Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Blocks from Bob's Old Haunts
Just Walkin'
into the Mississippi River this Wednesday night, August 1, 2007,
occurred mere blocks from Bob's old student residences in Dinkytown.
Though the bridge didn't open until 1967, the apartments are well
within eye-shot of the devastation. Thankfully for this correspondent,
his better 3/4 came across this bridge from work just moments before
it collapsed. So far, it's reported that over 30 cars have plunged
into the river rapids with 3 fatalities confirmed. Emergency crews are
working feverishly to find survivors in the river and under the debris
with nightfall upon us and an expected storm approaching. Citizens are
urged to stay away from the scene to permit free flow of emergency
vehicles and personnel and to refrain from using their cellphones to
keep switches clear for emergency usage. The apartments look across
the bridge from its exit ramp.
Pilgrim
Good to hear your family made it over before the collapse. Still, it
must have been a harrowing experience for them to have been that
close.
daysof48
These freak accidents are so startling. The people that died were
probably worrying about normal everyday things when the bridge
collapsed. In their wildest dreams they didn't imagine this death for
themselves. I hope they loved and were loved while they lived. Thank
goodness you have your family to hug today. I know you'll handle them
with care.
frinjdwelr
"Pilgrim" <mcis...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1186069875.4...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Good to hear your family made it over before the collapse. Still, it
> must have been a harrowing experience for them to have been that
> close.
>
construction.
All of us who've crossed that bridge multiple times are thinking about fate
today.
I always was a bit spooked by those Mississippi bridges, especially the one
down in Dubuque. Of course if we weren't throwing away $10 billion a month
in Iraq we might have money to fix our bridges.
Pilgrim
> "Pilgrim" <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote in message
Yep, and I have a very bad feeling that the American infrastructure is
going to start having more and more of these kind of problems, too.
Think about it - the Katrina disaster could have been greatly lessened
had money been available to repare the damn and people took action to
do so. There were at least two reports about structural fatigue on
that bridge that were ignored. The stupid in our country hurts. Mabe
if this keeps happening, we'll wake up, but I'm not holding my
breath.
Martin
Of course if we weren't throwing away $10 billion a month
> in Iraq we might have money to fix our bridges
Good point, well made
Rachel
Great post.
Just Walkin'
> Of course if we weren't throwing away $10 billion a month
> in Iraq we might have money to fix our bridges.
And the rest of our aging public infrastructure as well!
My better half, whom I referred to as my better 3/4 in the original
post, and I thank everyone for their concern.
Now let's see if we can't turn this war machine into a bridge fixin'
machine...and get it to stop neglecting our basic public duties.
Rachel
i sent him a private e-mail. i didn't even get this post, read it,
just saw the general content, and it was too horrible to read. it was
only after Pilgrim's post that I got it, that he was almost in it, and
sent him his note.
i didn't want to do it publicly, i didn't know what to say, it was too
heavy.
Jesse
>
> These freak accidents are so startling.
It is not a freak accident. It is the result of decades of
politicians preaching no taxes. Here is an excellent editorial making
that point from Minneapolis:
daysof48
Thanks for this.
Pilgrim
Yes, thank you for bringing up the "no taxes" issue. I don't
understand how people fail to realize that we're a society, not a
disconnected collection of individuals who can get on perfectly fine
without communally taking care of our infrastructure and each other.
Just Walkin'
In Minneapolis, we have a beautiful new central library that cannot
open on Mondays because we have no operating budget for it despite the
fact that a majority of the townspeople voted in a referendum to keep
property taxes up for this purpose. Seems the state government passed
a property tax reduction that overrode the municipalities desires.
Why?
In Hennepin country, where Minneapolis is located, only 31% of the
citizens voted in a referendum to build a new baseball stadium, yet we
are getting one anyhow. Why?
In these here United States of America, we have a crumbling
infrastructure with bridges collapsing, levees bursting and trains
jumping their tracks while every penny we've accrued in our national
treasury since we balanced the budget in the nineties has been used to
finance a sold war and shipped direct non-stop into the bank accounts
of the benefiting contractors and their shareholders. Why?
The answers to these questions, my friends, are not blowin' in the
wind nor will you find them on Fox New OR CNN. They are already in
your heads and you will hear them clearly if you just turn the damn TV
OFF and think about them on your own!
And that's all I have to say about the matter.
Mr Jinx
Thank goodness your partner was ok. God bless those who have
perished.
Mr Jinx
TheMaskedMarauder
Dear Just (& frinjdwelr, old rmd buddy),
Thnaks for bringing this up, and for including the Mandatory Dylan
Reference of Dinkytown; i'm fearful that someday a completely
bobUnrelated post here will be against the law... if not a capital
offence, at least a lower case (see attorney general alberto "i really
can't recall" gonzales).
Speaking as an fundamentalist christian goldwater conservative, i have
to share your concerns. As a iggerant hick from the sticks, i have
trouble parsing such stuff, but looking at our government's website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/budget.html
It seems we're spending for defence (DoD) 503billion$US of
discretionary moneys (addons seem to bring the total to 699 billion;
other numbers can be put elsewhere, such as development of nucular
arms); for transportation (DoT) 65.6billion$US (which is not only
highways, but also includes aviation, maritime & railways, etc.); for
education (we don't need no) 64.4billion$US (my missus is a teacher in
a hardscrabble school, & feels some chilluns is inTENshunally bein'
lef' behins).
I've also seen data that suggests that despite neoCon artist's pledges
to cut taxes, tax revenues are increasing, but i don't have that info
handy & anyway it can likely be explained away. As can the 25% of
spending the military can't account for (according to some probable
leftwing kooks).
Nor can i speak to local, county & state taxations since i don't
really understand my own.
I'd like to hear from "Scandinavian" rmders. I hear that they're taxed
as high as 105% of their income, but healthcare, education,
transportation & housing are all heavily subsidised. I'd like to know
how that's working.
(i actually met Eyolf Østrem & a buddy of his face to face, & we
discussed this; my sense was that it was working acceptably not
perfectly, & my jaundiced mind suspects that those governments are
less rife with corruption & waste.)
(i also got Eyolf's autograph, only one of three i've every got.)
& "socialised" medicine or transportation labels be damned.
I do recall, redneck that i am, posting Merle (Okie from Muskogee)
Haggard's "America First" a while back as mp3. That's gone. As is the
youtube version of the video, due to usage violation.
Fortunately the video still lives on CMT (Country Music Television?),
proving that Merle is more powerful than any dixie chicks *last i
checked, this didn't work on Macs because it's DRM protected*:
http://www.cmt.com/artists/az/haggard_merle/videos.jhtml
If'n yer (anyOne hear) a commie pinko liberal who figgers this'll be
too jingoistic a patriot act for ya, here's the lyrix approximately:
}
Why don't we liberate these United States,
We're the ones that need it the worst.
Let the rest of the world help us for a change,
And let's rebuild America first.
Our highways an' bridges are fallin' apart:
Who's blessed an' who has been cursed?
There's things to be done all over the world,
But let's rebuild America first.
Who's on the Hill and who's watchin' the valley?
An' who's in charge of it all?
God bless the army an' God bless our liberty,
And dadgum the rest of it all.
Yeah, men in position are backin' away:
Freedom is stuck in reverse.
Let's get out of Iraq an' get back on the track,
And let's rebuild America first.
Why don't we liberate these United States,
We're the ones who need it the most.
You think I'm blowin smoke? Boys it ain't no joke.
I make twenty trips a year coast to coast.
{
Nota bene: "Our bridges an' highways" & "Let's get out of Iraq".
Waaall, i've got more ta say but already feel like a teenage girl
yappin' away on her Princess phone. I got things to say about
terrorists but my language wd be too salty for these 1/4s.
Lemme just say, god bless america, among others; this land was your
land, this land was my land. & my condolences to those whose loved
ones landed in the mighty Mississip'
& take it,
The Masked Marauder
Jesse
>
> The answers to these questions, my friends, are not blowin' in the
> wind nor will you find them on Fox New OR CNN. They are already in
> your heads and you will hear them clearly if you just turn the damn TV
> OFF and think about them on your own!
>
> And that's all I have to say about the matter.
I think there is nothing more that needs to be said.
Gemini Jackson
wrote:
It is interesting that practically everyone I speak to thinks Bush
should be removed from office. Yet he's not. I mean DAMN.
Tim Herrick
Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Blocks from Bob's Old Haunts
"Pilgrim" <mcis...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1186069875.4...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Good to hear your family made it over before the collapse. Still, it
> must have been a harrowing experience for them to have been that
> close.
>
>I have a friend who escaped due to taking a different route to avoid the
>construction.
>All of us who've crossed that bridge multiple times are thinking about fate
>today.
>I always was a bit spooked by those Mississippi bridges, especially the
one
>down in Dubuque. Of course if we weren't throwing away $10 billion a month
>in Iraq we might have money to fix our bridges.
This is essentially true, however, the larger question is infrastucture. We
can’t fight a war in Iraq, and Afghanistan, AND give tax cuts to the rich!
Was anybody else concerned when after the collapse there was the order to go
out and inspect every bridge! Why not an order to release all bridge
inspection records? How often are these structures being inspected?
A few weeks ago, a steam pipe exploded in new york, one fatality. The
mayor calms the public, it is not an act of terrorism, it was just our decaying
infrastructure. REJOICE!
Read the newspaper reports, there was no record and little interest in
tracking the inspection of these pipes, not to mention upkeep, maintenance, etc.
There was a vague reference to a visual inspection by con edison a few days
before, but no explanation of what that inspection entailed. Obviously, it didn’
t entail enough. Why is con edison the only one responsible for inspecting
itself?
There is a lot of new construction going on where I live, and in lots of
places in the country. But i see no sewer pipes going in. Everytime it rains
there are these lagoons around the street corner, used to happen during heavy
rains, but now it happens ALL THE TIME. And, i’ve seen it happening in places
where I never saw it before, like mid-town Manhattan.
Yet, all the municipalities and states spout tax cuts and tax relief, no
increase in taxes, state and local budgets decrease deficits.
NO one is talking about infrastructure—the rolling black outs of the early
years of this decade in caly, the 2003 black out in seven states, what has
been done to avoid that? Anyone in Virginia or the carolinas ask about their
infrastructure after hurricane issabel, which left black outs for weeks.
Every city in this country is a KATRINA waiting happen. We’ve all be
infantalized by TV to talk about how dumb bush is or john edwards hair cut. In the
90s, there was talk about the widening definition of infrastucture, how it
means also education, healthcare and shelter as well as the physical necessities
that make sociey possible. Heck, who wants to talk about decaying roads
and bridges and mass transit system or levees, or what privatizing energy
systems have meant for sustainablity and disaster avoidance? Not me, pass the anna
nicole smith video.
Yeah, if we weren’t in iraq we could fix the bridge. How about asking the
local newspaper when was the last story on bridge inspections appeared, or
write your state senator about infrastructure maintenence?
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Red Headed Stranger
> Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Blocks from Bob's Old Haunts
>
> years of this decade in caly, the 2003 black out in seven states, what has
> been done to avoid that? Anyone in Virginia or the carolinas ask about their
> infrastructure after hurricane issabel, which left black outs for weeks.
> Every city in this country is a KATRINA waiting happen. We've all be
> infantalized by TV to talk about how dumb bush is or john edwards hair cut. In the
> 90s, there was talk about the widening definition of infrastucture, how it
> means also education, healthcare and shelter as well as the physical necessities
> that make sociey possible. Heck, who wants to talk about decaying roads
> and bridges and mass transit system or levees, or what privatizing energy
> systems have meant for sustainablity and disaster avoidance? Not me, pass the anna
> nicole smith video.
> Yeah, if we weren't in iraq we could fix the bridge. How about asking the
> local newspaper when was the last story on bridge inspections appeared, or
> write your state senator about infrastructure maintenence?
