When the Word “Liberal” Is Used as a Dehumanizing Term.

My goal in passing on this posting, is to intellectually arm like minded people with the counter argument to those who would use the word “Liberal” as a dehumanizing term.

To me, they are Freudianly exposing the weakness in their intellectual application of this word. It may be well noted that based on the fact they don’t even know the true origins and meaning.

I would make note that there have been many dehumanizing terms for the enemy you would have to shoot, and kill on the battle field, so a man may kill another without engaging their conscience in doing so at that moment.  Terms such as Jap, Kraut, or Gook to name some distasteful and dehumanizing terms used in the past.

The contemporary Conservative Talk Personalities have once again used this technique to demonize those whom do not assimilate or aqueous to their conservative viewpoints in their seen current “Political War”.

The results of those claiming the Reactionary Conservative values, will today poisonally spew out the word “Liberal” as if it were an attack on others.

Of course the term “Liberal” is really quite a complimentary attribute when you know the origins of the word.

The use of “liberal” for progressive politics dates to the mid 19th century. “Liberal” is based on the Latin origins of “Liber” the Latin word for “free”. Thus it can also mean a “Freeman”.

To call someone a liberal, you are saying this person is free from a situation, especially imprisonment of slavery, in which their “liberty” is severely restricted.  In Europe the serfs had been “liberated!”

So when an unenlightened, or reactionary conservative propaganda programmed person thinks they are cleverly derogatory slamming you by calling you “Liberal”, throw it back into their face how ignorant their statement truly is.

Take pride in being progressive, and liberal.  You are laying claim that you will not be economically enslaved, to be politically subservient to the will of the 1%.  In summation, you are claiming your FREEDOM!


Minds and Times of F. Wayne Johnson’s Thoughts For The Week

I thought for this week’s posting to complement the “Here Be Monsters, The Sunday Show”, blog talk radio show; I would post some of my current philosophical mind blurps.

Now for a full disclosure, some may note that “blurps” is not a real word.  Well that does not mean that my freewheeling, no boundaries, eclectic thought process, that the good lord assembled me with, would employ these restrictions.

For those who do not understand, the explanation maybe found below. Minds and Times of F. Wayne Johnson’s Definition: “Blurps” (combination of the words “blurts” & “burps”.

Here are the current “Food For Thought” musings.  Enjoy.

1. Man, as a species, was not placed here on earth from heaven by angels as some religions would teach, but rose up into Homo Sapiens, the humanoid primate that he is today, from angry ancestral apes who were ever evolving in intelligence….. some more so than others.

2. It is one thing to be pro-corporation and supporting economic growth; but it is another thing to be an enabler, and embrace predatory capitalism.

3. With regards to the current debate on immigration in this country, I will pass on this thought. “From humble beginnings, greatness can bloom”. This has always been the basic origin strength of this country, and we cannot afford to loose it by some knee jerk, mindless, Reactionary Conservatives’ political agenda.

4. As greater minds conceive, and achieve; lesser minds can only find fault, and ridicule.

5. The arching zenith of all goodness is the ability of recognizing truth.

6. When those whom are suffering, and down trotted are noted, but for some large political demographic segments in this country whose reaction is apathy, ridicule, or even venomous distain; we as a nation are on the way toward loosing our humanity.

Isaac Asimov Mulls “How Do People Get New Ideas?”

This past week I was reflecting back on all of my worldly travels, and the thought came to me that those whom have a viewpoint that is so counter intuitive to me, was that they have not seen nor experienced what I have.

Many have heard me say that, “Everyone is the sum of their own lives’ experience”.  I can also pass on the former posting on this site, “Giraffes and Turtles”, and how it can relate to people today.


Those whom hold the reactionary conservative views are only stating their views from the limited “Turtle’s” vantage.  This is their major pitfall in their thinking.

As by chance I came across this essay by Isaac Asimov.  It was very obvious, and I recognized, that its contents are as broadly relevant today as when he wrote it.  It describes not only the creative process and the nature of creative people but also the kind of environment that promotes creativity.

I would ask my readers and those listening the radio program, “Here Be Monsters, The Sunday Show,” to invest the time, read, and polder, the essay below.  You will find it very informative and thought provoking.


