BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 3.

As the Vote to Approve the IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY in Congress Approaches, we are again Subjected to Meaningless Rhetoric that Completely Misses the Point, and is USED TO PROMOTE FEAR AND HATE INSTEAD OF REASON AND PRAGMATISM.  So, let us again see if we can Cut Through Bluster and Noise, and find Common Ground.

First, Ignore the Text, and Toss Out Any Objections That Have Been Raised Denouncing the Agreement.  Go into an EXAMINATION OF THIS TREATY, OR ANY TREATY FOR THAT MATTER, AS A DISINTERESTED OBSERVER WHO HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH FINDING THE MOST EQUITABLE SOLUTION THAT WOULD BENEFIT ALL SIDES.

#1-  Listen to ALL SIDES OF THE SUBJECT MATTER TO DETERMINE WHAT EACH SIDE VALUES MOST OF ALL, AND CONSIDER THE ELEMENTS THAT SEEM TO BE OF LITTLE CONCERN TO EACH.

#2-  What Category do the Most Important Goals of Agreeing to a TREATY FALL INTO, FOR EACH PARTICIPANT?

-  ECONOMIC-  IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE, OR IMPORT/EXPORT 

OPPORTUNITIES.

-  MILITARY/PROTECTION FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES.

-  STABILITY-  ALLIES TO MAINTAIN GOOD RELATIONS, OR PLEDGE 

OF SUPPORT.

AMONG OTHER THINGS.

#3-  TO MEET THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT EACH SIDE IS LOOKING FOR, WHAT WILL THE OPPOSITION HAVE TO AGREE TO, OR SACRIFICE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN?

#4-  IS ONE SIDE , OR THE OTHER, PUSHING AN AGENDA THAT THE

OTHER SIDE COULD NOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO AGREE TO.

IS ONE SIDE OFFERING JUST TOKEN CONCESSIONS, WHILE DEMANDING

EXTENSIVE SACRIFICES FROM THE OPPOSITION?

As I Mentioned in an Earlier Post, GOVERNMENTS DO NOT ENTER INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS FOR NO REASON.  EACH SIDE HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.

This Leads us to the FINAL STEP-  IF THE SITTING GOVERNMENT PROPOSING THE FINISHED TREATY IS FACED BY INTERNAL OPPOSITION, THEY MUST ALSO BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS.  OPPOSING A TREATY, OR ITS COMPONENTS, IS EASY TO SAY, BUT TO OFFER NO REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES IS JUST OBSTRUCTIONIST POLITICS.  

Date-  9/2/2015.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 2.

So now we have Two or more Governments sitting at the Negotiation Table, each

One Probably Aware to a Certain Extent of Why the Others are there. Before going on

with Further Analysis, it is Important to remember the Following:

-  THIS IS AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP, AND THE HOSTILITY BETWEEN THOSE INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS IS GOING TO SHAPE THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE CONDUCTED.

Each Side can CREATE AN IMMEDIATE TONE FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS, BY SIMPLY TREATING 

THE OPPOSING SIDE AS:

-  A PERENNIAL ENEMY WHO CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED.

                                            OR

-  AN OPPONENT ON THE WORLD STAGE, WHO MUST 

EARN TRUST BY SHOWING GOOD FAITH AND FLEXIBILITY.  ALSO,

ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT,  

BUT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPEN

DIALOGUE.

                                             OR 

-   A POSSIBLE FUTURE ALLY OR FRIEND, GIVEN A CHANGE IN

CIRCUMSTANCES.  ALSO, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERSON OR 

PERSONS YOU ARE NEGOTIATING WITH NOW, MAY BE THOSE WHO

HOLD THE REIGNS OF POWER IN THE FUTURE.