>
> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL athttp://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
what capital wants capital gets
what people want they have to fight for
with pussycat dolls on tv teaching our girls to be pole dancers who
has time to fight?
and with our nation on a forced war footing who has the balls to ask
the right questions?
Just Walkin'
Hello Grandpa Uncle Professor President Masked Unknown Poster man
there,
I must be an okie too 'cause I like that song. He was right then and
he is right now.
And to me Ronald Reagan was a classic 19th century liberal.
Conservatives are the ones who protest progress like those young ones
that used to lay down in front of trucks delivering supplies to the
nuclear plants. Seems we got our labels switched around or
something...
But thanks for your kind words of inspiration. Knowing that you and
other folks who pay attention are in this world gives me a little more
faith in the ballot box. I say: Let NASCAR Go Green! It'd be great if
we could start racing cars with electric or hydro-cell motors to push
the technology envelope like the old days so please tell your
friends.
In the meantime, I took some pictures of the site true fans might
appreciate. Post here and I'll send them.
Merely,
Just Walkin' (but sometimes just ridin' a bike)
PS I'll never ever give away your secret identity but I knew you
weren't really a Masked Marauder when you told me about cow pies
instead of Saturday Night at the Cow Palace. You weren't there, were
you?
Red Headed Stranger
> see. How predictable. But what really hurts is how things get
> politicized while getting the facts wrong at the same time. How does
> anything get solved using this approach? The Hurricane Katrina floods
> were the consequence of the poor design and construction of sea walls
> by the Army Corps of Engineers that began way back in '65. And what
> does the war in Iraq have to do with bridge and sea wall repairs that
> never took place long before the Iraq war started? This stuff used to
> happen in NYC in the mid-90's. It wasn't Iraq war related, either.
your cynicism betrays you
are you a misanthrope or a garden variety curmudgeon?
of course it's political
it always is whether you like it or not
Just Walkin'
> On Aug 2, 2:14 pm, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> see. How predictable. But what really hurts is how things get
> politicized while getting the facts wrong at the same time. How does
> anything get solved using this approach? The Hurricane Katrina floods
> were the consequence of the poor design and construction of sea walls
> by the Army Corps of Engineers that began way back in '65. And what
> does the war in Iraq have to do with bridge and sea wall repairs that
> never took place long before the Iraq war started? This stuff used to
> happen in NYC in the mid-90's. It wasn't Iraq war related, either.
Hey Treadleson,
Good seeing your moniker around here these days. Note the original
post was informational, making a recent tragedy relevant to Dylan
fans, if they weren't concerned already. Many of us are concerned or
even outraged that such a thing could happen here and everyone is
looking for answers, even as they pray for guidance.
But since you mentioned it, you probably already know that the root
word of politics is polis, a Greek word, that means city, which at the
time of the ancient Greeks, was the highest form of civilization; the
city-state.
Now back in those days, politics meant "the affairs of the city-
state." This included commerce, trade, ethics, foreign relations,
public works, justice, art, literature, drama, music, aesthetics,
philosophy and affairs of war and peace. In fact nearly everything
connected to the life of those who lived in that city-state were
discussed by citizens in the forum and on the byways was called
politics. And so politics remained defined for centuries, until the
industrial revolution.
During this period, politics became a discipline, in and of itself, to
serve the growing secular state as it dealt with the changes wrought
forth by industrial manufacturing and all the changes it brought with
it. It no longer was used to mean all of those things but rather
defined a particular field of social administration. For instance,
whereas once politics was inextricably connected to ethics, by the
start of 20th century, with new concepts of individualism, we now saw
a system of apolitical ethics and, some might say unethical politics
emerge. It had a become a business unto itself! No wonder there are no
longer what we used to call "statesmen!!"
Now, bringing it all home, if you are saying that someone here is
trying to subject this tragedy to discussion under the regime of a
highly polarized professional partisan party system, I would have to
say that I agree that this would be in poor taste and entirely
counterproductive. If there is political blame, it rests not with
those two parties everyone likes to rail against; it lies with the
voters that put them in office.
On the other hand, if you are saying that we are gathered here like
citizens in the forum, to discuss the interconnectedness of all things
that led to the disaster, then I would have to say that you are
absolutely right; it is a political issue in every sense of the word,
and that our discussion, here and now, should be lauded for having
transcended the narrow constraints of categorization so essential for
the media's misportrayal of all things political in favor of the broad
open light of day, seen by all, in search for a solution, meaning or
action.
And you, Red Haired Stranger, behave yourself; Treadleson is a regular
contributor!
Pilgrim
>
> It didn't take long for people to start politicizing this disaster I
> see. How predictable. But what really hurts is how things get
> politicized while getting the facts wrong at the same time. How does
> anything get solved using this approach? The Hurricane Katrina floods
> were the consequence of the poor design and construction of sea walls
> by the Army Corps of Engineers that began way back in '65.
...and Bush cutting the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers for
years now, before the hurricane happened...
Minor details, minor details...
Of course it's political, Mr. Treadleson. That's why you responded
the way you did.
frinjdwelr
more political.
The best piece I've read on the bridge collapse "politics" was linked on
Expecting Rain on Sat. and there's even Dylan content.
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/080307Floyd.shtml
Just Walkin'
> score political points against Republicans, conservatives, Bush--i.e,
> the usual root of all evil for the Daily Kos, Move On, NY Times modern
> liberal. Like you, I say that it's in poor taste to politicize the
> bridge collapse. I like your encapsulated history of politics. But
> I was less reacting to politicizing the bridge collapse to score
> points against the conservative, Weekly Standard crowed--it was more
> the inaccuracy of the charge. This is where the modern liberal gets
> himself into so much trouble. Led as he is by his own emotion rather
> than a thoughtful analysis of the situation and what is best for the
> polity, he rushes to accuse, pillory and morally condemn those who he
> finds to be responsible for the problem at hand. Whether he is
> accurate or not is unimportant because his "stance" is correct--in
> this case conservatives and Bush and particular are villains and so
> there MUST be an "interconnectedness" between them and the problem.
> How could there not be? Again, the moral "stance" is the important
> thing here, not the underlying problem or solving the problem. Thus,
> with the huge situation before us now, Iraq, you have a Democratic
> majority voted in by the polity in opposition to the war. Any normal
> person would naturally expect that they wanted to be voted in not
> simply because they opposed the war but because once in power they
> would do something to improve matters. Alas, that has not happened.
> Nor will it because the aim is to morally condemn, not to solve or
> change. Ditto for N.O. The modern liberal after Katrina feels good,
> feels strong, feels refreshed because he has been able to show what
> thugs these Bush people are. He has not improved anything in N.O.--
> it's just as bad as it was. And he needs it to stay bad so that he
> can return again and again to NOLA and point out the shame of
> conservatives who allowed this to happen. And yet, the NOLA levee
> problems long predate Katrina--by about 30 years--and are because of a
> major design flaw made the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1960's. The
> conservatives and Bush had nothing to do with it. But wait---this
> inconvenient truth goes against the meta-narrative of Bush's
> complicity in the floods and tragic aftermath. So the Daily Kos's and
> BBC's of this world quietly tuck it away where prying eyes won't find
> it and they replay sections of meta-narrative again. With the Mpls-St
> Paul bridge, the meta narrative is dusted off and trotted out once
> more (see above posts) and after much throat-clearing and chin
> stroking, the modern, overly educated liberal once again adopts his
> "stance." Like I said in my original reply-post...it's all so
> predictable. It all falls there so perfectly...so well timed.
You are right; it is so predictable. It really is unfair to blame Bush
personally for these things. He is only a spokesman and a figurehead
with no real policy making experience or aptitude. He can only be
blamed for cooperating with the financial interests backing him that
seek to reduce the role of the government in maintaining our
infrastructure in order to uphold the value of capital. Would it be
that they were as serious about protecting the public infrastructure
here in the US as they are about defending oil company's assets
overseas in the oil fields! If they could have their way, they'd
privatize all bridges in America and leave their maintenance up to
their owners.
As far as the so-called opposition goes; they really are not any
better. They only seek to put a more humane face on an already corrupt
line. I'd like to see somebody finally stand up to the horse-hockey
and say that people's lives count more than the value of property. But
I don't think that will ever really happen. See, for all of these guys
and gals, the problem with the bridge, the levee, the steam pipes, the
railway tracks, is that no one owns them...
Pilgrim
>
> Americans own them. But Americans don't vote. That's the problem--
> not some conservative, financial cabal
As Just Walkin' pointed out in an earlier post, the people can vote
for policies and the politicians can ignore them. We're not powerful
because we can vote. We powerless before big money, corporatism and
the military-industrial complex that was revitalized during the Reagan
years and is now running our country. I guess we're just so
frustrated that Bush and his cronies have become an easy way to take
out that anger.
Just Walkin'
>
> Americans own them. But Americans don't vote. That's the problem--
>
Public infrastructure is owned by American taxpayers. The same people
that fund campaigns and present candidates clamoring to reduce taxes
needed to maintain it are the same ones looking for handouts and tax
breaks to maintain their own private infrastructure. It's not a
financial cabal; it's just the way a system of self-interest works,
whether we like or not. The problem is that public infrastructure is
low on the list of priorities because we are not talking about
productive apparatus such as a refinery, well, mine or pumping
station, we are talking about necessary overhead that profit makers
just feel that they don't have to support.
It's like the seniors in Florida who don't want to pay property taxes
because they don't have any kids in school anymore and resent having
to fund them. You should hear how loud they squeal when they don't get
the right change on the meds at Eckerds!
It is the unraveling of the shared social fabric we call America as a
result of the market driven atomization of human relationships through
mass individuation that is the problem here.
Tif
It is also a sure way to lead oneself to fall into the quite awful
_but comfortable to the ego_ trap of victimization. Any individual
or culture whose ego rules the game from such a perspective is a
culture that plays with a losing hand. How you define yourself or the
culture is the reality you stay stuck with.
Attitude plays a huge role . Better for the mind to seek and look at
the vibrant possibilities emerging than to keep one's fingers mired in
the mud of victimhood where platitudes crawl. Brilliant minds and
good hearts do not need to get or stay stuck there. Just walkin' past
a sense of feeling victimized and letting one's innate enthusiasm for
life reemerge and prevail will move one's inner and outer world to
change dramatically.
Pilgrim
I'm not disagreeing with you here, because I agree that identifying as
a victim can lock a person into a downward spiral, but it will take
much more than enthusiasm for life and new possibilities to get us out
of the mire we're in. That's little more that a platitude itself - no
offense meant - kind of on the same level as "well if you'd vote, we
could fix these problems". Not that I have any answers, but neither
of those approaches are actually a solution.
Red Headed Stranger
you are right mister tif
and pilgrim will agree
hugo chavez is a good example of someone who refuses to let
victimization hold back constructive work and a positive attitude
they say when life gives you a lemon you make lemonade
when capital goes on strike build it anyhow
can you imagine a quarter million people marching on new orleans to
reclaim their homes and neighborhoods?
just like jump starting a car...
J Buck
pay property taxes because they don't have any kids in school anymore
and resent having to fund them.>
I have no problem with senior citizens (anywhere, not just in FL)
bitching about having to fund new schools 'cos the poor kids can't take
gym class in a gym built in 1970...especially when they have no kids or
grandkids in the system.
Just Walkin'
> far worse... with that school bus and all. And the country isn't
> overrun with bridge collapses...lest this get blown out of hand. And
> it's predictable that this would get politicized into an anti
> conservative anti Reagan anti Bush opportunity. Ah....modern
> liberalism.
anti Reagan anti Bush?
Big BIG difference. Check Reagan's interview with William F. Buckley
on #401 of Firing Line as broadcast by PBS on January 20, 1980 for a
glimpse into the world and mind of candidate Reagan. (Transcript
available from the Hoover Institution) Miles and miles apart.
