The smell of coffee in the morning

 Imagine the aroma of your favorite blend of coffee when you wake up in the morning. The smell is intricate, much more than simply “coffee”. Perhaps you identify subtle olfactory notes of cocoa, nuttiness, and a hint of vanilla. Together, the interactions between these notes transform the experience of your morning cup into something beyond the sum of its parts.

https://brain.harvard.edu/hbi_news/wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee-antagonism-reformats-how-odor-blends-are-encoded/

Do you find that just the smell of your coffee is enough to perk you up in the mornings? You might not be imagining it, because a new study into the effects of the aroma of coffee has found that it can sharpen the brain in certain circumstances.

https://www.sciencealert.com/coffee-smells-are-enough-to-perk-up-the-brain

MRI scans showed that drinking coffee increased activity in parts of the brain involved in short-term memory, attention and focus, whereas ingesting caffeine on its own did not.

The researchers theorized that the sight, smell or taste of coffee may help people feel alert, regardless of the caffeine content.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/brain-scans-coffee-drinkers-caffeine-rcna91680

So, with all this scientific data about the aroma of coffee, it's time for some...........

https://republicancoffee.com/?srsltid=AfmBOoq13OxVvmqDnvbO1HhKJW2ET8qOO7jkSmMer1A8LMoOgXdPkrjc

ENDORSED BY.................

New Executive Orders, agency actions; A mayhem in government thought experiment

Note: This post is written in deep sadness and real horror about what is now fully underway. A few people seem to be waking up to the reality of what is now upon us. Most still don't grasp the seriousness of our situation. 

The frenzied activity since the swearing-in in Jan. 21 is breathtaking in scope and intensity. Biden's legacy that can be attacked by EOs (Executive Orders) is being obliterated with ferocity. American democracy and the rule of law are under open, full blown attack on many fronts. DJT and his MAGA wealth and power movement are openly expressing anti-democratic sentiment both symbolically and in concrete anti-democratic actions backed by political power. 

I start with this symbolic but blatant attack on the US Constitution by DJT. Various reports indicated that the text of the US Constitution on the White House web page had been taken down shortly after the swearing in. That didn't seem credible. But when I went to the link, https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/,  the Constitution was in fact gone and replaced by a 404 error message. It was still gone as of the time I write this.

Copied 1/24/25, 6:17:13 AM, 

Pacific Standard Time

Obviously, the non-alarmists will say something about like this: "Aw shucks and golly young feller. Hold your horses. Go milk the cows or slop the hogs or something. This is just a computer glitch. It doesn't mean diddly squat. You're overreacting to the point of insanity. Calm down." 

Hm, maybe so. But I don't believe it. This is no computer glitch. In my firm opinion, this is a crystal clear AK (authoritarian kleptocrat) signal.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile over at the presidential actions web page, and in federal agency actions, we are seeing a slew of nastiness gushing out of this AK administration. One crystal clear example of an a move that is both authoritarian and kleptocratic, DJT reinstated schedule F for federal employees. Biden had got rid of it. 

 

The EO reinstating Schedule F for federal employees, titled "Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce," was issued on January 20, 2025. It strips employment protections for federal workers in positions deemed to be of a "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character." That sounds like it covers just about all federal employees. The order reclassifies these employees into the excepted service, making them at-will employees. They are now easy to fire or any reason or no reason. This action is necessary to get rid of federal employees who are not seen as sufficiently loyal to DJT. They will be replaced by AK people loyal to DJT. This comes as no surprise.

In other action, the Justice Department stopped all civil rights lawsuits. The memo doesn’t say how long the freeze will last, but it essentially shuts down the civil rights division for at least the first weeks of the AK administration. The DoJ cannot not pursue new indictments, cases or settlements related to civil rights. I have warned over and over and over that DJT and MAGA would target civil liberties and move to limit them as much as the authoritarians could get away with. This comes as no surprise. The WaPo commented:

“It’s beyond unusual — it’s unprecedented. We’ve never seen this before at this scale with any transfer of power, regardless of the ideology of any incoming president or administration,” said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “This should make Americans both angry and deeply worried. This is more than just a changing course of philosophy — this is exactly what most people [in the civil rights community] feared: a Justice Department that was created to protect civil rights literally abdicating its duty and responsibility to protect Americans from all forms of discrimination.”

 

A January 21, 2025, EO entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” revokes EO 11246, a 1965 order that prohibited discrimination by federal contractors and required affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity. That earlier EO required federal contractors with at least 50 employees and a single contract of $50,000 or more to develop an Affirmative Action Program. This new EO also puts restrictions on the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, prohibiting it from “[p]romoting ‘diversity’ ” or “[a]llowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.” This is part of MAGA's goal of completely obliterating DEI and anti-discrimination laws that protected various minorities. This comes as no surprise.