How do people get new ideas?

Presumably, the process of creativity, whatever it is, is essentially the same in all its branches and varieties, so that the evolution of a new art form, a new gadget, a new scientific principle, all involve common factors. We are most interested in the “creation” of a new scientific principle or a new application of an old one, but we can be general here.

One way of investigating the problem is to consider the great ideas of the past and see just how they were generated. Unfortunately, the method of generation is never clear even to the “generators” themselves.

But what if the same earth-shaking idea occurred to two men, simultaneously and independently? Perhaps, the common factors involved would be illuminating. Consider the theory of evolution by natural selection, independently created by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.

There is a great deal in common there. Both traveled to far places, observing strange species of plants and animals and the manner in which they varied from place to place. Both were keenly interested in finding an explanation for this, and both failed until each happened to read Malthus’s “Essay on Population.”

Both then saw how the notion of overpopulation and weeding out (which Malthus had applied to human beings) would fit into the doctrine of evolution by natural selection (if applied to species generally).

Obviously, then, what is needed is not only people with a good background in a particular field, but also people capable of making a connection between item 1 and item 2 which might not ordinarily seem connected.

Undoubtedly in the first half of the 19th century, a great many naturalists had studied the manner in which species were differentiated among themselves. A great many people had read Malthus. Perhaps some both studied species and read Malthus. But what you needed was someone who studied species, read Malthus, and had the ability to make a cross-connection.

That is the crucial point that is the rare characteristic that must be found. Once the cross-connection is made, it becomes obvious. Thomas H. Huxley is supposed to have exclaimed after reading On the Origin of Species, “How stupid of me not to have thought of this.” But why didn’t he think of it?

The history of human thought would make it seem that there is difficulty in thinking of an idea even when all the facts are on the table. Making the cross-connection requires a certain daring. It must, for any cross-connection that does not require daring is performed at once by many and develops not as a “new idea,” but as a mere “corollary of an old idea.”

It is only afterward that a new idea seems reasonable. To begin with, it usually seems unreasonable. It seems the height of unreason to suppose the earth was round instead of flat, or that it moved instead of the sun, or that objects required a force to stop them when in motion, instead of a force to keep them moving, and so on.

A person willing to fly in the face of reason, authority, and common sense must be a person of considerable self-assurance. Since he occurs only rarely, he must seem eccentric (in at least that respect) to the rest of us. A person eccentric in one respect is often eccentric in others.

Consequently, the person who is most likely to get new ideas is a person of good background in the field of interest and one who is unconventional in his habits. (To be a crackpot is not, however, enough in itself.)

Once you have the people you want, the next question is: Do you want to bring them together so that they may discuss the problem mutually, or should you inform each of the problem and allow them to work in isolation?

My feeling is that as far as creativity is concerned, isolation is required. The creative person is, in any case, continually working at it. His mind is shuffling his information at all times, even when he is not conscious of it. (The famous example of Kekule working out the structure of benzene in his sleep is well-known.)

The presence of others can only inhibit this process, since creation is embarrassing. For every new good idea you have, there are a hundred, ten thousand foolish ones, which you naturally do not care to display.

Nevertheless, a meeting of such people may be desirable for reasons other than the act of creation itself.

No two people exactly duplicate each other’s mental stores of items. One person may know A and not B, another may know B and not A, and either knowing A and B, both may get the idea—though not necessarily at once or even soon.

Furthermore, the information may not only be of individual items A and B, but even of combinations such as A-B, which in themselves are not significant. However, if one person mentions the unusual combination of A-B and another unusual combination A-C, it may well be that the combination A-B-C, which neither has thought of separately, may yield an answer.

It seems to me then that the purpose of cerebration sessions is not to think up new ideas but to educate the participants in facts and fact-combinations, in theories and vagrant thoughts.

But how to persuade creative people to do so? First and foremost, there must be ease, relaxation, and a general sense of permissiveness. The world in general disapproves of creativity, and to be creative in public is particularly bad. Even to speculate in public is rather worrisome. The individuals must, therefore, have the feeling that the others won’t object.

If a single individual present is unsympathetic to the foolishness that would be bound to go on at such a session, the others would freeze. The unsympathetic individual may be a gold mine of information, but the harm he does will more than compensate for that. It seems necessary to me, then, that all people at a session be willing to sound foolish and listen to others sound foolish.