I learned firsthand that the Reagans did not want Bush on the ticket
back during the 1980 Florida primaries. They both wanted Phil Crane.
Not only did they disagree on most issues, the Bush camp was doing
Nixon-style dirty tricks to the Reagan campaign during the primaries,
kind of like what they they did to McCain in SC. Reagan's interview
made these differences obvious and in my opinion, established his
opening line..
So the decision to put him on the ticket wasn't theirs. But that is
where the money came from and sooner or later they were able to reign
Ronnie in. Still, he was the compromise they had to make to get the
positioning they needed. In the end, he gracefully refined a quality
that corrected a mistake learned by the party during the know-it-all
Nixon era that the current occupant has since perfected: plausible
deniability.
BTW Page 7 of the transcript has an extremely important admission by
Candidate Reagan that distinguishes him from all other Republicans;
all the way back to the days before Teddy Roosevelt! It's the policy
difference that gave him the votes to put him over the top.
Tif
I did not take offense. It's just that I am not one looking for
"solutions" on a grand scale. I live to consciously experience as much
of life as I can and I trust the value of walking the unfolding
process, learning from it. This is a step by step journey, sometimes
while in the body, sometimes not.
... Little things like that, y' know.
Tif
then there is the connection between soul and spirit to attend
to, the opening of the closed human channels, closed by traumas ,
etc... etc.. etc.... , to attend to . So much to move through and all
the time in the world to do it. Can you consider a world where
relaxation would be a ground of being ? what a world !
I guess setting house up is what interests me. A foundational
statement. Enthusiasm is a good ground of being , a good ground for
levitation ; or am I talkin' about elevation here?
am i asking you , am i asking me and you, or am i asking the third
one ?
I also listen to the info transmitted by people like Caroline Myss,
Richard Alpert, E. Tolle, and more. Maybe I'll find Elie Wiesel soon.
I am learning so much and there are such amazing people in this
world. So great ... it's good, it's good !
I, enthusiastically me+,
presently on Planet Gaia,
returning, returning into equilibrium of being
kol tov,
m.p.
>
> ... Little things like that, y' know { ;-)
Pilgrim
> Kind of on the same level as "well, if you'd vote, we would probably
> have much more conservative policies and public officials than we have
> now, which means more enlightened--sorry, I mean, conservative
> legislation."
Yeah we're seeing how "enlightened" the conservative policies have
been recently. It would be funny if it wasn't really screwing up our
nation and those nations we invade through our corporations and with
our armies.
> I understand that the modern liberal sees voting at the
> level of platitude--no offense intended--but a democracy where people
> don't vote, don't participate, simply isn't a democracy.
I'm by no means a representative of the "liberal" in the United
States. I'm actually more of a radical, by U.S. standards. In Europe
I'd probably just be considered a liberal. The terms are fairly fluid
in their meaning.
Neither party really represents me. I consider the Clintons at best
centrists. Both parties are highly corrupted by big money and special
interests, though the Republicans win that prize, hands down. There's
also the issue of the Evangelical Rights power within the party and
the breaking down of the division between the church and state. The
sex scandels are mere entertainment, but why is it that Republicans
can't just have regular old extra-maritial affairs? They gotta be
chasin' after young boys or paying for prostitutes. It boggles the
mind.
Still, I have always voted.
There is more to a democracy than "voting", however important that
small participation is. I'm more interested in fostering a grassroots
transformation of our cultural attitudes.
Pilgrim
<snip>
Hey Tif. I hear ya. I'd like to see Planet Gaia continue to be
healthy and safe so you can experience it and grow in spirit. Maybe
your aura will become large enough to sweep some of the imbalance,
ignorance and ugliness away.
I met Alpert, or should we say Ram Das?, back in the 80's. He seemed
embarassed when I told him how much he'd influenced me... I think he
stopped teaching for a while right after that citing ego issues. He
seems to be moving along quite gracefully now, perhaps moreso because
of his acceptance of the physical issues related to the stroke he had
about a decade ago. Sometimes the traumas we have are like blessings
in disguise, but it takes time and a lot of strength and spirit to
turn trauma into blessing.
Right now I'm split between recent translations of Abulafia and the
Wicken Messenger, previously known as Chimes of Freedom. Somehow they
go together very well...
Abulafia, who lived in Spain in the 13th century is kind of like the
Jewish Patanjali - same understanding of mystical union and higher
mind linking all things.
Just Walkin'
> On Aug 2, 2:14 pm, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
> It didn't take long for people to start politicizing this disaster I
> see. How predictable.
>
What's even more predictable is that even the mere discussion of the
tragedy has inevitably led to issues of sex and lifestyle.
>
> And what
> does the war in Iraq have to do with bridge and sea wall repairs that
> never took place long before the Iraq war started? This stuff used to
> happen in NYC in the mid-90's. It wasn't Iraq war related, either.
>
And what do these issues about sex and lifestyle from the right or the
left have to do with the bridge disaster? Nothing.
But it's the same old story; liberal meets conservative, lines are
drawn, litmus tests applied and nothing ever gets done because they
can't see past the issues that crowd their minds. And the Bank wins
every time.
It's the story of post-cold war America.
Pilgrim
the things it is directed to do by the first amendment. Evangelists
have a right to try to get their beliefs incorporated into law just as
the SCLC had a right to get their beliefs incorporated into law. I
defend the rights of both."
That's hilarious, Tread! You'd support the right of two Conservative
Christian groups to get their beliefs incorporated into law. How mighty
white christian of you! Ensconsing specific religious beliefs into law is
actually unconstitutional.
This is classic, too:
"I don't know why they do this either. Nor do I understand why other
people--the modern liberal or leftist--would want to pass laws
enabling men to marry men or women to marry women. It boggles the
mind. Why can't they have regular old marriages?"
The laws that have been passed are actually those that prohibit same sex
marriage. My synagogue recognizes the basic civil rights of same sex
couples to marry each other and the Rabbi has performed several marriage
ceremonies for same sex couples. It's too bad that others, such as
yourself, are so concerned with other peoples lives that they can't get
beyond their own prejudices and "icky" feelings and stop denying people
the right to marry the person they love.
As far as corporate control over conservative Democrats and Republicans
go, you're correct about that. Until we develop, as a people, a way to
loosen the hold of captital and corporations over our politics and
culture, we'll always be getting screwed by big money. Lovely, isn't it?
Tif
So true. It took me a very, very long time to understand that
the traumas we carry can be perceived as blessings and I have to
regularly remind myself of it with not yet fully healed traumas. But
once I "got it", a whole new perspective on life opened up and I began
to update the traumas so to speak, seeing how they fit into the
soul's journey. *Fierce Grace* is an expression Ram Dass uses and I
find it to be a valid description. Grace has a side to it that can be
so fierce! It will crash into and crack lives as they are, thus
deeply transforming us. After a while, if the lesson is grokked
rather than resisted, one gets to see that fierce grace has
fashioned us into a finer and stronger vessel, at least in spirit's
terms. I am presently listening to Ram Dass' series on Spiritual
Awakening. I don't know when this was recorded but I learn so much
from him. Maybe even better than that, I laugh a lot as I can
relate to all the ego-pits one falls into, while one walks on one's
spiritual quest. Laughing is a different kind of cracking, softer.
Ram Dass is a master of funny grace. His practice of having a few
truth-friends with whom to share the journey appeals to me.
I also give my attention these days to Caroline Myss' series on Energy
Anatomy, the Science of Personal Power, Spirituality, and Health.
Have you studied some of her material, it's very rich. Reading her
ideas in print did not used to do so much for me, but listening to
her voice does. It feels to be one with the material she delivers,
there is an authenticity of being that comes through her voice and
sounds and personally I receive and integrate information better ,
and on different levels of existential perception, when information
is delivered from someone's center of being. Much of the material
feels experientially familiar to me and so it makes sense that I find
myself attracted to it and in the same breath allow myself to then
listen to the part of the information that is intellectual new to me.
I like the way Caroline frames concepts and ideas, it opens new
directions and perspectives within me. I also recently bought her
recording " Invisible Acts of Power" and I have not regretted it .
She tackles the important topic of generosity in a different way and I
keep learning from her words.
>
> Right now I'm split between recent translations of Abulafia and the
> Wicken Messenger, previously known as Chimes of Freedom. Somehow they
> go together very well...
Ah! letters and sounds... and more... What a character that
Abulafia! The story of his walking to Rome to encounter the Pope has
stayed with me throughout the years. One seldom knows what's coming
next when one starts walking the truth as one understands it at any
given time... The landscapes change as we go and the truths we were
able to perceive and wrestle with in a previous period often change
dramatically in its appearances when one live it, walk it, not only
think it. Sometimes people get very comfortable with one of their
truth's older faces and forget that relating to that former aspect has
little to do with the living truth they are called to embody next, if
only for the sake of the soul's evolution.
The above is as good a policy for living as I am able to perceive,
muster and integrate within at this moment.
> Abulafia, who lived in Spain in the 13th century is kind of like the
> Jewish Patanjali - same understanding of mystical union and higher
> mind linking all things.
I am not familiar at all with the work of Patanjali but am glad you
spoke his name and yes, I hope Gaia will get to feel healthier and
safer, the sooner the better. It's just that I am not one who can
control the outcome of this play. Only influence it in in positive or
negative directions, in various little ways like everyone else.
That's part of the human condition, one may influence but one cannot
control what is bigger than us. That much I have learned.
m.p.
frinjdwelr
"J Buck" <jbu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25239-46B...@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
need gym class for anyway? They can just walk to school for exercise. And
what's with all those frilly art and music classes?
And how come I have to pay for roads I don't drive on? Why is my tax money
being given to pharmo companys when I'll never take any of those drugs? Why
do I have to help those people on the east side pay for their new well?
Ours on this side of town works fine. How come my tax money is going into
building that damn new stadium, I don't go to the games. And those sidewalk
repairs? I'm too old to walk, so why should I pay? And headstart? What a
waste. I don't have any little kids. Why don't their mothers just stay
home and take care of them? And don't get me started on that city homeless
shelter.
Just Walkin'
> On Aug 10, 10:38 am, Just Walkin' <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Aug 6, 10:32 pm, Treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 2, 2:14 pm, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
> > > It didn't take long for people to start politicizing this disaster I
> > > see. How predictable.
>
> > What's even more predictable is that even the mere discussion of the
> > tragedy has inevitably led to issues of sex and lifestyle.
>
> > > And what
> > > does the war in Iraq have to do with bridge and sea wall repairs that
> > > never took place long before the Iraq war started? This stuff used to
> > > happen in NYC in the mid-90's. It wasn't Iraq war related, either.
>
>
> > And what do these issues about sex and lifestyle from the right or the
> > left have to do with the bridge disaster? Nothing.
>
> > But it's the same old story; liberal meets conservative, lines are
> > drawn, litmus tests applied and nothing ever gets done because they
> > can't see past the issues that crowd their minds. And the Bank wins
> > every time.
>
> > It's the story of post-cold war America.
>
> bring in republican sexual pranks. Makes you want to just sit down
> and read a book.
Thank you. And I've read thousands as a result!
But it goes both ways, dear Treadleson. I too am tired of seeing
legitimate discussions of timely importance constantly side-railed by
lifestyle debates and arguable issues of morality. There are a half
dozen issues that seem to come up constantly on both sides every time
we are on the verge of a meaningful consensus regarding the
disposition of root causes for all of these problems. Most of them fit
with someone else's marketing plan. It almost seems that capital works
in this way to keep us fighting amongst one another, constantly
thwarting the pursuit of real progress, and guaranteeing the
preeminence of the precipitant market relations.
Just Walkin'
> The sudden and tragic collapse of the Interstate 35W Highway Bridge
> into the Mississippi River this Wednesday night, August 1, 2007,
> occurred mere blocks from Bob's old student residences in Dinkytown.
