare Are Totally Unconstitutional

"I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term 'general welfare' in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do." - Texas Gov. Rick Perry, speaking to Newsweek.

reposted from Joe

What Has Obama Accomplished?

Via Los Angeles Times: Romney to heckler: "Corporations are people, my friend."
Campaigning in Iowa on Thursday, Mitt Romney told a heckler, “Corporations are people, my friend”—words immediately seized upon by Democrats in what they termed as a possible defining statement by the presidential candidate.

Coitado de Timmy...

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" - John F. Kennedy:

If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal."...

But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal...

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Britain is a riot

Via JMG: Romney: Corporations Are People

"Especially when they anonymously donate millions to your campaign! I loved the mocking laughter and heckling that followed Romney's nonsense." - Joe

reposted from Joe

Contract for the American Dream

Via Climate Progress: U.S. Sees Most Extreme July Climate, Oklahoma Sees Hottest Average Temperature of Any State on Record

The July Climate Extremes Index for the CONUS was 37 percent. This is the highest July value in the CEI record (since 1910). The culprits were, in order of impact: Extreme warm minimum temperatures (60 percent of the country, easily the largest on record), extreme wet PDSI (soaked northern plains & western great lakes), extreme warm maximum temperatures, and extreme dry PDSI (south-central U.S. through Gulf Coast). According to the Regional CEI, the South and Southeast had their 1st- and 2nd-most extreme July’s on record, respectively
That’s from the July “State of the Climate” by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
Didn’t know that our government kept a Climate Extremes Index? Why would you? The media hardly ever write about it.

The U.S. Climate Extremes Index was explicitly created to take a complicated subject (“multivariate and multidimensional climate changes in the United States“) and make it more easily understood by American citizens and policy makers.

As far back as 1995, analysis by the National Climatic Data Center showed that over the course of the 20th century, the United States had suffered a statistically significant increase in a variety of extreme weather events, the very ones you would expect from global warming, such as more — and more intense — precipitation. That analysis concluded the chances were only “5 to 10 percent” this increase was due to factors other than global warming, such as “natural climate variability.” And since 1995, the climate has gotten much more extreme.

But still the media has little to say on the subject:
As for Oklahoma, Jason Samenow of the Capital Weather Gang notes:
In Oklahoma, the heat and drought were a punishing double whammy. In a vicious cycle, the dry soil intensified the heat and the heat dried out the soil. The result: heat unprecendented in any state at any time.
He directs us to The Oklahoma Climatological Survey, which reported this news:
Grover Cleveland was serving his second term as President in 1895. Victoria was
the Queen of England and Will Rogers was still a teenager. It is also the year
that statewide average temperature records begin for the United States. There
have been 1399 months pass by since 1895. Multiply that number by 48 and you
have 67,152 months of temperature records for the contiguous states. How hot
was it in Oklahoma last month? Of those statewide average temperature records
for the 48 states, none has been hotter than July 2011 in Oklahoma.
That’s hot — but not hot enough to move the state’s top deniers (see “Oklahoma, Where the Governor Tells Residents To Pray For Rain; Oklahoma, Where the Senator Mocks the Deadly Heat Wave“).

And so in a few decades, this will just be a typical July and eventually a relatively cool one for the state, assuming we keep following the deniers’ do-nothing strategy.  In a terrific 2010 presentation, Climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe has a figure of what the future holds (derived from the 2009 NOAA-led impacts report):

Mother Nature is just warming up.

via cliamte Progress: Attacks on Science Education Intensify: “There Seems To Be a Lynch-Mob Hate Against Any Teacher Trying to Teach Climate Change”

— Chris Mooney, in a DeSmogBlog cross-post

A few months back, those who care about accurate climate science and energy education in high school classes registered a minor victory. Under fire from outlets like The New York Times, the education publishing behemoth Scholastic (of Clifford the Big Red Dog and Harry Potter fame) pulled an energy curriculum sponsored by the American Coal Foundation, which gave a nice PR sheen to coal without bothering to cover, uh, the whole environmental angle. The curriculum had reportedly already been mailed to 66,000 classrooms by the time it got yanked.

