Global Warming?

Global warming is s shibboleth of the modern day.  Here in Oregon,  a few years ago the governor punished the chief climatologist of Oregon State University with excommunication (its equivalent) for insisting in the face of the dictates of current faith, the equivalent of the earth moving around the sun.
Without citing references the partisans  claim that the earth has warmed two degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years and seven degrees Fahrenheit since the last ice age.  I say equally without supporting references that Greenland ice cores show that during the last ice age, global temperatures varied through twenty degrees centigrade in the space of one year except I can provide references and will at a later date.

These same partisans attribute global warming to human activity as evidenced by the conversion of forest to farmland, but from the end of the last ice age, until the Holocene period, far more forest land in Europe was converted into savanna by naturally occurring global warming.
The consequences of global warming are climate change.  Patterns of erosion on the Egyptian sphinx indicating water flow and extinct tropical coral reefs off the coast of Norway, coal deposits in Antarctica and mammoths frozen solid in ice in Siberia so that their meat was fresh and edible as was the vegetable material in their teeth and stomachs show that the earth has undergone far greater warmings and coolings and far quicker than a few paltry degrees per century.  Again I can provide references and will at my convenience, I just want to illustrate how the partisans for global warming throw out supposed data just as some religious leaders throw out historical data without any backing.  Just how much we are talking about articles of faith here is exactly my point. 
Forty years ago ecologists made dire predictions, but better forest and farmland management resulting in greater productivity prevented a catastrophic explosion of the population bomb.  It was not that Thomas Malthus was wrong, it was just that man helped nature to set a bigger table.  Still it moves!
Global warming 55million years before the present, is evidenced by a sediment layer whose carbon is unusually rich in the carbon-12 isotope (light carbon) indicates a massive release of methane from oceanic methane hydrate.
Temperature variation is normal, because an ice age is really the earth’s answer to global warming to wit large massive sheets of ice do not form as a result of colder temperatures.  Ice draws moisture out of the air.  Frost is the result of cold temperatures.  Large massive sheets of ice are the result of snow pack.  Snow piled upon snow piled upon snow piled upon snow.  For a glacier to form, there must first be tremendous amounts of precipitation.  A prerequisite of precipitation is evaporation,  A prerequisite of evaporation is increased molecular motion of water molecules.  Motion will not increase without an influx of energy.  Ergo, an ice age evidenced by massive glaciation without a prior enormous heat wave will not occur.  Such a heat wave could occur as a result of an asteroid strike with a resultant shock wave traveling through the earth’s crust, disrupting tectonic plates, initiating global volcanic activity.  Whether large increases in atmospheric water vapor without volcanic smoke would lead to increased snowfall or more greenhouse effect remains to be seen.  But the decrease of global temperature as a result of the K-T event (evidenced by a deposition layer of iridium ash) has as its mirror image the Permian extinction whose deposition layer of light carbon indicates global temperature from a massive methane release either from a cometary strike or a release into the atmosphere of seafloor methane hydrate.

Gender Roles in a Subsistence Level Economy

Whether one believes in evolution or special creationism, at one point in human history, humans were greatly outnumbered by large carnivorous species.  At that time, social cooperation for defense was necessary for survival.  Whether the human economy was as hunter-killers or as scavengers is irrelevant as in either case that economy was subsistence level only.  Due to physiological sexual dimorphism, and the necessity of distributing labor in the most efficient manner possible, food provider roles became concentrated in the male.  This was because his greater size gave him greater ranging ability.  Also, nurturing duties became concentrated in the female, for breast feeding infants not only restricted her range, but also made her the most efficient mode of storing extra calories.  This division of labor developed into women becoming the servants of life, while men became the servants of society.  It is the nature of the case of child rearing that for some period of time at the beginning of one’s life, one must be the center of the universe, due to the inability of the human infant to care for itself.  Gender roles confer adulthood differently.  In a subsistence level economy, a girl becomes a woman purely by biology, the onset of menses determines her role, the ability to bear children and produce milk.  But the male role must be learned, larger musculature does not automatically confer skill with the spear or the thrown rock.  In a subsistence level economy, boys must be made into men.  They are initiated into warrior society.  They are forcefully taught self-sacrifice, to go out, gather food, and bring it back and give it to others.  Thus biology confers a certain self centeredness in the female role as the number of women in a population controls the number of potential individuals in the next generation, women are charged with the conservation of resources if only to preserve the ability, through good nutrition, to produce breast milk, which in times of distress can be a source of calories for the entire group.  Thus even though men may need more calories for the chase, it is to the advantage of all that the majority of food produced be given to the female.  The male, however, does not acquire weapons skill by virtue of his testes dropping.  He must be taught, not only the skills to acquire food, but the social necessity of bring it back home to feed the rest of the group.  Self-sacrifice must be integrated into the socialization of his gender role for the greater good.  Just as it is the female’s role to be who she is, it is the male’s role to go beyond what he is.  As the males were busy procuring food, it is more likely that the female invented agriculture through foraging near home, and through snatch crops, also invented animal husbandry and domestication.  Thus it can be said that civilization is the invention and gift of the female.  Once civilization was a going concern, agriculture and animal husbandry was absorbed into the male role.  While living in the garden of Eden or as arboreal proto-humans, food production was not an issue, all gleaned as their appetite dictated.  Survival issues were mostly defense against predation or invasion which was addressed by group action under the leadership of the “Big Man”.  The big man also prevented petty domestic squabbles from getting out of hand.  He kept order.  Once humans ate bread by the sweat of their brow”, greater social organization than a big man and a pecking order was needed; gender roles were developed by society according to what worked.  Males were bigger, males did the physical work.  Females gave and preserved life, females were, in their gender roles, the life of the tribe; thus they were a commodity that a failing tribe might seek to steal.