WHILE MANY WILL NAIVELY CLAIM THAT COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN 

WILL NEVER BE A FRIEND OR ALLY FORGET THAT THE ART 

OF DIPLOMACY IS TO DO WHAT IS IN YOUR COUNTRIES BEST 

INTEREST, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.  THIS DOESN'T MEAN 

GIVING UP YOUR IDEALS, AND BECOMING WHAT YOU FEAR AND 

HATE.  IT'S ADAPTING TODAYS SITUATION, TO LESSONS FROM THE 

PAST, BOTH GOOD AND BAD.  

Just in the 20th Century, think of the COUNTRIES WHO WERE AT ONE TIME 

ALLIES OF THE U.S. WHO BECAME FOES, OR VICE- VERSA, FOES WHO LATER BECAME ALLIES.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 1.

(*IN THIS ARTICLE I USE THE WORD "TREATY" TO DESCRIBE

THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.  HOWEVER, TERMS SUCH

AS "DEAL" OR "AGREEMENT" COULD REPLACE "TREATY" WITH

NO LOSS IN MEANING OR UNDERSTANDING.

As the Debate over the Nuclear Treaty with Iran is still being Discussed in Congress, and the Media, we find that one thing Remains True:

SOME POLITICIANS STILL AVOID ANY REAL DEBATE THAT MIGHT RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY.

WHY?  IT WOULD INVOLVE INSIGHT AND THE ABILITY TO THINK BEYOND SIMPLISTIC SOLUTIONS THAT WILL ADDRESS THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION, INSTEAD OF REPEATING MEANINGLESS RHETORIC THAT PLEASES YOUR SUPPORTERS.

So, let us Step Back, Ignore everything that has been said, and look Beyond Bombastic One Liners to see where the TRUTH MAY LIE.

First Question- WHAT IS A TREATY?

A TREATY IS BASICALLY A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PARTIES;

THAT ARE USUALLY DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONS, WHO ARE RECOGNIZED AS THE LEGITIMATE SOURCES OF AUTHORITY FOR A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OR POPULATION, THAT HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE AND ENFORCE ANY POLICIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.

A TREATY IS JUST LIKE A SIGNED BUSINESS DEAL. THE GOALS AND PARTIES TO IT MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE THE SAME.

What can we Safely Infer if Two or More Parties are Entering into Diplomatic Talks,

with the Outcome Eventually being a SIGNED TREATY FOR ALL PARTIES?

#1-  EACH PARTICIPANT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.-  No One Enters into These Negotiations Insisting that the Opposing Side Give Up Something, but will get nothing in return. Turning it around, No Side enters such Talks with the Idea of Giving Into Certain Demands, and Anticipating No Concessions From the Opposition. 

That would be Unrealistic and Foolish.

#2-  WHILE THERE MAY BE MANY POINTS OF CONFLICT OR DISAGREEMENT, ALL PARTICIPANTS HAVE ONE OR TWO MAIN GOALS THEY WANT THE TREATY TO ACHIEVE.-  These are Usually So Prominent that They are Generally Apparent at the Outset of the Talks, and are in some cases THE ONLY REASON(S) THAT BROUGHT THE OPPOSING SIDES TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE.

LOOK FOR PART 2.

THE SOCIOPATH- HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT.

Now you may be asking yourself,  "How can I know if I am dealing with a Sociopath, what are the signs?" First of all, one important fact must be placed on the table when we try to answer this question;  Sociopaths come from all walks of life.  There are no economic, racial, social or intellectual traits that have been identified as exclusively Sociopathic.  A Sociopath could be your parent or sibling, Aunt or Uncle, Close family friend, Business acquaintance, Teacher...etc.  Sometimes the hardest part of identifying a Sociopath is facing the fact that it might be someone close to you.

You have to realize, the Sociopath is playing a part.  They create a facade that best suits their needs and desires, projecting an image to others that makes them seem to be something their not.  They are very adroit in adapting their behavior to given situations and use this ability to manipulate others.  Once a perceived weakness is spotted in another, the Sociopath decides how to exploit this characteristic and acts accordingly.