> Though the bridge didn't open until 1967, the apartments are well
> within eye-shot of the devastation. Thankfully for this correspondent,
> his better 3/4 came across this bridge from work just moments before
> it collapsed. So far, it's reported that over 30 cars have plunged
> into the river rapids with 3 fatalities confirmed. Emergency crews are
> working feverishly to find survivors in the river and under the debris
> with nightfall upon us and an expected storm approaching. Citizens are
> urged to stay away from the scene to permit free flow of emergency
> vehicles and personnel and to refrain from using their cellphones to
> keep switches clear for emergency usage. The apartments look across
> the bridge from its exit ramp.
The body count in Minneapolis is now up to 8. The remains of Sadiya
Sahal, a pregnant 23 year-old Somali nursing student, and her 22 month-
old daughter were recovered yesterday. As crews remove sections of
concrete and pull cars out of the river, they are finding more and
more fatalities. Our hearts go out to the families of Sadiya and all
those who've fallen.
J Buck
on? Why is my tax money being given to pharmo companys when I'll never
take any of those drugs? Why do I have to help those people on the east
side pay for their new well? Ours on this side of town works fine. How
come my tax money is going into building that damn new stadium, I don't
go to the games. And those sidewalk repairs? I'm too old to walk, so why
should I pay? And headstart? What a waste. I don't have any little kids.
Why don't their mothers just stay home and take care of them? And don't
get me started on that city homeless shelter.>
Ah, that's the beauty of user fees :)
President_dudley
> The
Dear Just,
Hi hello how are ya? Sorry for the tardiness of this response.
First, thanks for yr original post. It has set off a firestorm of
controversial responses that remind me of the kinds of threads we
useta see 'round hear some few years back.
I was never really bright enought to tangle into the midst of the them
vs. them & us vs. us, & some folks asked what it had to do with Dylan?
Of course, it was all between people of differing opinions who shared
bob as a fulcrum in they's lifes' levers.
So to all those debating now, be kind to each other & to quote bob:
}
Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord,
Lordy, Lord.
{
& to those folks who aren't sure why they shd pay taxes for a road
they don't travel, or for schools they've got no kidz in, my daddy
useta say that he objected too, but figgered it was about "the common
good". e.g., as bad as the public schools might be where you are,
imagine a society where there's no education, no informed &
enlightened populace. Nor a road you mightn't travel, but yr tomatos
do.
At that, i leave encouraging my fellow rmdErs... carry on, even if i
can't keep up with yr posts.
}
Always take hold of things by the smooth handle.
Thomas Jefferson
{
}
Let the rough side drag
Let the smooth side show
While you pull that load
Everywhere you go
--©1976 Jesse Winchester
>From the LP "Let The Rough Side Drag"
{
Take it, but take it, since what we're about is to achieve a
harmonious outcome,
dudley
___
"What make me love my woman, she can really do the Georgia Crawl."
Broke Down Engine, by Bob Dylan (arr)
Copyright © 1993 Special Rider Music
(originally Blind Willie McTell???)
"I got a God-fearing woman,
One I can easily afford.
She can do the Georgia crawl,
She can walk in the spirit of the Lord."
Gonna Change My Way of Thinking
Copyright © 1979 Special Rider Music
Search bobdylan.com for other "crawl" lyrics if yuh'd like
Red Headed Stranger
> On Aug 11, 11:43 am, Just Walkin' <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Well said. A bridge falls down and the next thing someone's trying to
> > > bring in republican sexual pranks. Makes you want to just sit down
> > > and read a book.
>
> > Thank you. And I've read thousands as a result!
> > But it goes both ways, dear Treadleson. I too am tired of seeing
> > legitimate discussions of timely importance constantly side-railed by
> > lifestyle debates and arguable issues of morality. There are a half
> > dozen issues that seem to come up constantly on both sides every time
> > we are on the verge of a meaningful consensus regarding the
> > disposition of root causes for all of these problems. Most of them fit
> > with someone else's marketing plan. It almost seems that capital works
> > in this way to keep us fighting amongst one another, constantly
> > thwarting the pursuit of real progress, and guaranteeing the
> > preeminence of the precipitant market relations.
>
> fall down in the first place.
apologies for my previous remarks if this comment is sincere
you are a fair person after all
otherwise they stand as stated if this is sarcasm
even technical progress in this country is political
see the fight over designs versus costs rather than maximum public
good?
fight fight fight
and then
spin spin spin
everywhere
always
marika
"Red Headed Stranger" <ziglveid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186865252....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> fight fight fight
> and then
> spin spin spin
> everywhere
> always
>
I don't follow football at all, college or pro
mk5000
"*2004 JUN - *web creator Timbernsley was given Britain White hood
*2004 Sep 29th - *gurlzgroup Founded
*2004 NOV 9th - *Due to one sourcing revolution morzilla firefox was
released "--Tim Bernsley
Just Walkin'
So good to see your posts Mr. President. You always have something to
offer.
Regarding the point I made about those seniors in Florida, I have
heard too many people grouse about taxes then wonder why kids don't
have the education to add and subtract, basic skills necessary to
provide the correct change on a purchase. In fact, someone was
exhorting me to move to Florida and I reminded them that I had
children and I want them to get a good education, something hard to
find in the Sunshine State. The enthusiastic response, I kid you not,
as Jack Paar used to say: "What do they need an education for? They'll
be Floridians!"
Common good indeed! This is something that isn't even on the radar of
most folks anymore. Glad you still remember what it used to be like
before everything became subjected to the exchange relations of the
marketplace. And it seems that things are set up in such a way that
when things get rougher, instead of banding together like we did in
the old days, people seem to get more and more selfish. That is,
unless a bridge falls or a great weather tragedy happens...
What do you suggest we do to help bring back that sense of community
when everybody has been systematically individuated into their own
private i-Worlds of ear buds and text phones by the needs of the
market?
President_dudley
> So good to see your posts Mr. President. You always have something to
> offer.
>
Likewise yrSelf, among others; tho' i fear my offerings aren't always
someThing, yr positive freedback will inspire me in my endeavOur.
>
> Regarding the point I made about those seniors in Florida, I have
> heard too many people grouse about taxes then wonder why kids don't
> have the education to add and subtract, basic skills necessary to
> provide the correct change on a purchase.
Yeah, well full disclosure... even tho' as a senior Dad understood
objections by seniors (& i don't trust anyOne under 80) regarding
school taxes, he was a teacher himself... high school level math. This
coming school year, my older daughter Sara begins teaching high school
algebra & geometry. Guess it skips a generation.
As to Cash Registerial skills, first off the clerk either scans the
item's barcode or hits the picture of the cheeseburger; the register
itself at end will tell them how much change to give from money
proffered. Since one of my local supermarkets & a local home depot has
do-it-yrself checkouts where the machine spits out correct change, the
technology exists to alleviate the need for human basic fundamental
arithmetic skills.
If only they could program the cash register to round down .01 & .02
totals, & round up .03 & .04 totals (which statistically wd balance
out to noOne's detriment), we cd eliminate the penny, which costs 1.3
cents to "mint", or manufacture.
>
> Common good indeed! This is something that isn't even on the radar of
> most folks anymore. Glad you still remember what it used to be like
> before everything became subjected to the exchange relations of the
> marketplace. And it seems that things are set up in such a way that
> when things get rougher, instead of banding together like we did in
> the old days, people seem to get more and more selfish. That is,
> unless a bridge falls or a great weather tragedy happens...
>
> What do you suggest we do to help bring back that sense of community
> when everybody has been systematically individuated into their own
> private i-Worlds of ear buds and text phones by the needs of the
> market
I'd've snipt those words, to conserve space, but they're worth
reReading.
Truth is "what do you suggest"?
I don't know. I'll keep working on it if you keep working on it.
I s'pose we can just trust in marketForces, eh?
I do know that it's almost always best, if i disagree with someone, to
leave their dignity intact in our discourse; that also preserves mine.
Things'll work out. They always seem to.
Commonly yrs,
dudley
Pilgrim
Yeah, and we used to have really decent conversations in RMD about all
of the topics, but now you, Just Walkin', is insisting that we all
just shut up about anything that doesn't "unify" us against what?
Capitalism? Who the hell made you the RMD police?
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr Jinx
Hey, hang on. Surely if you want an RMD police-free you will be happy
for Just Walkin' to express his opinions too.
Mr Jinx
Pilgrim
> On Aug 10, 11:22 am, "Pilgrim" <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > "No problem with the government protecting religion. This is one of
> > the things it is directed to do by the first amendment. Evangelists
> > have a right to try to get their beliefs incorporated into law just as
> > the SCLC had a right to get their beliefs incorporated into law. I
> > defend the rights of both."
> > That's hilarious, Tread! You'd support the right of two Conservative
> > Christian groups to get their beliefs incorporated into law. How mighty
> > white christian of you! Ensconsing specific religious beliefs into law is
> > actually unconstitutional.
>
> often--not always, not every single, little time but very often--
> religiously derived. Civil rights, equal treatment before the law has
> it's roots in Christian (and other) teachings, but for American
> purposes, mainly Christian.
Actually, most of what shaped the early American writers of the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was Enlightenment
thought, otherwise known as the Age of Reason, in opposition to the
control that religion had previously had on society. Most, but not
all, of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians. Some were
even *gasp* atheists.
> Men of the cloth were the top leaders in
> the Civil Rights movement back then.
Well, yeah, some ministers were top leaders and some leaders were not
ministers. Some of the ministers were Rabbis. There were probably
quite a few minority religions represented. One would hope that
religious leaders, of whatever kind, would listen to their
consciences and do something about the injustices the often plague
minorities in the world. There were also ministers opposed to equal
rights. Correlation does not imply causation.
> Christian morals was the basis of
> their popular appeal for overturning non-Christian laws.
It was the same spirit as the Enlightenment carried within it, moving
well beyond just "Christian morals", but a humanitarian understand
that minorities need to be protected from the prejudice of the
majority. Religion can be used in a variety of ways. It can be used
as a means to free people from social oppression and it can also be
used to convince people that their prejudices are enshrined in some
kind of sanctimonious righteousness. Christian belief has been used
to validate slavery as well as a means to overcome slavery. We need
to be careful with religion, and I say that as a religious person.
> But we don't
> consider that unconstitutional, now, do we? What's good the for the
> goose is good for the gander.
I think you're very confused about the difference between religious
people acting to protect minorities and religious people imposing
their beliefs onto the whole of society. I'd say that I suspect you
blur these lines on purpose, but, you know, I'm not a mind reader.
> > This is classic, too:
>
> > "I don't know why they do this either. Nor do I understand why other
> > people--the modern liberal or leftist--would want to pass laws
> > enabling men to marry men or women to marry women. It boggles the
> > mind. Why can't they have regular old marriages?"
> .....
> > The laws that have been passed are actually those that prohibit same sex
> > marriage. My synagogue recognizes the basic civil rights of same sex
> > couples to marry each other and the Rabbi has performed several marriage
> > ceremonies for same sex couples. It's too bad that others, such as
> > yourself, are so concerned with other peoples lives that they can't get
> > beyond their own prejudices and "icky" feelings and stop denying people
> > the right to marry the person they love.
>
> What your synagogue holds to be good and fine for its congregation
> doesn't automatically give it universal legal validity.
I never said it did.
> And it
> certainly hasn't been upheld through legislation, plebiscite,
> referendum or ballot propositions.
Civil rights issues should not be decided by the prejudice of the
majority. If we had put segregation up for popular vote in the
1950's, you would have had the same kind of response.
> And yet you would impose these
> practices on the whole population while at the same time decrying the
> idea of ensconcing religious beliefs into law as unconstitutional.
> Maybe it's theocracy you like?
Oh, honestly, Treadleson. When it's finally legal for gay people to
marry each other, you will not be forced to marry a man. Your
marriage, assuming you're married, will not be any way affected by
homosexuals getting married. Is respect for other people too much to
ask? When interracial marriages were finally legal, there were
probably a number of white supremicists who had (and maybe still have)
issues with accepting those marriages, too.