If a single individual present has a much greater reputation than the others, or is more articulate, or has a distinctly more commanding personality, he may well take over the conference and reduce the rest to little more than passive obedience. The individual may himself be extremely useful, but he might as well be put to work solo, for he is neutralizing the rest.

The optimum number of the group would probably not be very high. I should guess that no more than five would be wanted. A larger group might have a larger total supply of information, but there would be the tension of waiting to speak, which can be very frustrating. It would probably be better to have a number of sessions at which the people attending would vary, rather than one session including them all. (This would involve a certain repetition, but even repetition is not in itself undesirable. It is not what people say at these conferences, but what they inspire in each other later on.)

For best purposes, there should be a feeling of informality. Joviality, the use of first names, joking, relaxed kidding are, I think, of the essence—not in themselves, but because they encourage a willingness to be involved in the folly of creativeness. For this purpose I think a meeting in someone’s home or over a dinner table at some restaurant is perhaps more useful than one in a conference room.

Probably more inhibiting than anything else is a feeling of responsibility. The great ideas of the ages have come from people who weren’t paid to have great ideas, but were paid to be teachers or patent clerks or petty officials, or were not paid at all. The great ideas came as side issues.

To feel guilty because one has not earned one’s salary because one has not had a great idea is the surest way, it seems to me, of making it certain that no great idea will come in the next time either.

Yet your company is conducting this cerebration program on government money. To think of congressmen or the general public hearing about scientists fooling around, boondoggling, telling dirty jokes, perhaps, at government expense, is to break into a cold sweat. In fact, the average scientist has enough public conscience not to want to feel he is doing this even if no one finds out.

I would suggest that members at a cerebration session be given sinecure tasks to do—short reports to write, or summaries of their conclusions, or brief answers to suggested problems—and be paid for that; the payment being the fee that would ordinarily be paid for the cerebration session. The cerebration session would then be officially unpaid-for and that, too, would allow considerable relaxation.

I do not think that cerebration sessions can be left unguided. There must be someone in charge who plays a role equivalent to that of a psychoanalyst. A psychoanalyst, as I understand it, by asking the right questions (and except for that interfering as little as possible), gets the patient himself to discuss his past life in such a way as to elicit new understanding of it in his own eyes.

In the same way, a session-arbiter will have to sit there, stirring up the animals, asking the shrewd question, making the necessary comment, bringing them gently back to the point. Since the arbiter will not know which question is shrewd, which comment necessary, and what the point is, his will not be an easy job.

As for “gadgets” designed to elicit creativity, I think these should arise out of the bull sessions themselves. If thoroughly relaxed, free of responsibility, discussing something of interest, and being by nature unconventional, the participants themselves will create devices to stimulate discussion.

Man’s Evolution into Extinction

Man’s Evolution into Extinction

By F. Wayne Johnson


Man will evolve into extinction,

Destruction of his own kind.

All in the name of progress,

With promises that all will be fine.


Corporations are leading the way,

Too much money to be made.

Marketing and misleading facts,

Are tools of their trade.


To set up manufacturing facilities

On foreign countries’ shores.

All this takes a lot of money,

Multi-nationals need tax breaks galore,


The facts of responsible citizenship,

Will just have to be ignored.

So funding of the tax burden,

Is all just dumped on the poor.


You start by buying elected governments,

And sponsor media shows.

Touting slanted information to the public,

Their reality is all you are to know.


Soon you hear the mindless say,

“I’m a Conservative,” while sucking down a beer.

Sitting there watching TV in a tee shirt,

Paying their entire medical, on $35,000 per year.


Are the masses too dumb to recognize,

They are listening to infomercial shows?

Over dominate, obnoxious, gas bags,

On blowhard radio.


There is no global warming,

As you watch the ice sheets flow?

Chunks the size of a large land mass,

Into the ocean they go.


Don’t try for alternative energy,

Just keep drilling into the ground.

Keep the servitude grip on the public,

There is always more oil to be found.


If your armaments sales are sloping down,

Your purchased government can start a war.

It’s the little people’s sons and daughters,

Death and mutilation, it’s their burden for sure.