However, there are certain things you can look for, if you think that you are dealing with a Sociopath.  Keep in mind, these examples are not universal in nature.  Not every Sociopath will exhibit all of these behaviors.  In turn, many of the following examples may be found in people who are not Sociopaths.  Yet, if you find an individual who fits multiple examples, you may have reason to be cautious.

I would like, before I begin the list, to point out that Sociopathy is not a mental illness that is the result of a physical defect of the brain.  Unfortunately, one is not born a Sociopath, where early diagnosis could lead to proper treatment.  However, before I get into what circumstances may create a Sociopath, let us go through the list.

HOW CAN WE FIGHT TERRORISM? PT 3.

As we look into the past, and try to Understand the Mindset of the TERRORIST, Sometimes Two Important Points are Forgotten;

-  Those who Plan and Direct Terrorist Operations, are often not the Ones who carry Them Out.

-  The Motivations, Expectations and Backgrounds of TERRORIST OPERATIVES are not Identical, and may Vary According to the Situation and Circumstances.

To say All Terrorists Desire the Same Things, and Act according to a Standard Set of Guidelines is a Simplistic Look at a More Complex Problem.  In Fact, in Many Cases, we find Those Committing Acts of Terrorism to be Simple Pawns, who are caring out the Directives or Wishes of an often Hidden and Shadow Organization, who realize that Survival Means Remaining in the Background, letting others carry out ACTS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION.

What this leaves us with is the following Dilemma, are the Recruitment Techniques and Messages to bring in new Blood for Future Operations, Truly Representative of the Actual Objectives and Goals of the Organization, or are They Modified to Bring in a Wider Pool of Potential Recruits.

So when looking for possible New Recruits, what Categories of Individuals would make the Most Likely Candidates, and how would the Terrorist Message be Adapted to Appeal to Them.

THE YOUNG AND IDEALISTIC-  Individuals who still look at the World Through the Eyes of the Inexperienced and Ill- Prepared Young Adult, who believe That all They need is an Opportunity to prove how Important they are.  The Members of this Group Tend to Act on Impulse, sometimes without considering the Ramifications of Their Actions.  To Them, there is only now, and the Future will take care of itself.

Emotional Immaturity is a Classic Trait to Exploit, being Susceptible to the Attention and Flattery of Older and More Respected Members of Society.

The Message-  "DON'T DELAY. BEFORE IT'S TO LATE, MAKE A DIFFERENCE NOW."

END OF PART 3.

ESQUIRE: Our Lawless President Is Trampling Still More Laws to Build His Big, Beautiful Wall.

BY JACK HOLMES.
8/29/2019.

So the president is promising to pardon his subordinates if they have to break the law to carry out his orders to build the Big, Beautiful Wall, the latest spasm of abject lawlessness from someone whose lifelong principle is that the rules do not apply to him. This is not the best attribute to have in the world's most powerful man, particularly with a supine Congress—where one body is controlled by his lackeys and the other is run by Democrats afraid of their own shadow—and a court system increasingly stuffed full of Federalist Society dependables who can help enact conservative priorities from the bench. That's the same court system that OK'd his phony national emergency, which he admitted was phony while announcing it. ITALICS ARE MINE- DAVID.

Call for submissions: Panel Discussion at the 2020 APA Eastern Division meeting. The Graduate Student Council (GSC) of the APA.