>
> And where does this odd logical construction come from about other
> peoples' prejudices and "icky" feelings being the real problem here?
> That the real problem is me and others being so concerned about other
> peoples' lives?
Simple observation.
> There is established law here and it has been
> upheld by legislatures and courts. Popular opinion has upheld it. So
> maybe the real problem here is actually a vocal and strident minority
> trying to impose its own very narrow views of what legally constitutes
> marriage on the population at large, a population that doesn't even
> agree with these narrow views.
Actually, the opposition to SSM increases greatly within the older
generations, which is to be expected because of the societal prejudice
that was prevelant before the Gay Rights movement began. I haven't
checked stats lately, but the gap is closing. Most people are
beginning to realizing that marriage between consenting adults of the
same sex is no big deal. The sky is not going to fall and not much
will actually change for heterosexual people. It will simply mean
that a minority that has been mistreated for centuries will be have
the same rights within our society as the rest of the people have.
> The pot calls the kettle black when it
> decries religious conservatives for imposing their will on the
> people.
I'm talking about Dominionists and others who seek to impose their
religion onto our culture.
There are a few people that I read who actively study this. I've
copied (because they are so much more eloquent than I) one of the
articles which aptly describes the process that I'm concerned with.
It's worth reading. The website it's from is:
Dave writes below:
Ever notice how, for some Christian fundamentalists, freedom of
religion means the freedom not only to discriminate against other
religions or other beliefs, but to actively promote hatred of them, to
advocate their exclusion and oppression?
Yes, I've noticed. In fact, I've been noticing this a lot lately --
and it's been worrying me. This attempt to warp our traditional
notions of "discrimination" is an emerging meme with accelerating
momentum within the Dominionist right. I'm glad Dave brought it up,
because I've been wanting to pick at it a bit further.
A Charge To Keep Have I
Evangelical Christians of all political gradients have always
considered it their first duty to convert the world to Christ. In
fact, that obligation to spread word of their faith is perhaps the
core definition of what it means to be "evangelical." Different sects
have different thoughts on why spreading the Gospel is important; but
they all think it is important -- the most important work of their
lives.
However, historically -- at least, since the Revolution -- American
Christians (of all stripes) have gone about their conversion efforts
in fairly low-key way. Before the Revolution, too many of the original
colonies had state churches that were overweening in their use of
government -- via taxation, zoning, ordinances, and so on -- to hobble
the activities of other faiths. These persecutions fell particularly
heavily on the Baptists --who as a consequence have, for most of their
history, had a visceral understanding of what's at stake when the wall
of separation falls, and thus have a long and illustrious tradition of
being strikingly militant in its defense. But it's fair to say that
the Revolution was almost as much about liberating religion from the
colonial state churches as it was about getting out from under a bad
king.
For a long time after the Constitution put an end to these
persecutions, proselytizing churches continued to cherish the
protection of that hard-won wall of separation. For 200 years, most of
them have clearly understood that their freedom to practice their
faith is a reciprocal deal -- they are only free to follow their faith
as long as (and to the extent that) others are free to practice
theirs. This understanding has, through the years, made Evangelical
ministers some of the country's most persistently loyal and passionate
defenders of the wall of separation. More often than you can recount,
local Evangelical ministers have usually been the first ones on the
scene whenever religious freedom was being threatened. They
understood, all too well, that whatever persecution they allowed in
their towns could, sooner or later, be loosed on them as well.
That sense of reciprocity also informed their conversion efforts. If
you don't want to be coerced, you don't coerce others. If you want the
right to raise your voice in the town square, you cannot silence
others when they do the same. The only authentic conversions are the
ones that result from mutual respect -- God doesn't want forced souls
bowing before him, and no church wants people who are there under
duress. And because most American Christians understood religious
freedom in these reciprocal terms, small towns like mine (6,000
people, 22 churches) found it easy to co-exist for centuries; and big
cities could edge over to make room for Jews, Muslims, and many other
faiths as well. This mutual respect is a deep and cherished part of
the American religious landscape. It's one of the things that has made
this country special.
But that consensus has been shifting over the past decade, largely due
to the Dominionist movement's ability to move extremely radical anti-
Constitutional memes down the transmission belt and into the center of
the national consensus. They've been working on this one since the 80s
(it took awhile, because it's so contrary to everything we stand for);
but, over the past three or four years, it's begun to take root in
places you might never have expected. The idea that our traditional
reciprocity no longer applies to Evangelicals -- that their special
relationship with God endows them with more rights than the rest of us
-- has been gathering a serious and unmistakeable head of steam. The
implications of this one idea for the country's future are many and
frightening.
The Corporatized Church
Part of this casual attitude toward the wall of separation may stem
from the long decades that religious fundamentalists have now spent in
bed with their free-market counterparts. It's inevitably American that
this impulse to sell one's religion to the masses would, in this day
and age, evolve into a sophisticated and complex (and cynical, when
you think about it) marketing campaign; and that the Evangelical
churches who launched such campaigns would, in turn, become not so
much houses of worship as vast sales organizations incorporated for
the main purpose of attracting eyeballs and moving product. (The TV
preachers led the way in the 60s; but the techniques they pioneered
are now used in megachurches from coast to coast.) In the minds of
many of these church "executives," the right to freely proselytize
wherever, whenever, to whomever, is nothing short of the right to
dominate their market and stay in business -- another form, if you
will, of free market fundamentalism, protected by the same laws that
allow secular corporations to profit as they will, unchecked by silly
regulations or the demands of any other common good.
(The fact that these religious marketing organizations are now run
like secular corporate businesses also leads them to completely ignore
the IRS restrictions on political speech. Tell a corporation that it
can't support candidates and lobby for its own interests? What kind of
Commie are you? A 501(c)3 religious tax exemption is a just another
nice loophole offered by the government -- and if you use it well
enough, you can afford enough lawyers to keep that same government off
your back, and buy you a political voice, too.)
This bottom-line business perspective also transforms these churches'
view of other religions. No longer are other churches seen as sharing
the broad shade of that almighty Constitutional wall; no longer are
you bound to them by the common duty of maintaining it. If a church is
a business, then those other churches are nothing more than
competitors horning in on your territory. They're obstacles to be
destroyed in your quest for total market domination, a task these
leaders approach with the same ruthlessness Borders brings to shutting
down the local bookstore. As such, they have no rights worth
respecting.
In this straight business perspective, the wall of separation is just
another restrictive government regulation. And if pulling that wall
down on top of your competition is what it takes to wipe them off the
map -- well, then, let's go get the ball and tackle and bring 'er on
down.
9/11: The Wrath of God
Given that we're talking about religious communities, it's natural
that the justification for this kind of marketplace Darwinism would be
expressed in theological terms. But, since 9/11, there've been some
new twists in fundamentalist theology that have turned up the level of
group hysteria to the point where the emotions are much harder to
contain -- and have, in turn, added an urgent sense of pressure behind
this new and expanded assertion of rights.
The Christian right (as Falwell and Robertson told us the very day
after 9/11) believes that America has a unique covenant with God, who
founded the nation with a special mission. To wit: we were to be the
paragon of Christian nations on earth. They also believe that 9/11 is
God's indictment on America -- the direct result of the Evangelical
movement's own failure to fulfill that covenant. They sincerely
believe it was all their fault: they had 200 years to win the entire
nation to their beliefs -- and now God's tired of waiting. If they'd
only worked harder and saved more souls, he wouldn't have had to send
that wake-up call.
Now, the only way to atone for this catastrophic lapse is to stop
messing around with ecumenical cheek-kissing, and get serious about
stepping up their efforts to establish theocracy. Their God doesn't
require sacrificial virgins or kings; what he does require is that we
sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of national religious purity.
There is no room for reciprocal niceties and walls of separation and
mutual tolerance any more, not when God is visibly pissed and the
whole world is about to be lost to Satan. In the meantime, those other
churches are blasphemers and heretics, sowing deadly confusion,
questioning our divine intentions, and distracting us from doing what
only we know must be done to truly safeguard the nation.
About 15% of your fellow American believe, to at least some degree,
that they will be at personal physical risk -- from Muslims, from the
Devil, and from God himself -- until the theocrats finally and firmly
take in charge of everything. If the rights of non-believers get
trampled in the process, that's too damned bad. Rights are a luxury we
can no longer afford. Those people had their chance at salvation, and
they made the wrong choice. In doing so, they forfeited their place at
the table of the Elect, and affirmed their status among the subhumans
that neither God nor Christian is bound to care for. Now, they'll have
to live with the consequences -- which, if we have our way, will mean
living at our meager mercy until they finally relent and submit to
conversion.
And so our Air Force Academy cadets are (per Mikey Weinstein) treated
to brown-bag lunch lectures with titles like "Why We Cannot Let You
Have Your God While We Have Ours" -- which are officially sponsored by
our tax dollars. Roy Moore still tours the country with his rock,
crying discrimination wherever the laws limit religious speech in
public venues like streets, parks, schools, courthouses, and
legislatures. The Southern Baptist Church -- the second-largest
Christian denomination in America after the Catholics -- has strayed
far from its illustrious Baptist history to mobilize against hate-
crimes laws, claiming -- with a straight face -- that such laws would
unduly restrict their "freedom of religious expression." (Translation:
they believe that God wants them to commit hate crimes.) And Christian
fundamentalists everywhere have picked up the trope, screaming that
they're being persecuted by hateful secularists whenever they are
"forced" to associate with gays, treat non-believers as equals,
subsidize public schools that teach real science and history, or view
media that don't conform to their narrow "values."
And as long as there's a single doctor left performing abortions --
the health of the mother be damned -- we're all just asking for God to
smite us again. He's done it once. He could easily do it again, just
as suddenly and even more horrifically. These people are gripped with
the existential terror known only to five-year-olds: Daddy's mad,
stuff got broken, and somebody's gonna get a spanking for it.
An Ominous Direction
The fundamentalists among us have, simply, jumped the track -- and are
now heading off in a radically new direction that is, very pointedly,
re-defining our historic understanding of the First Amendment.
Suddenly, in their minds, "justice" is no longer defined as merely
having exactly the same rights everybody else does. They are claiming
that their religious doctrines absolutely require them to harass other
people about their beliefs, take over the government, co-opt the
military for religious ends, bomb clinics and kill doctors, demonize
gays, oppress women, and dismantle the Constitution. It's not hard for
the more paranoid among us to imagine a day when they will assert a
"religious freedom" right to commit genocide for God as well. That is,
after all, where the heinous logic of all this leads.
Anyone who objects to that agenda and seeks to limit it via public
speech, the press, the law, or the courts is now immediately denounced
as being un-American. How dare we infringe on their sacred, inviolate,
legally-guaranteed freedom of religion? God requires this of us. It's
what we believe. You cannot argue with that, let alone take action to
stop us. The Constitution says we have this right -- and any liberal
who says we don't is just revealing his or her true hypocrisy and
intolerance. Yet when we invoke that same Constitution in defense of
our own rights, we are -- by their definition -- committing yet
another act of Nazi-like persecution against them. In their minds, the
Constitution is valid only as long as it empowers them, and silences
the rest of us.
Ironic, isn't it -- they way they defend their radical intentions by
scurrying right back to the shelter of the very wall they're so intent
on tearing down? Unfortunately, though -- that, too, will serve their
agenda in the end. After all, there's more than one way to nullify a
law you don't like. One is to make rational and emotional arguments
against it (even if it involves rewriting history, which, of couse,
they are), eventually persuading your fellow citizens to change it.
The other is to simply misuse the law in ways that mangle it beyond
recognition, ultimately rendering it ineffective and unenforceable.
And that's what's happening here. Dominionist Christians are
deliberately and willfully warping and bending the entire First
Amendment -- with its guarantees of free speech, free press, and
freedom of religion -- around their own bizarre arguments in ways that
will weaken it, re-cast and distort our understanding of its
guarantees, and eventually destroy it.