So the temperature is rising,

Never have the levels been this high.

Big deal, we are loosing record species,

Who gives a damn, let them die.


So long as CEO’s record salaries,

Are based on numbers neither fact nor true.

Twenty thousand times a working man’s wage,

Reality is what they’ll decide for you.

Samuel Adams Predicted Bush / Cheney’s Patriot Act

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”

 Yes, Samuel Adams knew at some time, an unscrupulous leader would destroy and trample on our Bill of Rights.  Thank you W. Bush and Dick Cheney!!!

Anti-Evolution Proposal Is Rejected In South Carolina

Segments of the Fundamentalist Religious of South Carolina’s government proposed legislation to purchase only school text books that deterred the teaching of evolution. On June 12th, 2014 the Antievolution proposal legislation was rejected in South Carolina.

Bottom line, the extreme religious need to get over the fact of their anti-science fact denial. Man, as a species, was not placed here on earth from heaven by angels as some religions would teach, but rose up into Homo Sapiens, the humanoid primate that he is today, from angry ancestral apes who were ever evolving in intelligence….. some more so than others. Thus evolution is not static, and Homo Sapiens continues to evolve even today.

Sanity prevailed and the South Carolina state board of education rejected the Education Oversight Committee’s proposal to revise the state science standards to require students to “Construct scientific arguments to discredit Darwinian natural selection.”

Those Whom Know The Least About Science, Deny Global Warming.

I was speaking with a person about his inaccuracies of denying the science facts on global warming. He parroted what he has been misled to repeat as if it were fact, but the real problem is that he does not even have the rudimentary basics of science to even understand what he is repeating or to comprehend the counter arguments that negate what is being said.

His latest rhetorical misinformation device he has heard to misleading arguments against the existence of climate change is that the “earth’s atmospheric temperature has not risen in the last 15 years.” He then went onto say that the Obama administration, (because it’s all Obama’s fault), for having his federal agencies collude together to promote a “Global Warming Agenda.”

Basically, I told him in a kind way, that I was glad to have the opportunity to hear those words, from what I could only describe as an alternate reality he was living in. I then went on to explain that more than 90% of the heat generated from increased carbon emissions gets absorbed into the ocean, not into the atmosphere. I then passed on the scenario of the “Butterfly Affect”, that any changes in ocean temperature will eventually have “a pronounced effect” on atmospheric temperature. Indeed, recent studies show that global temperatures are set to rise rapidly in the face of our increasingly warm and acidic oceans. To say that we have no warming is just not factual.

I then proceeded to address the assertion that federal government agencies such as “The Department of Defense, NASA, and NOAA,” were colluding to promote environmentalists’ agendas. We trust these scientists to send our astronauts into space, to deliver rovers to the surface of Mars, sending data and pictures back to us. You think these people know what they’re talking about? How about the United States Navy who are constantly doing scientific studies in our oceans as so much of our National Defense starts there? So you would contend that the Commander in chief of our Pacific Command is colluding as one of “Obama’s Global Warming Puppets”? I consoled this person that if he wanted to ignore the federal government, to live in a world in which you think the federal government colludes with itself to make up things that aren’t true, Well Okay. I then gave him examples of the “Private Sector” such as the property casualty insurance and reinsurance industry. Many of the insurance agencies in my area, close to the ocean’s coast line, are dropping home owners because they have billions of dollars riding on getting it right, and they say climate change is real, carbon pollution is causing it, and we’ve got to do something about it.

In summation, every major scientific society and the entire property casualty reinsurance industry are telling us there is “Global Warming and is a concern to our quality of life in the near and foreseeable future. Responsible Physicists have been warning us for years now.

This is when the WTF moment came out of his mind through his mouth, “Well there you go….Physicists….they are not even real Climatologists.” ?!?!?!?

So I will pass this on to my readers should you ever hear such stupidity from one of these Wing Nuts.
Physis derived from the ancient Greek, “physica”, meaning “Nature”. Physics is the field of study concerning the working of nature. This branch of science was developed out of philosophy, and was thus referred to as natural philosophy. To this person and those like him, they know nothing about the Science of Nature.

A blog to complement the internet radio show Here Be Monsters, The Sunday Show