Territoriality

Robert Ardrey postulated that territory for early humans was a function of the pair bond.  Extrapolating from stamping ground behavior of certain ungulates, wherein males possessed of territory ignored available females outside of their personal territory, he developed the idea that territory was not for sex but that sex was for territory.  While early humans lived in communal groups, the greater and longer dependency of the human infant required greater care giving organization than that utilized by chimpanzees or baboons.  This required some modus of identification for the community sub-group unit known to us as family.  For this then territory was the glue which cemented the pair bond and kept family units from dissolving into the communal group as a whole.

Persuasion

The more strongly held an attitude is the more difficult it is to change also the greater lengths of time of view is held the more difficult used to change there are Cross links to other attitudes and behaviors a social identity an attitude that is publicly known is the most difficult to change there are three components to persuasion the messenger the message and the audience and this would be the logos and pathos of rhetoric messenger the messenger needs to be perceived as being attractive in that the messenger is similar to the audience the messenger needs to be perceived as credible and reliable there are two types of message one-sided and two-sided.  One-sided message is preaching to acquire the and the two cited message is a told one system analysis type of message with the present hurt will present the audience's side of the argument first and contrary arguments last of this arises out of Carl Rogers concept of unconditional positive regard in the audience there's variety between an within the audience's the paces important a slow pace degrades the estimation of the messenger to the behavior feel the feeling in attitude change it is necessary to change itself talk the internal dialogue inhibition of counter arguments behavior that is ignore to drops out there appears to be a time limit to attitude's attitude no inoculation since he is a dual process highly motivated thinking is the process low motivation thinking is shallow process the quality of an argument the substance of an argument gives weight the relevance of the argument to the audience gives the argument await there is an inverse proportional ratio between the quality and the quantity of the argument the issue must be involving to the objects mood is important there are highly suggest will people they have low self-esteem and low confidence and a high interpersonal trust the very young and the very old are the most common members of this group

Group Therapy

The central issue to group therapy, as in any therapy is how does the therapy improve the quality of life for the recipient? The methodology of applying therapy is determined by this question as a paradigm.  The individual therapist has a vested interest in the theoretical foundation for the therapy (s)he prescribes.  Client improvement may well have different attributions based upon these theoretical biases.  Irrespective of theoretical and attributional changes, the life quality improvements that therapy brings to the client are often brought about by the same methods of change.  Obviously change only comes about by action, and that action is fueled by the hope of effectiveness.  Long term potentiation is an example of a physiological change brought about by a psychological state. 

In order to amalgamate differing theories of therapy, one must separate the letter from the spirit, the ritual from the life,  the mechanism of change from the actual change itself.  The core of therapy, like any other core is the definition, the seed, the means of renewal.

Non-traditional Gender Roles and Coping Skills

There is research that suggests women and men who are non-traditional in their gender orientation adjust better and more quickly to a marital breakdown.  The explanation for this is that androgynous women and men have better coping skills with which to handle the trauma of divorce than do women and men who behave according to traditional gender role expectation.  This latter point has major implications for how we socialize children to prepare them for adult roles.  These individuals are accustomed to coping with the challenges of being different.  This is a stressor and experience with stressors makes navigating stress both easier and harder.   Practice may make perfect, but constant long-term stress is a horse of a different color.

Another A for a final grade

Psy 509 Theories of marriage and Family Counseling

Marius and Sulla and the rise of Ceasarism

Caesarism only gave a name to a well established process in the fall of the Roman Republic.  The conflict between Caesar and Pompey was merely a reflection of the class conflict left unresolved by Marius and Sulla.  The conflict erupted when the counter weight of Crassus was removed and the familial ties between the men were broken.  The artificial friendship between Pompey and Caesar were plugs in a dam full of holes; a dam that had consistently failed to hold back the flood of conflict.  For a long time this conflict was exacerbated by men seeking power and self-aggrandizement.