When it comes to undermining accurate and responsible climate and energy education at the high school level, Scholastic may have been the most prominent transgressor. But precisely because it is a massive and respected educational publisher, and actually cares what The New York Times thinks, it was also the most moderate and easy to reason with.

Although it’s hard to find online now, I’ve reviewed the offending coal curriculum, entitled “The United States of Energy.” In my view, it didn’t even contain any obvious falsehoods—except for errors of omission. It was more a case of subtle greenwashing.

What’s currently seeping into classrooms across the country is far, far worse—more ideological, and more difficult to stop. We’re talking about outright climate denial being fed to students—and accurate climate science teaching being attacked by aggressive Tea Party-style ideologues.

Science magazine just released a report on the state of affairs out there in this place called America, and it’s ugly. From the piece:

“It’s very difficult when we, as science teachers, are just trying to present scientific facts,” says Kathryn Currie, head of the [Los Alamitos High School’s] science department. And science educators around the country say such attacks are becoming all too familiar. They see climate science now joining evolution as an inviting target for those who accuse “liberal” teachers of forcing their “beliefs” upon a captive audience of impressionable children.
“Evolution is still the big one, but climate change is catching up,” says Roberta Johnson, executive director of the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) in Boulder, Colorado. An informal survey this spring of 800 NESTA members found that climate change was second only to evolution in triggering protests from parents and school administrators. One teacher reported being told by school administrators not to teach climate change after a parent threatened to come to class and make a scene. Online message boards for science teachers tell similar tales…
There seems to be a lynch-mob hate against any teacher trying to teach climate change,” says Andrew Milbauer, an environmental sciences teacher at Conserve School, a private boarding school in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin.
Milbauer felt that wrath after receiving an invitation to participate in a public debate about climate change. The event, put on last year by Tea Party activists, proposed to pit high school teachers against professors and climate change deniers David Legates and Willie Soon in front of students from 200 high schools. Organizers said the format was designed “to expand knowledge of the global warming debate to the youth of our state.” When Milbauer and his colleagues declined to participate, organizer Kim Simac complained to the local papers about their “suspicious” behavior. Milbauer corresponded for a time on the organization’s blog until Simac wrote that Milbauer, “in his role as science teacher, is passing on to our youth this monstrous hoax as being the gospel truth.”
How to fight this?

That’s very difficult because, as the Science piece notes, you can’t use the First Amendment. It only bans teaching religion in classrooms, and it is hard to claim that climate change denial—unlike evolution denial—is fundamentally religious in nature. I wouldn’t want to have to argue that case in court.

But while not religiously impelled in a traditional sense, the conservative activists who are attacking the teaching of climate science at the grassroots do fit a familiar profile. We’ve gotten to know them very well by now.

They are hierarchical in outlook, and tend to deny all manner of environmental risks. They often believe that climate science is part of a global conspiracy to impose a statist economy. And of course, they are often conservative white men like Jeffrey Barke, the Los Alamitos Unified School District board of education member who has placed this school at the center of attacks on accurate climate science teaching.

These people are nothing if not highly politicized and emotional. Here’s Barke in his own words:
“Most teachers are left to center, and if we leave it to teachers to impose their liberal views, then it would make for an unbalanced lesson,” Barke said. “Some people believe that global warming is a crock of crap, and others are zealots.”
What is the case for not letting people like Barke influence young students?

Simple: When a political fight erupts at a school over the teaching science, students are effectively being taught to tie science together with emotional, politicized reasoning processes–the way the adults who are interefering in the curriculum have already done in their own minds.

That’s precisely the opposite of what we want to be instilling in young brains. Students ought to be learning to think critically, to be dispassionate and apportion their beliefs to the evidence.

Attacks on climate science in schools aren’t just interferences with teaching, then. By supplying teenagers with politicized misinformation, you’re prepping them to have the kinds of emotionally driven argumentative responses that make our public discourse at the national level so fruitless.

You’re not just instilling denial. You’re creating the next generation of political dysfunction.
You’re not teaching kids to think, you’re teaching them to shout.

