[From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.08.14.1835 CDT)]
Recent threads suggest that some people cannot distinguish suitable objects of the Test. For the young or more sensitive viewers, you have a delete key. This is not a rant, but a rebuttal, as best I can. 
Kenny!!! No!!! Rick's original comment was not a rant, but it was a comment based on the apparent paradox or discrepancy of acting like an American by our fearless leaders in light of the obvious facts. But your cute little cut at the Hizbollah (Party Of _g_od) wasn't a rant? I mean, isn't that playing right into the cycle of revenge, no? Better to not tempt the _d_evil? I googled "Party of god" and 99% of the hits came back at me: "Party of _G_od". There is a famous lesson that both Hizbollah and the Israeli neo-fascists need to finally learn after 2000 and more years: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek\}. Putting that program into action is probably the only way that the tribal warfare of the Middle East will ever resolve peacefully. They have to forget the past and move on. Otherwise, it's the positive feedback loop, over and over and over (with _g_od going over the walls back and forth), and so I envision them arriving at the logical extension of this sordid exercise: nukes. And they will, if we let them. So what did Condi do? Pack up her marbles and leave them to their cycle of mutual destruction? Allow the neocon/theocon interpretation of the situation to get some traction? Facilitate the cycle of revenge? And Condi is a "student of history..."! Hogwash.
But, heck, typing "Party of _g_od" is kinda like kicking sand in the face of one's opponent, right? See John 8:7. "But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.'" This is a simple practical suggestion to avoid being socially embarrassed as a hypocrite. Jesus was writing down their sins so they couldnt throw a single stone without looking ridiculous themselves. Hey, but these guys eventually got even with Jesus and murdered him instead. Positive feedback loop (arms races) always results in murder. Jesus said that it was simply not worth it. He tried, but he was taken out by the tribalists anyway, like in a bad movie. And they still haven't learned.
But getting to some possible other objects of the Test besides Condi? No particular order (and hide your eyes, ye of faint heart): Cannibalism, The Inquisition, Sadism, Masochism, Torture, Dominance/Transvestism fetishes, (not transgenderism), Bullying, War, Road Rage, Swearing, Political Attacks (a l� Rove), Terrorism, Oral Sex, Revenge Principle, Pornography, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Isolationism, Homophobia, Murder, Nazi Marches in Skokie, Leather Bars, Drag Shows, Suicide, Murder, Monasticism, Encouraging the Lynching of a Child Molester, Cheating Business Partners, Self-Mutilation, Atheism, Extortion, Stealing Public Money, Taking Bribes, Conspiracy, Grand Theft, Agnosticism, Building Mega Churches Instead of Building Hospitals, Electrocuting or Gassing Human Beings, Speaking in Tongues, Mega Marches in Chicago's Loop, Free Love, Sex Only as Procreation, Murder, Communism, Socialism, Praying in Solitude, Conspicuous Consumption, Communalism, Capitalism, Praising God in Public, Pederasty, Right-Wing Blogging, Profit, Islamic Mortgages, Novenas, Entering a Civil Union, Watching Judge Mathis, Al Franken, Marriage, Being Polite, Baptizing the Dead, Saying the Rosary, Letting Bombs Fall, Rapturism, Potlatch, Sex, Matriarchal Societies, First Cousins Marrying Without Issue, Celibacy, Bachelorhood, Patriarchal Societies, Murder, Trophy-Hunting "Tamed" Brown Bears, Equal Marriage, Poaching Rhino Horns, Polygamy, Making Snuff Films, Polyandry, Watching Dr. Phil, Fleecing Customers, Misogynist Marriage, Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll, Left-Wing Blogging, Strip-Clearing Forests, Dumping Waste, Recycling, Not Recycling, Wasting Money, Miserliness?? Any of these can be objects of the Test, but not all of them naturally are going to be ethical or practical to select.