Evidence of authoritarianism is in DJT's clemency grant for all ~1,500 rioters charged in connection with his 1/6 coup attempt. 

Evidence of kleptocracy is in DJT's EO that declares a national energy emergency. There is no actual energy emergency in America, but there is a high incentive for DJT to favor fossil fuels in return for massive "gratuities" (bribes) from the fossil fuel sector. The EO covers “energy” or “energy resources”, meaning crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals, as defined by 30 U.S.C. 1606 (a)(3). Notice that neither wind nor solar are included in DJT's faux emergency. The purpose of this EO is laid out in a pack of insulting lies and slanders:

Section 1. Purpose. The energy and critical minerals (“energy”) identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs. We need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries, and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness. Caused by the harmful and shortsighted policies of the previous administration, our Nation’s inadequate energy supply and infrastructure causes and makes worse the high energy prices that devastate Americans, particularly those living on low- and fixed-incomes.

I could go on and on. People either see serious anti-democratic threat in all of this or they don't.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

THINKING INSIDE THE DJT BOX:

A MAYHEM THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

What could a lying, naughty, authoritarian US president with a short temper, absolutely no morals other than self-interest and a profoundly kleptocratic personality do? Specifically, DJT thinks to himself, what can I do and how much can I get away with? The thinking might go something like this:

DJT thinking to himself: US presidents now have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that are within the president's "core constitutional powers." Ha! That was Trump vs US. I beat US in that one by God. My core constitutional powers include commanding the armed forces, granting pardons, dealing with foreign relations and executive power to appoint and remove executive officers, issue executive orders, and manage national affairs. For actions that are within the "outer perimeter of my official responsibility", an undefined concept but not part of the core constitutional powers, I get at least presumptive immunity. This means that the government must show that criminalizing such an act poses no "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch" to overcome this immunity. A president has no immunity from prosecution for any unofficial actions, which are acts not taken in his official capacity as president, but those actions are also not defined. 

In civil lawsuits, a president is absolutely immune from actions for civil damages for all acts within the "outer perimeter of his official duties", as established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

In terms of bribery, heck, the USSC legalized it in June 2024 in the case Snyder v. United States. The only wrinkle is that the payoff has to come after a president has done something that someone is willing to pay enough for. That's no big deal. A wink, wink, nudge, nudge before I act is a no-brainer. Everyone knows how the power and money game is played.

Hm, the USSC is itself pretty much authoritarian kleptocrat. It is very much on my side. I put them there, so they owe me bigly. If there is doubt of criminal or civil liability, the USSC will resolve it in my favor. After all, they protected me from prosecution for my 1/6 coup attempt, they gave me a huge amount of new immunity and they legalized bribery. Geez, what more could I want? My back is covered on the legal front. 

Hm, I can also order my people to break laws and take money for their own benefit, provided they cut me in. I can pardon them if they get caught, so no big deal there.

What about the billionaires? Me and Musk are tight. We're good for now. I scared Bezos into shutting WaPo up about Harris before the election. I scared Zukerberg into stopping that fact checking nonsense on Facebook. Ha! That one was really great! Zuckerbucks, what a wuss. Now the lies and slanders are gonna flow fast and furious. I love it! 

The American people? Nah, they won't wake up in time to do diddly. Me, MAGA and our huge demagoguery machine can keep them distracted and at each other's throats for a long time. Maybe they'll never wake up. 

. . . . . . . Fuck, I'm golden! I can get away with just about anything and no one can touch me. This is gonna be fun. And, it's my last, best chance to just be me . . . . . . 

Q: Is that a plausible approximation of DJT's thinking?

Who’s gonna stop Trump?

Seriously, who really is gonna stop Trump?  

• Senators and congresspeople?  

• The “law.”  

• The military?  

• We the People? 

• One Big Mac too many?

• Other?

I ask in earnest.  Is there anyone out there who could and will stop Trump from his dream of being a dictator?  Explain your choice and back it up with data.

(by PrimalSoup)

Book review: Free Thinking

Some commenters here indicate that various modern technologies are mind traps, or something akin to that. The 2023 book, Freethinking: Protecting Freedom of Thought Amidst the New Battle for the Mind by Simon McCarthy-Jones. McCarthy-Jones, an Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, argues that we are in the midst of a full-blown war for mind control. he focuses on the issue of freedom of thought, where new technologies and scientific advances are significant threats to mental autonomy. The idea may strike some as nuts, but mind control is real and powerful, but usually very subtle.