This is a new and ugly phase in the history of Christian America.
Whenever one group begins to assert a legitimate, God-given,
government-approved right to dominate and deny rights to others, it's
also another ominous sign of creeping proto-fascism. We are now
sharing this country with a substantial class of people who not only
harbor the fierce belief that they are superior to the rest of us --
yes, a master race, and their rhetoric is starting to work that meme
as well -- they also believe that the future of the country is at
immediate risk unless the non-believers are restrained and subdued,
placed under total control of their betters. Further: they believe
that they are justified by God to do this by any means necessary --
within or without the Constitution.
"That's what's going on in the minds of people like Congressman Sail
when he tries to exclude Muslims from Congress. Sail, no doubt,
believes that the Christian God requires this of him; and that he's
failing his duty to the nation if he doesn't do what it takes to
silence heathen voices and keep them out of government. But he's far
from the only one: this belief is now everywhere on the dominionist
right. We need to start being aware of it, and calling it out whenever
it raises its voice to assert that some of us are more equal than
others. Because that voice is very much what fascism sounds like."
(Sali, btw, has been forced to back track. They do a follow up story
on that on the website")
> At least with the religious right, they have some religious
> and historical tradition to fall back on as well as popular support in
> some places. With gay marriage, there isn't even that...just a
> strident minority who has decided, solely based on their own say so,
> that everyone else is wrong and they're right.
>
>
>
> > As far as corporate control over conservative Democrats and Republicans
> > go, you're correct about that. Until we develop, as a people, a way to
> > loosen the hold of captital and corporations over our politics and
> > culture, we'll always be getting screwed by big money.
> >Lovely, isn't it?
>
> I take that line to be sarcastic.
Good move, Treadleson! Yes, it's not very lovely. The problem is
rampant, uncontrolled Captitalism.
Pilgrim
Yes, of course he can express his opinion, but so can the rest of us.
>
> Mr Jinx- Hide quoted text -
Just Walkin'
> On Aug 12, 4:48 pm, Just Walkin' <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> .....
> > What do you suggest we do to help bring back that sense of community
> > when everybody has been systematically individuated into their own
> > private i-Worlds of ear buds and text phones by the needs of the
> > market?
>
> is a complicated question that doesn't have one, simple, one-size-fits-
> all answer. Different solutions for different situations.
>
Everyone's invited, Treadleson. You, Pilgrim, Mr. Jinx, Mr. Tif and
even the good Grandpa, Mr. President, can chime in at will. The more
the merrier. Besides, it's more fun when you share anyways...
>
> This is nothing knew. Once upon a time it was pretty
> normal.
>
Whether it was or wasn't normal, those days are over and they're never
coming back. The march of technical progress has created the material
basis for what might be called mass individuation and the resulting
fragmentation of human relationships as we used to know them has
continued apace. Individual modes of transportation, individual modes
of entertainment, individual modes of each act of consumption have all
contributed to creating the conditions for the emergence of new kinds
of behaviors based on the fulfillment of market-satisfying egoistic
desires over human need; new kinds of relationships based on voluntary
associations rather than on economic, geographic or biologic factors;
and new kinds of ways to understand, enforce or refute the dominant
ideology of our times in the discussions we enjoy and struggles we
face daily.
With this in mind, my question of what to do is more about how to
build consensus in this age of self-infatuation and self-gratification
toward a constructive agenda that will ensure the preservation of at
least the public and political infrastructure that we all need and use
to live our lives than it is about the prescriptive steps needed to
restore ourselves to the lifestyles of a previous era. How do we
return civility to life in civil society?
I do not have the answers, just plenty of question. But just walkin'
the line, I do know that it is going to take all of our brains
together to come up with ideas on how to use these rapidly developing
material conditions of mass individuation to our common advantage
rather than let them rip us apart and turn us at each others' throats.
You think that is worth talkin' about?
Mr Jinx
Er, good. That's that sorted then.
I actually dread the day when we find a consensus here on RMD. I like
to think of us as in a constant state of becoming.
Mr Jinx ;-D
Red Headed Stranger
> Yeah, and we used to have really decent conversations in RMD about all
> of the topics,
>
>
> but now you, Just Walkin', is insisting that we all
> just shut up about anything that doesn't "unify" us against what?
> Capitalism?
>
>
> Who the hell made you the RMD police?
>
looks like you already got the job
Pilgrim
I have the same dread, Mr. Jinx, especially if that consensus comes in
a form that pushes minority opinions into the wastebin in order to
fulfill some kind of mythical fantasy of a past or future golden age
that has never and can never exist. Change can only happen through
friction. It's always been that way.
"He not busy being born is dying."
>
> Mr Jinx ;-D- Hide quoted text -
Pilgrim
> On Aug 12, 4:17 pm, Treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:> On Aug 12, 4:48 pm, Just Walkin' <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > .....
> > > What do you suggest we do to help bring back that sense of community
> > > when everybody has been systematically individuated into their own
> > > private i-Worlds of ear buds and text phones by the needs of the
> > > market?
>
> > Is anybody allowed to answer this question? If so, then I'd say this
> > is a complicated question that doesn't have one, simple, one-size-fits-
> > all answer. Different solutions for different situations.
>
> Everyone's invited, Treadleson. You, Pilgrim, Mr. Jinx, Mr. Tif and
> even the good Grandpa, Mr. President, can chime in at will. The more
> the merrier. Besides, it's more fun when you share anyways...
>
> > This is nothing knew. Once upon a time it was pretty
> > normal.
>
> Whether it was or wasn't normal, those days are over and they're never
> coming back.
There really never was an ideal like this. The "stay at home mom"
fantasy was mainly played out in the middle class and on television
shows. Working class women have always had to work and the upper
class have had numerous ways to avoid it, through nannies, boarding
schools, etc. Treadleson is using a thinly disguised anti-feminist
argument.
> The march of technical progress has created the material
> basis for what might be called mass individuation and the resulting
> fragmentation of human relationships as we used to know them has
> continued apace.
None of this is new - it began with the Industrial Revolution in what
was it, the late 1600's? I'd say that the first hardcore onslaught of
it was felt in Manchester, England in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries. The newest wave of change is coming from the technological
advances made since the late '60's and early '70's, but the '60's
themselves were the result of the use of the media to mass market
information and product to people, including cultural ideals like the
civil rights and the anti-war/nuclear bomb/cold war movements. We're
still evolving ways to deal with the machinery of mass production and
mass marketing.
> Individual modes of transportation, individual modes
> of entertainment, individual modes of each act of consumption have all
> contributed to creating the conditions for the emergence of new kinds
> of behaviors based on the fulfillment of market-satisfying egoistic
> desires over human need; new kinds of relationships based on voluntary
> associations rather than on economic, geographic or biologic factors;
> and new kinds of ways to understand, enforce or refute the dominant
> ideology of our times in the discussions we enjoy and struggles we
> face daily.
Whew, that's a long sentence! There is nothing wrong with
individuation. To my way of thinking, there is a cultural tradition
of 'independence' and 'rugged individualism' in the United States that
can be both positive and negative. When it's mixed with propaganda to
serve the interests of the privileged and powerful, it can be very
damaging and distracting to us as a people. We need to come to terms
with how our government, big business - including and perhaps
especially the media - uses the myths of our culture to entice people
into believing that they exist as islands and that the general well
being of the society does not profit by the general well being of the
non-majority and non-privileged groups within the society. We need
to be educated and educate others on how much manipulation occurs
through the media (I know from your earlier comments that you are well
aware of this) and how the privileged and powerful co-opt the ideas of
those seeking progressive change in order to lesson the threat against
them.
>
> With this in mind, my question of what to do is more about how to
> build consensus in this age of self-infatuation and self-gratification
> toward a constructive agenda that will ensure the preservation of at
> least the public and political infrastructure that we all need and use
> to live our lives than it is about the prescriptive steps needed to
> restore ourselves to the lifestyles of a previous era. How do we
> return civility to life in civil society?
First, American politics has never been truly "civil" in the sense
that we've always, always have had opposing factions. I don't view
this as necessarily a bad thing. Growth requires friction. A false
consensus is just as lethal to a society as constant bickering and
fighting is. What we have to deal with right now is the wide spread
abuse of power within the various levels of our government and the
manipulation being laid upon us in our society by the propaganda
machines within the government and the media that want to protect and
hold onto the status quo of corporate expansion, fear mongering and
placating the populace with products meant to be regularly replaced,
in order to line their pockets and ensure their position in our
society.
Pilgrim
Hunh? Can you explain why you think this? I'm not trying to stifle
any kind of conversation. I'm trying to open it up.
Mr Jinx
Friction is good. But it pays not to indulge in public too often.
Mr Jinx
Pilgrim
>
> Friction is good. But it pays not to indulge in public too often.
>
> Mr Jinx
Aw shucks! Am I losing the popularity contest?
Mr Jinx
Ha. Never.
Anyway, I'm a fine one to talk 'bout friction here. It's only my
thick wolverine pelt that keeps me shielded when the brickbats fly.
Let the dialectic flow .... like magma.
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
Just Walkin'
There is already enough friction between the producers of wealth and
the accumulators of wealth to fuel all the change we need. Other
sources of friction are distractions, like dock workers on the
waterfront fighting each other for scraps of pay rather the fighting
together to control the source of pay.
Political factions are a contrivance overlaid upon the real process of
social material existence and do not represent the real interest of
the protagonists. That is a major disconnect these days. Furthermore,
the political arena is not the main arena where these contradictions
are worked out. State power is only ONE instrument of control.
And since you mentioned it, technology had a big role to play in
advancing women's rights and roles in society. The advent of the
washer, dryer and dishwasher had a lot to do with freeing women from
the drudgery of housework so that they can be forced into the
workplace to help pay for these appliances by the very forces you and
I seem to agree that we are up against. The women's movement didn't
come by words alone.
Lastly, individuation is not individualism; it is the exploitation of
individualism, the mass management of what people think of us
individualism to serve specific market objectives. Though its primary
function has been to build the rule of the market and exchange
relations, its secondary functions include its use as a powerful
propaganda tool. The manifestation of self in highly manageable
consumption patterns and the identification of ego in the locus of
commodities goes well beyond a mere essay on liberation or discussion
of fetishes; it strikes right to the heart of the problems we face as
a society and as a culture. There is no real "rugged individualism"
anymore; like Donna Reed, it's a myth!
Pilgrim
>
> There is already enough friction between the producers of wealth and
> the accumulators of wealth to fuel all the change we need. Other
> sources of friction are distractions, like dock workers on the
> waterfront fighting each other for scraps of pay rather the fighting
> together to control the source of pay.
I do agree that excessive friction can be used as a method of dividing
and conquering, but we're not going to solve those problems here on
RMD. Trust me on it. We're here to have a bit of fun, discuss Dylan
and engage in conversation with each other.
>
> Political factions are a contrivance overlaid upon the real process of
> social material existence and do not represent the real interest of
> the protagonists. That is a major disconnect these days. Furthermore,
> the political arena is not the main arena where these contradictions
> are worked out. State power is only ONE instrument of control.
So, you're scolding me for having a bit of fun poking at Treadleson
for his beliefs in the more "enlightened" conservative agenda because
it doesn't fit into your conception of "unity" that we need to achieve
to fix our infrastructure problems?
Ok. You might be a bit too serious to find the hilarity in the fact
that he took my bait and then proceeded to lay out an argument that
showed how much of the progressive movement the anti-progressive
movement, particularly the right wing Christian agenda, has co-opted
our arguments and mangled them into a way for the privileged majority
to feel good about perpetuating prejudice.
I'm well aware that, as you say "State power is only ONE instrument of
control."