Dear DAVID,   The Graduate Student Council (GSC) of the APA is now accepting abstracts for a panel discussion on navigating academic philosophy as a first-generation and/or low-income graduate student at the Eastern Division.   Outsiders Within: Reflections on Being a Low-Income and/or First-Generation Philosopher Many philosophers have highlighted the lack of diversity amongst professional philosophers, and there are several active initiatives aimed at encouraging greater diversity, a great portion of which are aimed at supporting diverse undergraduates students on their route to graduate study. One dimension of diversity that often gets overlooked in these efforts—and which overlaps and intersects with other axes of oppression in important ways—is working-class, low-income, and first-generation status. This session aims to provide voice to the experiences of philosophers who come from poverty, identify as low-income, or are a first-generation university student.   Abstracts addressing the following questions are of particular interest: How do philosophers who are the first in their families to attend university learn to navigate the academic lifestyle? Does impostor syndrome ever go away, or at least get better? How do low-income and first-generation philosophers deal with the sense of double-alienation, both in academic spaces and when they return to their families or first homes? How does class intersect with other underrepresented identities to further marginalize certain philosophers in the field? Have class and socioeconomic status been adequately theorized by philosophers? Are low-income and/or first-generation students encouraged to pursue philosophy (by their families? Mentors? Professors?) and adequately supported if they decide to do so? What unique challenges arise for graduate students from low-income and/or first-generation backgrounds?   This session seeks to explore some of these questions and others, and to provide a space for discussion and community building among those philosophers who have experienced socioeconomic disadvantage along their route to graduate study and/or professional philosophy.   Topics of discussion may include (but are not limited to) the following: Alienation Stereotype Threat Impostor Syndrome Overcoming Stereotypes Returning Home and Cultural Code Switching Researching SES/Class Intersectionality & Class Struggle Deciding to Pursue Philosophy While Poor Class Bias Race & Class, Gender & Class, Sexual Orientation & Class The Intersection of Immigration Status and First-Generation Status and/or Class Struggle Obstacles to Pursuing Graduate Study Moving for Graduate Study as a Low-Income Person Conferences as Exclusionary for Low-Income People Navigating Academia's Elitism as a Low-Income Person Learning the Norms Hidden Curriculum, Social Expectations, and Navigating Academic Spaces Mentoring Low-Income/First-Generation Students Cultivating Support Systems and Community Building Submissions Abstracts for talks of 15-20 minutes prepared for anonymous review should be sent to both Arianna Falbo (arianna_falbo@brown.edu) and Heather Stewart (hstewa27@uwo.ca). In the body of the email, please include your name, institutional affiliation (if any), position (if any), and contact information. Please attach an anonymized abstract of up to 500 words describing the primary focus of your presentation and what you hope for the audience to take away from it. The organizing committee hopes to select panel participants from various stages of the procession, including graduate students, post-docs, as well as junior and senior faculty. Unfortunately, we are not able to offer any funding for selected speakers.   Deadline for Submissions: September 30, 2019   Selection of Presenters: Early October   If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Arianna Falbo at arianna_falbo@brown.edu or Heather Stewart at hstewa27@uwo.ca.   For more information about the Graduate Student Council of the APA, please visit our webpage.   Find us on Facebook, or e-mail us at contact-gsc@apaonline.org.   Thank you,   Sahar Joakim APA Graduate Student Council Chair

Trump's most blatant assault yet on LGBTQ rights. JENNIFER WEXTON.

I’ve made it a priority to fight so that Americans no longer face discrimination because of who they are or who they love.

And David, I’m enraged by the latest actions of Donald Trump against the LGBTQ community. His administration is taking steps to allow private employers to fire employees based on sexual orientation.

As reported by Buzzfeed News on Friday:

The Trump administration took its hardest line yet to legalize anti-gay discrimination on Friday when it asked the Supreme Court to declare that federal law allows private companies to fire workers based only on their sexual orientation. An amicus brief filed by the Justice Department weighed in on two cases involving gay workers and what is meant by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination "because of sex." The administration argued courts nationwide should stop reading the civil rights law to protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers from bias because it was not originally intended to do so.

This is a blatant attempt to legalize bigotry against LGBTQ Americans, and we need to speak out immediately against it.

I want to get 7,500 citizen co-signers on board. Please add your name and tell the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s efforts to allow employment discrimination against LGBTQ Americans.

ADD YOUR NAME ➞

The Trump administration’s outrageous legal filing is only the latest step in their campaign against LGBTQ rights. They’ve made it harder for same-sex couples to adopt. They ended an Obama-era rule that protected transgender Americans in public housing programs from discrimination. And they’ve let Mitch McConnell hold up a Senate vote on the Equality Act for months.