McCarthy-Jones points to the use of subliminal advertising, online platforms employing "dark patterns" to influence behavior, and the potential for thought manipulation by both states and corporations. At present, legal and ethical considerations about freedom of thought have not been significantly developed or used. Many or probably most people when first faced with the concept of "freedom of thought" would probably react with skepticism. The obvious initial thought is that it is not possible to externally exert any significant control over one's own thoughts. That is a false belief. 

If one reflects a moment or two, it is obvious that external influences often or usually do influence thinking, often by limiting the scope of thoughts. What external influences? Demagoguery and dishonest speech generally, TikToK, Facebook, Faux News, The Federalist, tribalism, Christianity, brass knuckles capitalism, party loyalty, etc. All kinds of people really are trying to control your thoughts

Although the freedom of thought concept is in international human rights law, McCarthy-Jones argues for a clearer definition and better protection of thought freedom in light of modern threats. He emphasizes the importance of mental autonomy, which involves the ability to control one's attention, engage in reflective thinking, and not fear punishment for one's thoughts. McCarthy-Jones argues that the right to freedom of thought should protect both internal thought processes and external actions like internet searches and diaries that are constitutive of thought.

McCarthy-Jones cites Curtis Yarvin to highlight the potential dangers of ideologies that seek to control thought. Yarvin, discussed here a few days ago [2], is currently a MAGA elite darling who proposes authoritarianism and thought control by a dictator in place of democracy. He critiques the notion that any form of thought control, even if proposed under the guise of efficiency or order as Yarvin does, fundamentally undermines the essence of free thought.

A major problem in all of this is the messiness of defining "illegitimate" manipulation versus "legitimate" persuasion. Given human cognitive biology and social behavior, there is no readily apparent practical way to dissect those two messy concepts. Both of may be essentially contested concepts, but they are at least seriously contested. This point is a major problem in terms of trying to enshrine freedom of thought into law.

And that is why I keep pointing to personal good will and good faith in politics and rhetoric as core moral values. What is the only at least semi-objective difference between manipulation and persuasion? The speaker's state of mind. How can that state of mind be observed and practiced? One tactic that comes to mind is to be aware of and adherent to is the Principle of Charity in rhetoric.[1] That requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. But what if the listener does not also adhere to the Principle of Charity? In that case, the cognitive playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the bad faith player.

Being honest alone is hard, often unpleasant and less persuasive. Being dishonest is much more fun, easier and often more persuasive.

A couple of quotes from the book:

• Page 18,  quoting from a 1901 article in Banker's Magazine, making the point that both government and business are in the mind-control game: The businessman seeks to shape politics and government in a way conducive to his own prosperity. As the business of the country has learned the secret of the combination, it is gradually subverting the power of the politician and rendering him subservient to its purposes. That government is not entirely controlled by these [business] interests is due to the fact that business organization has not reached full perfection.

• Page 92: Writing in 1913, the historian J.B. Bury believed the freedom of thought had been secured. In his view, a hopeful person could view this victory as permanent, with "intellectual freedom assured to mankind as a possession forever." But Bury was trained in history, not hope. Was there, he queried, a possibility of "a great setback"? For him, Christianity has "laid chains on the human mind." Bury worried that a new force emerging from the unknown could cause something similar to happen again. A century later, we see his fears realized. The cause of this setback is corporate power.

Footnotes:

1. Another way to distinguish good faith rhetoric from bad is to look for open-mindedness. Good faith players approach discussions with an open mind, willing to consider alternative viewpoints and adjust their stance based on the merits of the presented arguments. Bad faith players generally refuse to accept that they could be wrong or they might not be genuinely interested in understanding opposing viewpoints, focusing mostly or entirely on pushing their own narrative

2. Yarvin has coined the term "The Cathedral" to describe a set of institutions, including the press and universities, that he believes work in tandem with the federal bureaucracy to control thought. He argues that these institutions, despite having no central organizational connection, behave as if they were a single organizational structure, projecting illusions that keep American democracy running. He posits that the professors and journalists have sovereignty because final decisions are entrusted to them, and there is no power above them. He believes that only professors can formulate policy, and only journalists can hold the government accountable, effectively giving them control over strategy and tactics, which he equates to control over society. 

Yarvin's advocacy for thought control is rooted in his critique of modern democratic institutions and his vision for a more authoritarian form of governance where a strong leader, the "CEO of America", unencumbered by democratic checks and balances, could use technology to manage society's affairs more efficiently. He believes that this centralized control would bypass the inefficiencies and thought control mechanisms he sees in democracy, effectively replacing them with a different form of thought control under a single, powerful executive.