Chris is Washington correspondent for Seed magazine, senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and author of the bestselling book The Republican War on Science, dubbed “a landmark in contemporary political reporting” by and a “well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing’s assault on science and scientists” by Scientific American.

The Other 98%

Wednesday, August 10, 2011


Stocks plunge as attention returns to weak economy

Stocks plunged again Wednesday as investors turned their attention back to the weak economy and Europe's debt problems. Most of the big gains that followed a Federal Reserve pledge to extend super-low interest rates vanished.

Via Climate Progress: Before Calling the EPA a “Job-Killer,” Michele Bachmann Asked for Money from the Agency to Stimulate “Long-Term Benefits” to the Local Economy

Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann calls the Environmental Protection Agency the “job-killing organization of America” and has threatened to have the agency’s “doors locked and lights turned off.” But before her strong anti-EPA rhetoric aimed at firing up the Tea Party during election season, Bachmann solicited the help of the agency to bring “long-term benefits to the environment and the economy.”

The Huffington Post is reporting this morning that Bachmann asked for direct assistance from the government 16 times – many though the stimulus package, a program that she said made President Obama a “gangster.” On numerous occasions, she urged the EPA to fund projects in her community to realize economic benefits:

In February 2007, well before Obama was in office, Bachmann co-signed a letter to the EPA urging its officials to help fund technical assistance programs and rural water initiatives “in small communities across Minnesota.” The authors of the letter, which included nearly the entire Minnesota congressional delegation at the time, noted that FY 2006 funding for the National Rural Water Association had been set at $11 million.
“We need to continue these efforts in 2007,” they wrote.

In other communications with the EPA, Bachmann was far colder to agency policy, criticizing spring 2009 federal management standards for coal combustion byproducts and 2008 National Ambient Air Quality standards. But in other instances, Bachmann turned to the EPA for constituent-related problems. In a Feb. 2, 2010, letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, she asked the agency to support a $270,806 grant application (filed with the EPA’s Clean Diesel Grant Program) that would help a St. Cloud bus company replace two older motor coach vehicles.

“Voigt’s Bus Service, with Community Transportation, Incorporated, is committed to bringing long-term benefits to the environment and the economy and they wish to accomplish this through the Clean Diesel Grant Program,” she wrote.

Even while railing against government intervention, Bachmann sought funds from the Department of Transportation — asking for money to replace half a dozen transit buses with new models that run on compressed natural gas, rather than letting the private sector handle it on its own. She also requested funds from the DOT through the stimulus package for six different transportation-infrastructure upgrade projects in her home state of Minnesota. The agency did not fund any of those requests.

This is not the first contradiction in Bachmann’s environmental record. She has voted against repealing tax subsides in the oil and gas sectors, but in 2008 opted to raise taxes on renewable energy companies by voting against tax credits extensions for wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and biomass companies. 
Bachmann has also been a very vocal opponent of climate science, calling it “voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.”

Via Utne: Taking a Page From the Tea Party Book

Caminhada de hoje - Daily Walk - Igreja Nossa Senhora das Mercês e Perdões

and one for the door collection (

Copyright 2011 by Daniel C. Orey All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author.

Scott Weaver's Rolling thru the Bay

Scott Weaver's Rolling through the Bay from The Tinkering Studio on Vimeo.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Quote of the Day:

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." 
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Cornel West AND Tavis Smiley Refuse To Say They Will Vote To Re-Elect Obama!

OFFICIAL: "Tea Party! America Thanks You!" Video (by DC Douglas)


Photo Of The Day - Volunteers Take To London's Streets For Clean-Up

Now that is the Britain I know and love.