See, many these things can be noxious to Kenny, Marc, Rick, Bill, Dick, Richard K, me, or anyone else. Take for example, cannibalism {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism\} or the fire-bombing of Dresden {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II\}. Stories by Christian missionaries of how Caribs raised and cooked immature Arawak eunuchs can really bring on distress and nausea. Stories of the Fire-Bombing of Dresden (so it goes) by Christian armies can bring on emotions of anger, dispair and hopelessness in spite of the eventual restoration of the Frauenkirche in 2005. Which was the worst, then: The cannibalism, the lies made about it by Christian missionaries to support their enslavement of the native population, or the bombing of Christians in Dresden by Christians in the air? Hard, isn't it? Regardless, we can still describe that behavior as the control of perception, which we can then discuss without emotions in a scientific exploration of the factors by which these people did these horrid things. Likewise we can discuss the alleged unethical/criminal actions of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, etc. etc. at the level of PCT without emotion. It is all behavior, bloody, horrid, or brutal.
An example of a particular system image is given by John W. Dean {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean\}, in "Conservatives Without Conscience," who, without knowing a jot of PCT, has attempted to sketch out the self-image, principle, and program level perceptions of right-wing authoritarians (RWAs). He writes that, in the face of indisputable data, RWAs can make horrible judgments based on false loyalty, fear, power, intimidation, and enforced group membership. His big question is "what are they controlling for?" I think his book should be an important reading here amongst PCTers, if only to identify some interesting self-image concepts of a particular population {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism\}. And then (as in Dick Robertson's study) one could experimentally examine these concepts through the use of the Test for the Controlled Variable. It would be very interesting to see how self-identified right-wing authoritarians are described and explained through PCT as they presented with facts or fictions about what they believe. But what is a worse subject of study, constitutionally sanctioned behavior or institutionalized cannibalistic behavior? :))
So, Kenny, take your emotions out of it, back off, and please discuss the Condi issue in the way it was originally intended by Rick, as an object of the Test for the Controlled Variable. Yes, speaking ill of Bushie/Dubya, Shooter, Rummie, Turd Blossom, or "our Secretary of State" Condi/44 is noxious to you, particularly _if_ you identify positively with them-- but it is behavior, human behavior, tribal behavior and, yes, constitutionally free and intelligent behavior! As well, this is America where we have a Constitution _without_ God in it, with a Bill of Rights containing the 1st Amendment, so we can and, some might even say, *should* use our right to speak, my friend.
To be an American includes being able to throw tea into the harbor and hurl criticisms in the face of our incompent fascist leadership, before it is too late. As far as Condi being "our Secretary of State", well, she accepted the position, and now she has to own up to it. Tough cheese. And so, regarding Condi's apparent incompetence in acting and speaking like a Secretary of State ("I am a student of history, and so I..."), our question, our topic, our take on all of this in CSG is to describe *how* and *why* such behavior occurs, using Bill's explanation. You want to discuss the controlled variables of cannibalism or of the fire-bombing of Dresden instead (do the pics look familiar, rather predicting the Beirut of today or the Tehran of tomorrow)? Fine. But I gotta tell you that I would probably feel sick no more or no less than I would while exploring Condi/44's appalling performance recently and the prospects for our future as an outcome. 
--Bry
Rick Marken wrote:
> [From Rick Marken (2006.08.14.1100)]
>
> Kenny Kitzke (2006.08.14)--
> Rick Marken (2006.08.13.1840)
>
> I'll stop "ranting" when you stop ranting about my "ranting";-)>
> > Deal! Deal?
> > Speculating how different people come to hold different system level references (even concerning political variables in the Middle East) would not be a rant. I rant only when you rant about the righteousness of your references compared to another specific person, especially when you do that in a most Condi-sending way. 
>
> I think you know I didn't "rant" about the righteousness of my own references compared to others. I just made a sarcastic comment about Republican hypocrisy. I think saying that I was "ranting" was, well, kind of like name calling. It's beneath you, Kenny.
>
> PCT does NOT inform anyone about absolute righteousness. I believe you have agreed to this specifically on this forum? It is only one's personal perception of what is right or wrong, good or bad, etc., in their own conscience that can be expressed in a relativistic way. Is there anything "scientific" about such relativistic beliefs?
>
> I really don't understand where you got the idea that I was being self-righteous. I certainly don't think I'm particularly righteous. I know that I'm a fallible human being like everyone else. I was just making a sarcastic little comment about Republican hypocrisy. I can understand people seeing it was "ill-advised" or "wrong" but I don't get "self righteous".
···
> Best
>
> Rick...