Conflict was avoided in the beginnings of the Roman republic.  The head of state was alternated between the original classes, the Romans and the Sabines.  The roots of this conflict were evident in the attempted reforms of the tribuneship of the Gracchi brothers.  The Gracchi brothers resorted to violence in order to institute reforms such as a repeal of the law against intermarriage between the patrician and plebeians, land reforms, and extension of citizenship to Italian allies.  Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus both met their ends at the hands of aristocratic mobs.

At the beginning of his career, Marius took pains to alienate the patrician class.  He purposely chose soldiers from the lower classes contrary to tradition.  Flushed with unprecedented victories over the invading Cimbri, he embarked upon a political career feverish with actions against the patrician class.  His excesses were matched or exceeded by the aristocratic reaction led by his rival Sulla.

Caesar was a nephew of Marius, who flouted the enmity of Sulla.  When he might have escaped to exile during Sulla's dictatorship, he stood for the priesthood at Rome.  He was elected Pontifex Maximus or high priest.  In a celebration, he had statues of Marius erected at the capitol at night.  This ploy fooled no one.  But luckily for his safety, the aristocratic class despised his youth; they would not listen when Sulla warned,"In this boy are many Mariuses".

Pompey was the darling of the patrician class.  He was born a patrician to an illustrious family.  He fought for Sulla in the civil wars leading an army that he had gathered and trained while in exile.  He had fought wars in Parthia and Asia extending the eastern frontier of Rome.  He was given absolute powers to suppress piracy and to solve the resultant grain shortage.

They pledged mutual support for their candidates for office, for their aspirations to provincial governorships, and for legislation to provide public funds for their separate military campaigns.  Pompey also loaned troops to Caesar for use in Gaul.  This friendship was cemented with alliances by marriage.  Caesar also sent troops home in order that they might vote for Pompey and Crassus in return for favorable legislation upon their election.

Caesar learned much in Gaul.  He learned military science, and that he was a latent genius at that subject.  He learned that he could amass the wealth necessary to conduct bribery successfully.  He was finally able to suborn officials.  When he camped south of the Alps for winter, so many people came from Rome to visit and seek his advice and his bribes that at one time there were 200 senators at his camp.

This balance of power remained because if they fought openly, Crassus would have had opportunity to defeat the weakened winner.  Crassus died from an abysmally mismanaged military campaign in Parthia.  Since his death was quickly followed by the death of Pompey's wife in childbirth, and since Caesar's granddaughter by Pompey did not survive her mother, there were no longer any ties to hold back hostility.

The Senate became concerned over the rising power of Caesar.  The latest elections had gone against Pompey and open strife became conspicuous.  The lack of government was a reason that some gave for the need for a dictator.  Many in the Senate felt that a legal monarchy was preferable to government by the sword.  The Senate in the person of Cato also felt that Pompey would be the milder and more tractable candidate for monarchy.  They began to consider proposals to disarm Caesar and to remove him from lucrative provincial government.  Accusations of malfeasance of public funds were made.  Caesar's envoys, men of rank and position, were attacked in the Senate.  Worst of all, to be stripped of his legions and to return to Rome a private citizen would disqualify him from a public celebration, a triumph, commemorating his victories in Gaul.

Caesar returned to Pompey the loaned troops.  They acted as agents provocateurs.  They belittled Caesar's accomplishments, and the loyalty of his troops to Pompey.  Pompey had always despised Caesar's power, thinking that as he had raised Caesar up, he could reduce him just as easily.  Pompey also counted upon raising troops seemingly out of nowhere, as he had been able to do in the past, as he had done during the civil wars of Sulla and Marius.  Caesar also made counter-proposals.  He proposed that he should be treated equally with Pompey, either Pompey should disband his troops and they both present themselves to the Roman people for judgment, or that if Pompey should retain his provinces and troops, then Caesar should also retain his.  These proposals were received with joy by the people, and with contumely by the Senate.  In response, Caesar still offered compromise.  He offered to relinquish all but two of his provinces and all but two of his legions.  This proposal was rejected with greatest vehemence yet.

He halted his advance on the banks of the Rubicon.  The river which marked the boundary between his provinces and Roman lands, Here he stopped and considered the hostility of the Senate, his probable fate if he acquiesced, and the consequences to Rome and himself if he advanced.  Reaching a decision, Caesar suddenly advanced without waiting for his troops beyond the Alps to arrive.

Caesar may have said, "Let the die be cast." but the die was really cast long before by Marius.