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: Bachman Loves Pro-Slavery Book

According to one of the three books on Michele Bachmann's "recommended" list, blacks enjoyed a more wonderful life back when they were the slaves of gentle, loving Christians. An excerpt:
Northerners were often shocked and offended by the familiarity that existed as a matter of course between the whites and blacks of the old South. This was one of the surprising and unintended consequences of slavery. Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded on racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith.
The book concludes that abolitionism was "not the best answer" for its day.

reposted from Joe


Segue um texto para aguçar um pouco àqueles nossos momentos de reflexão sobre as mazelas da sociedade em que vivemos, principalmente a nossa brasileira do terceiro mundo. É referente as 10 estratégias de manipulação midiática,  elaborada por Noam Chomsky que é uma das figuras mais importantes na Lingüística do século XX. Nascido em Filadélfia, em 1928, leciona, desde 1955, no Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts, onde se tornou catedrático aos 32 anos. Além de seu trabalho como lingüista, Chomsky escreve livros sobre temas contemporâneos. Suas palestras têm despertado a atenção de platéias em todo o país e pelo mundo afora.

O lingüista estadunidense Noam Chomsky elaborou a lista das “10 estratégias de manipulação” através da mídia:


O elemento primordial do controle social é a estratégia da distração que consiste em desviar a atenção do público dos problemas importantes e das mudanças decididas pelas elites políticas e econômicas, mediante a técnica do dilúvio ou inundações de contínuas distrações e de informações insignificantes. A estratégia da distração é igualmente indispensável para impedir ao público de interessar-se pelos conhecimentos essenciais, na área da ciência, da economia, da psicologia, da neurobiologia e da cibernética. “Manter a atenção do público distraída, longe dos verdadeiros problemas sociais, cativada por temas sem importância real. Manter o público ocupado, ocupado, ocupado, sem nenhum tempo para pensar; de volta à granja como os outros animais (citação do texto 'Armas silenciosas para guerras tranqüilas')”.

Este método também é chamado “problema-reação-solução”. Cria-se um problema, uma “situação” prevista para causar certa reação no público, a fim de que este seja o mandante das medidas que se deseja fazer aceitar. Por exemplo: deixar que se desenvolva ou se intensifique a violência urbana, ou organizar atentados sangrentos, a fim de que o público seja o mandante de leis de segurança e políticas em prejuízo da liberdade. Ou também: criar uma crise econômica para fazer aceitar como um mal necessário o retrocesso dos direitos sociais e o desmantelamento dos serviços públicos.

Para fazer com que se aceite uma medida inaceitável, basta aplicá-la gradativamente, a conta-gotas, por anos consecutivos. É dessa maneira que condições socioeconômicas radicalmente novas (neoliberalismo) foram impostas durante as décadas de 1980 e 1990: Estado mínimo, privatizações, precariedade, flexibilidade, desemprego em massa, salários que já não asseguram ingressos decentes, tantas mudanças que haveriam provocado uma revolução se tivessem sido aplicadas de uma só vez.

Outra maneira de se fazer aceitar uma decisão impopular é a de apresentá-la como sendo “dolorosa e necessária”, obtendo a aceitação pública, no momento, para uma aplicação futura. É mais fácil aceitar um sacrifício futuro do que um sacrifício imediato. Primeiro, porque o esforço não é empregado imediatamente. Em seguida, porque o público, a massa, tem sempre a tendência a esperar ingenuamente que “tudo irá melhorar amanhã” e que o sacrifício exigido poderá ser evitado. Isto dá mais tempo ao público para acostumar-se com a idéia de mudança e de aceitá-la com resignação quando chegue o momento.

A maioria da publicidade dirigida ao grande público utiliza discurso, argumentos, personagens e entonação particularmente infantis, muitas vezes próximos à debilidade, como se o espectador fosse um menino de baixa idade ou um deficiente mental. Quanto mais se intente buscar enganar ao espectador, mais se tende a adotar um tom infantilizante. Por quê? “Se você se dirige a uma pessoa como se ela tivesse a idade de 12 anos ou menos, então, em razão da sugestionabilidade, ela tenderá, com certa probabilidade, a uma resposta ou reação também desprovida de um sentido crítico como a de uma pessoa de 12 anos ou menos de idade (ver “Armas silenciosas para guerras tranqüilas”)”.