>
> And since you mentioned it, technology had a big role to play in
> advancing women's rights and roles in society. The advent of the
> washer, dryer and dishwasher had a lot to do with freeing women from
> the drudgery of housework so that they can be forced into the
> workplace to help pay for these appliances by the very forces you and
> I seem to agree that we are up against. The women's movement didn't
> come by words alone.
Everything can be used for positive and negative agendas. Women are
no more forced into the work place than men are. What we need to do,
in my opinion, is educate people more on how we are being manipulated
by market researchers throughout the whole spectrum of our culture.
If you could start to address that issue or come up with another
engaging issue that is affecting us instead of scolding me about
organizing my thoughts along progressive and anti-progressive lines,
we could perhaps achieve a kind of consensus where some progress could
occur.
>
> Lastly, individuation is not individualism; it is the exploitation of
> individualism, the mass management of what people think of us
> individualism to serve specific market objectives. Though its primary
> function has been to build the rule of the market and exchange
> relations, its secondary functions include its use as a powerful
> propaganda tool. The manifestation of self in highly manageable
> consumption patterns and the identification of ego in the locus of
> commodities goes well beyond a mere essay on liberation or discussion
> of fetishes; it strikes right to the heart of the problems we face as
> a society and as a culture. There is no real "rugged individualism"
> anymore; like Donna Reed, it's a myth!
You use the term "individuation" in an exclusively negative sense. It
can be that, but it can also be a postive growth within an individual
that enables a person to actualize themselves beyond the hold of the
collective group consciousness which is generally acted out
unconsciously. Once individuation occurs, the process of a conscious
reconnection to the whole, or the group, can be brought about. I see
it as a very positive process in human growth. Perhaps we are talking
past each other because our definition of the word is quite different.
I brought up the idea of "rugged individualism" precisely because it
is a myth. In my understanding of the individuation process, the
undifferentiated personality will identify with the myth on an
unconscious level. This allows for easy manipulation by more cynical
forces within the culture which play upon this myth for their own
purposes. A person in the process of individuating will be able to
step back from the myth and see if for what it is and decide if it is
something that they want to participate in or not. The final stage of
individuation is to rise above the ego self, realizing that each
individual ego, actual rugged individuals (they do genuinely exist) or
not, are part of a society that relies on it's individuals to actively
participate in it's creation.
Just Walkin'
Individuation can only be used in a negative sense. True, all things
are pregnant with the opposite, but I think that you are confusing
individualization with individuation. Individuation is the commercial
exploitation of the individualization process in mass culture. People
don't individuate themselves; markets do.
But it does sound like you've read all the literature, so then you
know how important it is to get to the root of a problem and not fight
for the superficial features of a problem's many manifestations.
Though I do not think I used the word unity or unify in my posts as
you've repeatedly suggested, it does sound like a good idea. My
approach is to start with something we can all agree on and then
radiate outward from there, solving the differences along the way, as
they present themselves as obstacles to the work at hand. Rubicons are
something we cross together when it's time, not challenge or dare each
other to cross on our whim.
I think that both yours and Treadleson's hearts are in the right
places and you both agree on far more than either of you would ever
admit. I would never put either of your differences with me come
between us and the work we have at hand, of the pleasure of our
literary association, for that matter. Why not start with those points
that you two have in common and build from there? Progress will come
faster and easier if we all do that!
Pilgrim
> Individuation can only be used in a negative sense. True, all things
> are pregnant with the opposite, but I think that you are confusing
> individualization with individuation. Individuation is the commercial
> exploitation of the individualization process in mass culture. People
> don't individuate themselves; markets do.
I'll have to respond to the rest of this tomorrow, but with all due
respect, you're flat out wrong about this, Just Walkin'. The term
"individuation" is a psychological term which in my experience is used
primarily by psychologists to describe a stage in mental development,
a very necessary and usually positive stage. People individuate. I
described that process, perhaps poorly I'll admit, in the previous
post that I wrote.
This is a much better description:
http://www.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/persona.html
The reason why advertising and the Neo-Cons, etc. can have such a
strong hold over people is because our myths and stories, as Americans
are believed in primarily on an unconscious level so they are very
easily manipulated. The Neo-Cons have pretty much made a science out
of manipulating us. Marketers rely on these beliefs to persuade us
that we need just one more thing to be complete and then one more
thing and then, just one more thing. A mass individuation, in the
sense of how I'm using the term, of the average American would go a
long way to decrease the power of both of these forces.
Pilgrim
>
> http://www.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/persona.html
This describes the process on a much deeper level:
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2005/Whitlark.htm
Just Walkin'
> On Aug 13, 6:07 pm, Just Walkin' <kensh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I'll have to respond to the rest of this tomorrow, but with all due
> respect, you're flat out wrong about this, Just Walkin'. The term
> "individuation" is a psychological term which in my experience is used
> primarily by psychologists to describe a stage in mental development,
> a very necessary and usually positive stage. People individuate. I
> described that process, perhaps poorly I'll admit, in the previous
> post that I wrote.
>
as a psychological term; I, a sociological one. We are saying
something very similar, but I think your point of entry into the
discussion is rooted in gemeinschaft while mine seems to be in the
gesellschaft. But I think starting with the self is really a
redundancy; we already know the self as the self is already implicit
in any discussion of human society as a whole, especially if it's
conducted by humans! Hence I think that we cannot really know
ourselves completely unless we also know the structures we build
around us, that petrie dish and agar we call society and culture.
>
> This is a much better description:
>
> http://www.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/persona.html
>
> The reason why advertising and the Neo-Cons, etc. can have such a
> strong hold over people is because our myths and stories, as Americans
> are believed in primarily on an unconscious level so they are very
> easily manipulated. The Neo-Cons have pretty much made a science out
> of manipulating us. Marketers rely on these beliefs to persuade us
> that we need just one more thing to be complete and then one more
> thing and then, just one more thing. A mass individuation, in the
> sense of how I'm using the term, of the average American would go a
> long way to decrease the power of both of these forces.
>
precipitate cognitive dissonance is part of what I would call the
individuation process; everyone has to be made to think that their
conclusions are their own ideas, automatically!
And that is only one way that the struggle for personal freedom in our
society is mobilized and militated against the struggle for social
progress. Kind of like chess from both sides of the board.
You might disagree but I hope it is only with the vernacular.
Red Headed Stranger
mary cheney versus rosa luxemburg
in the arena of perpetrated decadence
one winner one prize one system
not yours not mine not his
e unum pluribus
many out of one
for someone else
why try to shut down the mass debator?
is not his friction sanctioned?
Tif
> The sudden and tragic collapse of the Interstate 35W Highway Bridge
> into the Mississippi River this Wednesday night, August 1, 2007,
> occurred mere blocks from Bob's old student residences in Dinkytown.
> Though the bridge didn't open until 1967, the apartments are well
> within eye-shot of the devastation. Thankfully for this correspondent,
> his better 3/4 came across this bridge from work just moments before
> it collapsed. So far, it's reported that over 30 cars have plunged
> into the river rapids with 3 fatalities confirmed. Emergency crews are
> working feverishly to find survivors in the river and under the debris
> with nightfall upon us and an expected storm approaching. Citizens are
> urged to stay away from the scene to permit free flow of emergency
> vehicles and personnel and to refrain from using their cellphones to
> keep switches clear for emergency usage. The apartments look across
> the bridge from its exit ramp.
Anchoring the energy, please when you blow the shofar, direct
beneficial influences toward the big island of Hawaii, the pulsing
healing heating heart of the Pacific,
A friend had left a message on my answering machine. She is in
Hawaii , a hurricane was approaching. For those of you who grok what i
am aiming for is some meditation, some breathing, some liking,
dedicated to the island of the alo'h'a
prayers, meditations, focusing and centering, elevating, simplly
resting, are requested.
more than that, i ain't saying, just walkin',
and restin'
aimin' for that
a sense of the sacred and a cup of tea might
soothe my thirst . I call unto unity and dignity to uphold the hand
of destiny .
and soft thoughts, softening the air, changing the atmosphere,
reaching for equilibrium in the midst of the hurricane .
Aloha v ' Shalom
m
.
thanks.
mister tif .
Pilgrim
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sorry, RHS, but you're reading me incorrectly.
Pilgrim
> OF course one must not use religion to defend indefensible things.
> Christianity to defend slavery would be a case in point.
Well, it's good we agree about that.
> But you keep going back to the Enlightenment,
> theists and such. What was the enlightenment but a cleaned up
> Christianity, post reformation and full of room for liberal
> economics? The anti-clerics who brought about the Enlightenment in
> France were unhappy with the institution of the Christian Church, not
> with the message itself.
The message of any religion - of all religions - cleaned of
corruption, with reason applied to them all come out about the same on
ethical grounds. Even our current boogeyman, Islam. That the people
of Europe came out of a Christian environment is kind of a no
brainer. The point is that they were trying to remove the Churches
influence. Today we have a more global environment going on. Going
back to the original point, the Dominionist approach of Christianizing
the government is exactly the opposite of what the Founders of our
country wanted. No amount of historical revisionism and
mythology about a golden past is going to change that.
> ....
>
> > > But we don't
> > > consider that unconstitutional, now, do we? What's good the for the
> > > goose is good for the gander.
>
> > I think you're very confused about the difference between religious
> > people acting to protect minorities and religious people imposing
> > their beliefs onto the whole of society. I'd say that I suspect you
> > blur these lines on purpose, but, you know, I'm not a mind reader.
>
> Not on purpose at all, and lines not blurred at all. Religious
> people who call for the dismantling of Roe, for example, are not seen
> as "imposing their views." They are speaking for a minority...the
> unborn child...and if anything, they see themselves as undoing unjust
> laws which were imposed on them without any vote, debate, or
> anything. In fact, their legal case in that department is quite
> strong.
Here you go co-opting progressive language again. Unborn fetuses do
not trump adult women. We're citizens when we are born. Even the
Torah is quite clear about that. I doubt the legal case is strong.
>
> Here we diverge pretty sharply. I do not believe that any issues are
> exempt from majority consideration (obviously I'm not including secret
> govt programs, etc.,
Secret government programs!
Sorry, I had to laugh at that one...
> The prejudice of the
> majority, as you put it, is what democracy is.
Yeah, kind of like a mob. This is why we have a republic.
> Bowing to the
> possibility of tyranny of the majority, the framers made it a
> representative republic.
At least you realize that...
> As we all know it has become much more
> democratic over time. And I am a believer in that.
Apparently you prefer the tyranny of the majority. I'm glad to see
you are honest about it.
> As for court
> enforced desegregation in the 50's, well, it's unfair to compare that
> to the idea of gay advocates bringing lawsuits to overturn marriage
> laws. In desegregation, I think that the Court was simply reversing
> an unconstitutional decision (Plessy) and bringing things more in
> conformity with the 14th amendment. With gay marriage, it can't be
> brought into conformity with any amendment.
It can't be brought in conformity with any amendment because the
tyranny of the majority - the prejudice of the majority - is forcing
the amendment that would cover that to not be passed and trying to add
one that will enshrine that prejudice into the constitution. It's
very simple. We add ammendments all the time. If we have
unconstitutional laws which previously less enlightened times in our
society have passed, we eventually change them, at least that is what
one would hope.
> Besides, as you know,
> civil rights changes in the law have been mainly through
> legislation....by the majority....particularly the kinds of changes
> that gay people want.
Gay people will what ever is available to them.
> > > And yet you would impose these
> > > practices on the whole population while at the same time decrying the
> > > idea of ensconcing religious beliefs into law as unconstitutional.
> > > Maybe it's theocracy you like?
> ....
> > Oh, honestly, Treadleson. When it's finally legal for gay people to
> > marry each other, you will not be forced to marry a man. Your
> > marriage, assuming you're married, will not be any way affected by
> > homosexuals getting married. Is respect for other people too much to
> > ask? When interracial marriages were finally legal, there were
> > probably a number of white supremicists who had (and maybe still have)
> > issues with accepting those marriages, too.