The media spends a lot of time on Trump’s erratic behavior, tweets, and offensive statements. At the end of the day, what’s even more disturbing to me are his policies -- because his policies go right against the values of liberty, fairness, and justice that I’ve fought for my whole career.

His administration’s argument for employment discrimination should be condemned across the political spectrum. And that’s why I need your help today so we can raise our voices as high as possible.

Add your name now and demand that the Supreme Court stand on the side of equality.

Thank you,

Jennifer

 

APA- September 3 is the deadline to submit a paper to the 2020 Pacific Division meeting.

Dear DAVID, Paper submissions for the 2020 APA Pacific Division meeting in San Francisco, California, are currently open. Submissions close at 11:59 p.m. Pacific time on Tuesday, September 3. If you have a paper you would like to present, please submit it as soon as possible at the paper submissions website. We urge you to submit your paper before 2 p.m. Pacific time on Tuesday, September 3, after which there will be nobody available at the national office to provide technical assistance. Here are a few important reminders about Pacific Division submissions: All authors of each submitted paper must be current members of the APA. The author’s name must not appear anywhere in the paper file or the abstract. Both colloquium and symposium submissions require an abstract of no more than 150 words. Both colloquium and symposium submissions require a 750-word synopsis, which should be clearly labeled within the paper document, before the body of the paper. The Pacific Division allows only one type of submission: poster, colloquium, or symposium. Submissions of multiple types are not accepted. Abstract, synopsis, notes, and references do not contribute to the word count of your paper or poster. The new paper submission system uses your login information from the main APA website. To submit a paper or to participate in the meeting program, all authors must be current members of the APA. Please be sure to renew your APA membership. Before submitting, we recommend that you review the paper submission guidelines, since papers that do not comply with these guidelines will not be reviewed. If you have any questions about paper submissions, please contact me. All the best, Mike Morris Deputy Director

The American Philosophical Association University of Delaware 31 Amstel Avenue, Newark, DE 19716 Click here to change your subscription settings. To unsubscribe, click here.

Celebrate Women's Equality Day with a pledge to #VOTEPROCHOICE.

DAVID, Today is Women's Equality Day, honoring the ratification of the 19th Amendment -- an important milestone in the long, difficult march toward equal representation for all people. We cannot forget that the 19th Amendment mainly gave white women the right to vote. Now, 99 years later, we've continued to make progress toward equality, and we can celebrate the historic number of women elected, voting, and running for office. But we are far from equal. Many women and marginalized people continue to be disenfranchised through voter suppression.  We are still fighting the constant attacks on our healthcare, our bodily autonomy, and our dignity.  Celebrate Women's Equality Day by pledging to #VOTEPROCHOICE in every election. Everywhere. Pledge to #VOTEPROCHOICE Women make up 51 percent of the population, but less than 25 percent of elected offices. This has dire consequences for so many issues -- particularly reproductive freedom. So far in 2019, nine states have passed abortion bans, and more states will follow. These new bans are a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade . Just last week, Planned Parenthood was forced out of the federal Title X family planning program when the Trump administration banned healthcare providers from giving factual information on abortion to patients. Planned Parenthood serves 40% of the nations Title X recipients, who receive services like birth control and STD screenings. Take the Pledge to #VOTEPROCHOICE It's now up to us to make sure that every elected official, at every level of government, will stand up for reproductive freedom. Pledge to #VOTEPROCHOICE today, and we'll send you the 2019 #VOTEPROCHOICE Voter Guide -- the largest progressive voter guide of all 49,000 races on the ballot in November 2019. We empower you to vote for all the prochoice champions in your community. Celebrate Women's Equality Day by taking real action to protect reproductive freedom in this country. Thank you for pledging to join us.  In solidarity, Heidi L. Sieck CEO/Cofounder #VOTEPROCHOICE https://voteprochoice.us/ TERMS | PRIVACY | WEBSITE