Fazer uso do aspecto emocional é uma técnica clássica para causar um curto circuito na análise racional, e por fim ao sentido critico dos indivíduos. Além do mais, a utilização do registro emocional permite abrir a porta de acesso ao inconsciente para implantar ou enxertar idéias, desejos, medos e temores, compulsões, ou induzir comportamentos…

Fazer com que o público seja incapaz de compreender as tecnologias e os métodos utilizados para seu controle e sua escravidão. “A qualidade da educação dada às classes sociais inferiores deve ser a mais pobre e medíocre possível, de forma que a distância da ignorância que paira entre as classes inferiores às classes sociais superiores seja e permaneça impossíveis para o alcance das classes inferiores (ver ‘Armas silenciosas para guerras tranqüilas’)”.

Promover ao público a achar que é moda o fato de ser estúpido, vulgar e inculto…

Fazer o indivíduo acreditar que é somente ele o culpado pela sua própria desgraça, por causa da insuficiência de sua inteligência, de suas capacidades, ou de seus esforços. Assim, ao invés de rebelar-se contra o sistema econômico, o individuo se auto-desvalida e culpa-se, o que gera um estado depressivo do qual um dos seus efeitos é a inibição da sua ação. E, sem ação, não há revolução!

No transcorrer dos últimos 50 anos, os avanços acelerados da ciência têm gerado crescente brecha entre os conhecimentos do público e aquelas possuídas e utilizadas pelas elites dominantes. Graças à biologia, à neurobiologia e à psicologia aplicada, o “sistema” tem desfrutado de um conhecimento avançado do ser humano, tanto de forma física como psicologicamente. O sistema tem conseguido conhecer melhor o indivíduo comum do que ele mesmo conhece a si mesmo. Isto significa que, na maioria dos casos, o sistema exerce um controle maior e um grande poder sobre os indivíduos do que os indivíduos a si mesmos.

Gente querida! Acabei de receber esta mensagem, uma das mais preciosas que já vi... e não é só por eu ser mineira! Confira você mesmo(a) e encante-se.

O' trem bão, sô!!!

Coisas legais para fazer em Minas Gerais
É só clicar onde tá grifado

1.  Assistir um espetáculo do Grupo Corpo no
Palácio das Artes

2.  Ficar horas admirando o forro da
Igreja S. Francisco de Assis em Ouro Preto

3.  Chegar ao topo do
Pico da Bandeira

4. Dormir no
Caraça e ver o lobo guará
5. Assistir um jogo do Cruzeiro x Atlético no Mineirão

6. Comer pé de moleque em Piranguinho
7. Surpreender-se no Inhotim

8. Tirar uma foto com a estátua do Juquinha na
Serra do Cipó

9. Experimentar as guloseimas da Festa Nacional do Pequi em
Montes Claros

10. Pescar um surubim na Represa de Três Marias 

11. Comer pastel de angu em
Conceição do Mato Dentro ou Itabirito

12. Beber água na
Fonte dos Amores em Poços de Caldas

13. Participar da
Vesperata em Diamantina

14. Conseguir uma autorização do IBAMA para visitar o
Parque Nacional Cavernas do Peruaçu

15. Beber uma “Anísio Santiago” em

17. Participar do
Comida di Buteco em Belo Horizonte

18. Alugar um pé de jabuticaba em

19. Fotografar os
profetas em pedra sabão no Santuário de Bom Jesus de Matozinhos na cidade de Congonhas

20. Fazer compras em Divinópolis

21. Emocionar-se na nascente do
rio São Francisco no Parque Nacional da Serra da Canastra

22. Comer queijo no

23. Visitar uma mina de água marinha em
Governador Valadares

24. Fazer um voo de parapente na Serra da Moeda,

26. Navegar no vapor Benjamim Guimarães pelo
rio São Francisco

27. Comprar artesanato em
Bichinhos (Vitoriano Veloso), Prados

28. Fazer a pé pelo menos um trecho da
Estrada Real

29. Participar da Caminhada Roseana em

30. Seguir as placas Caminho do
Museu de Território Caminhos Drummondianos em Itabira

31. Passar um fim de semana romântico em
Monte Verde

32. Tomar um banho de Cachoeira no
Parque Estadual do Ibitipoca

33. Experimentar o doce de leite da
Universidade Federal de Viçosa

34. Observar o Mono Carvoeiro (Muriqui) na Reserva do Patrimônio Particular Natural Feliciano Miguel Abdala em

35. Comer um fígado acebolado no
Mercado Central em Belo Horizonte

36. Fazer compras de lingerie em

37. Relaxar no
Parque das Águas de São Lourenço

38. Praticar turismo solidário em Capivari, Serro ou em Alecrim, São Gonçalo do Rio Preto

39. Caminhar com muita calma pelas ladeiras de Ouro Preto 
40. Brincar o carnaval em Diamantina

41. Passar uma manhã na
Gruta de Maquiné

42. Rezar, cantar e dançar na Festa do Rosário em Dores do Indaiá 

43. Nadar na Represa de Furnas

44. Almoçar
frango com quiabo e angu à beira de um fogão à lenha

45. Admirar as estrelas no Observatório Nacional de Astrofísica no Pico dos Dias, Brazópolis.

46. Ficar de queixo caído frente ao altar mor da
Igreja de Santo Antônio, Tiradentes

47. Divertir-se na viagem de
Maria Fumaça entre Tiradentes e São João del-Rei

48. Praticar rafting e outros esportes de aventura nas corredeiras do rio Gavião em
Bonito de Minas

49. Isolar-se do mundo no
Mosteiro de Macaúbas, Santa Luzia

50. Assistir a um concerto no Órgão Arp Schnitger na Catedral da Sé de Mariana

51. Acordar com um galo cantando em uma fazenda

52. Participar da procissão Encontro do Senhor Passos em Ouro Preto

53. Visitar um alambique em
Itambé do Mato Dentro

54. Assistir a uma peça do Grupo Galpão em uma praça

55. Rezar na
Igreja de São Francisco de Assis na Pampulha, Belo Horizonte

56. Adquirir calçados em Nova Serrana

57. Refletir sobre a vida no
Museu da Loucura, Barbacena

58. Sentir o frio gostoso de
Maria da Fé

59. Torcer por uma candidata no “Miss Gay” de
Juiz de Fora

60. Admirar um belo horizonte na praça do Papa em Belo Horizonte

61. Vivenciar o dia a dia de uma fazenda centenária.

62. Aplaudir o Grupo de Bonecos Giramundo

63. Aprender sobre a história de
Minas Gerais no Museu da Inconfidência em   Ouro Preto

64. Comprar produtos de teares em
Resende Costa
65.  Contemplar a Gruta do Salitre, Diamantina

66. Envolver-se na festa do Rosário na comunidade dos Arturos em Contagem
67. Beber café em xícara esmaltada acompanhado de

68. Sentar-se à porta de uma venda e ver a vida passar

69. Experimentar os biscoitos de
São Tiago

70. Observar um leilão de gado na Expozebu de

71. Divertir-se em uma feira de agropecuária

72. Andar a cavalo apreciando as paisagens da Serra da Mantiqueira

73. Degustar a culinária típica da Festa Nacional do Milho em
Patos de Minas 
74. Realizar uma visita interativa no Museu Artes e Ofícios em Belo Horizonte
75. Saborear o rocambole de Lagoa Dourada
76. Fazer uma excursão pelo Circuito das Águas 
77. Conhecer o monumento “Menino da Porteira” em Ouro Fino
78.  Caminhadas pelo Vale do Matutu em Aiuruoca
79. Viajar para a região do Rio Doce pela ferrovia Vitória Minas
80. Contagiar-se pela beleza dos shows pirotécnicos durante Festa do Foguete em Santo Antônio do Monte
81.  Participar de uma colheita de café no sul de Minas
82. Ter uma aula de educação ambiental na Estação Ambiental de Peti da Cemig.

83. Passar um final de semana em Araxá
84. Cair na folia da micareta Sanatório Geral em Ubá, ÔBAAA!!!!!

85 - Se deslumbrar com a paisagem da
Serra do Caraça -
Copyright 2011 by Daniel C. Orey All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author.