>
> Then this really comes down to respect...respect for gay sexual
> preference.
Homosexuality is natural. It occurs in every species. Besides
religious beliefs and icky feelings, what is the problem?
> The states should revise their marriage laws out of
> respect for gay people's sexual preference. In other words, because I
> enjoy sleeping with Joe or Don or Scott or Kip and because I've
> decided I would like to marry one of them, the (ancient) laws should
> turn around and say, sure Tread, if that's what you're into, then by
> all means we will amend the laws. Wow. That's easy.
We marry because we love the other person and want to spend our lives
with them. Do you not realize that gay people fall in love?
> Come to think
> of it, I would like to marry Don AND Kip. I really do love them
> both. But all these people who think that's icky will not amend the
> laws. Just because I marry Don and Kip doesn't mean that Ed and
> Linda can't get married. Talk about prejudiced and narrow-minded.
Aaaahhh... the slippery slope! Mormon style! At least you didn't
bring up bestiality!
> >Most people are
> > beginning to realizing that marriage between consenting adults of the
> > same sex is no big deal. The sky is not going to fall and not much
> > will actually change for heterosexual people. It will simply mean
> > that a minority that has been mistreated for centuries will be have
> > the same rights within our society as the rest of the people have.
>
> Oh please, no more tautologies. That homosexuals have been mistreated
> over the centuries is indisputable. Beatings, ridicule, employment
> problems, ostracism, etc. To then make this leap across the Grand
> Canyon to say that their inability to marry is mistreatment is too
> funny. In truth it is dishonest. Marriage is procreation based and
> fulfills all sorts of social needs that are too lengthy to go into,
> but which are well known. This simply isn't the case with gay
> marriage. So we cannot speak here of mistreatment and do so with
> decency.
So, all those heterosexuals who marry and don't have children, are
they in fake marriages? How about infertile couples?People who
adopt? People who marry after the childbirthing years? Living where
I do, I know quite a few lesbian couples. Most of them have
children. Many of the gay male couples I know have adopted children
or foster children. A close friend of mine is adopted. Where her
parents really married? They couldn't have children.
I detect some dishonesty and some indecency in your argument.
> ...
> >http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
>
> I will read this, but not now.
I bet.
Pilgrim
> No need to respond; we have a vernacular issue here. You are using it
> as a psychological term; I, a sociological one. We are saying
> something very similar, but I think your point of entry into the
> discussion is rooted in gemeinschaft while mine seems to be in the
> gesellschaft. But I think starting with the self is really a
> redundancy; we already know the self as the self is already implicit
> in any discussion of human society as a whole, especially if it's
> conducted by humans! Hence I think that we cannot really know
> ourselves completely unless we also know the structures we build
> around us, that petrie dish and agar we call society and culture.
>
We do ultimately agree, though there are some details that I view
differently. I'm not just coming from pshychology, although that is a
good way to begin to understand. I also have a background in Eastern
and Western mysticism. What we think of normally as the self is what
we have consciously associated with our ego. Everything else is
either in the personal unconscious, the collective unconscious or
compartmentalized into safe places, in the process of either coming up
(so to speak) from an unconscious area, being pushed down, hanging out
in the conscious mind (ego) temporarily.
Sometimes when we are drunk or have a neurotic or psychotic break, use
some kind of drug or a meditation/psychological technique, or when we
are dreaming, tapping into the unconcsious through some kind of
creative activity or whatever other method people may use, we get
glimpses of what we have stored in the rest of us or what we have
repressed. Peoples egos have different levels of health and different
strengths. Healthier egos do not tend to break as much under
different kinds of strain or attack.
>From a spiritual perspective, the ego is only a small portion of the
whole psyche or Self. When we experience cognitive dissonance, an
unhealthy ego, instead of processing the issue and dealing with the
contradiction, will begin to repress what doesn't fit into the ego's
association of itself. This, among other things, goes into what
becomes the persons shadow, which is then either projected out onto an
"other" or remains internal and works to warp and twist the person
psychologically or with physical illness. What I understand as the
individuation process involves facing the shadow and bringing up into
consciousness (expanding the consciousness, really) more of the whole
person. Whole people don't need much to feel fulfilled, so there's
less ability to manipulate. The emptiness lessens. Consciousness is
what is important.
Now, I know that most Americans will continue to not process the imput
of the world around them that shapes much of what is assumed to be the
"self" and the shadow will do it's thing until we're forced to deal
with the results in a tragic sense.
I wish I could be more optimistic, but I'm not.
What worries me more than the division of our culture into the right
and the left is the apathy and the escapism. At least people like
Treadleson and I care enough to argue! We may disagree on a whole
lot, but the caring is there. I tend to waver between optimism and
cynicism. These days I'm playing the cynic. I think it's getting on
to being too late and yeah, it's going to be the foundations that
crack, the structures, the building industry, real estate. Belly up.
Then we'll wake up, or crack, or dive into more delusion and
escapism. What can I say, I'm not very optimistic these days. Maybe
someone like FDR will show up and we'll unite over tragedy and
brokeness again.
I'd say more, but it's really kind of depressing and Tif will have to
call me on that. I'm depressing myself... I've already deleted large
portions of this post a couple of times, anyway. It's a hard rain.
Just Walkin'
First of all, take cheer in the fact that we are winning. Why do you
think the "system" is behaving the way it has? It is fighting for its
life. Soon the rats will jump ship and a new generation of
intelligentsia will come in and try to put a human face on it and
spray a little air freshener around the room. If that doesn't work,
then back to more of the same. But it is still a system in crisis. So
please do not be depressed, be happy that forces of world progress
continue even as we struggle to make sense of all the hardship we face
in the process. Believe me, it will get a whole lot worse before it
gets better.
Secondly, from what I've been able to glean from my studies of Eastern
philosophy is this: The quest for selflessness, ego-lessness, nirvana,
the clear light, the bliss, the godhead, cosmic consciousness or
whatever you want to call it, is the most selfish, ego-driven quest of
all. At best, it is a brahmanic indulgence and at worst, a way for the
impoverished to literally reduce their footprint on this planet and
wish themselves to death in silent meditation and acceptance. This may
seem a little harsh to a believer, but even the material roots of
these age-old philosophies have to be taken into account when
understanding the therapies introduced in liturgy and ritual.
Lastly, please understand that these divisions in our society are
temporal fabrications, dated constructs designed to manipulate masses
of people. Soon we'll see even fragmentation of these narrow obsolete
labels. Right, left, up, down, all around the town, as the crisis
deepens and people look outside their assigned boxes for answers. Pro-
gun anti-war activists. Anti-gay pro-abortion protestors. Pro-gay pro-
war marchers. Anti-gun pro-life militants. Anti-immigration pro-labor
environmentialists. Pro-war pro-environmental militarists.You name it;
get ready, it's coming.
With all of that in mind, know then that everyone here has a vital
role to play. Like you, Treadleson has very strong opinions about the
things he believes in and he's also very very smart. Despite my
differences with both of you, I see you both as allies in the fight
for our common humanity, lifestyles be damned. And though we may all
disagree with each other, between us, we will find our answers.
Allowed to be driven apart, we'll find nothing but an abyss.
Soon material conditions will develop that will finally permit us
recognize our own humanity in each each other and not let the
superficial characteristics of life in a decaying culture push us
apart. Not a mystical process. Not a prophecy, Just a reality
unfolding before us day by day.
Pilgrim
>
> Secondly, from what I've been able to glean from my studies of Eastern
> philosophy is this: The quest for selflessness, ego-lessness, nirvana,
> the clear light, the bliss, the godhead, cosmic consciousness or
> whatever you want to call it, is the most selfish, ego-driven quest of
> all. At best, it is a brahmanic indulgence and at worst, a way for the
> impoverished to literally reduce their footprint on this planet and
> wish themselves to death in silent meditation and acceptance. This may
> seem a little harsh to a believer, but even the material roots of
> these age-old philosophies have to be taken into account when
> understanding the therapies introduced in liturgy and ritual.
I'm not a "believer" in Brahmanism, which is really just the Orthodox
element within a very complex and much more varied collection of
systems than you're apparently aware of, in India, one place in the
East, where some human beings live. Pretty much like us. All
different, but human. We each have something to contribute. Sound
familiar?
But I said Eastern and Western mysticism. There is wisdom in many
places as well as foolishness. My original teacher taught against
retreating from the world. Did you know that before you assumed that
I championed a retreat? The judgment and misperception you've just
laid down is impressive.
I don't need to be lectured.
I am, however, questioning your optimism for the time being. This is
simplistic sounding, but human beings, as a group, whether they are
Easterners or Westerners, grow the most through trials and struggle.
That's what I'm sad about. I know it will work out, but the human
struggle, the pain, the loss of life, the damage, like the woman and
her baby pulled out of her car in the Mississippi, that makes me sad
for people because I do believe that if we could become more conscious
of what we do and why, we could lessen some of it.
>
> Lastly, please understand that these divisions in our society are
> temporal fabrications, dated constructs designed to manipulate masses
> of people.
You're sounding a lot like some of the Brahmans I've met. The problem
is that we need some kind of construction to function as a society.
Call it our "human infrastructure". As time goes on, it ages. I
don't believe in retreating from the world - this human infrastructure
- and I believe that we build up from the past. We cannot just
demolish it because it is old and that . There are times when that's
possible and a good thing to do, but wholesale? No. We don't have
the resources for it and it would be a waste. The only answer I have,
and you were asking for answers and suggestions, is expanding our
conscious awareness. I'm talking about learning how to not be
manipulated, but I can't agree that we can do this without social
structures.
> Soon we'll see even fragmentation of these narrow obsolete
> labels. Right, left, up, down, all around the town, as the crisis
> deepens and people look outside their assigned boxes for answers. Pro-
> gun anti-war activists. Anti-gay pro-abortion protestors. Pro-gay pro-
> war marchers. Anti-gun pro-life militants. Anti-immigration pro-labor
> environmentialists. Pro-war pro-environmental militarists.You name it;
> get ready, it's coming.
It's already here. We are learning about each other, but we talk past
each other and make assumptions about the words that the other is
saying, just like you do with me and whatever connection to Brahmanism
you assumed I had. We do it to each other. It's a learning process.
That's why I like debate. Notice that you have engaged in a debate
with me while scolding me about debating Treadleson. We debate and
learn from each other.
>
> With all of that in mind, know then that everyone here has a vital
> role to play.
Yes, I know that.
> Like you, Treadleson has very strong opinions about the
> things he believes in and he's also very very smart. Despite my
> differences with both of you, I see you both as allies in the fight
> for our common humanity, lifestyles be damned.
That's pretty much my opinion.
I have to ask make a comment, though. If you are referring to "gay" as
a lifestyle, you're just as deluded as Treadleson. It's all just
people. All of us are different and we still need to learn to respect
each other and not project what we don't like about ourselves onto
each other and our misperceptions of each other.
> And though we may all
> disagree with each other, between us, we will find our answers.
> Allowed to be driven apart, we'll find nothing but an abyss.
Just as the Brahman living in a cave on a mountain top is convinced of
his correctness, so are you. We're all still hanging out here, aren't
we? Learning from each other? I hope so.
>
> Soon material conditions will develop that will finally permit us
> recognize our own humanity in each each other and not let the
> superficial characteristics of life in a decaying culture push us
> apart. Not a mystical process. Not a prophecy, Just a reality
> unfolding before us day by day.
As I said earlier, I don't need to be lectured, Just Walkin'. We
really do fundamentally agree. We just know and are aware of
different things. We're having quite a few semantic problems. What I
call "mysticism" in just a deeper understanding of the unfoling of the
"day by day". It sounds to me like you've mystified mysticism.
That tells me you think it's other than reality, which isn't my
experience of it. I could be wrong in my understanding of what you
are saying, though.
Pilgrim
The "and that" should have been taken out of this sentence, so it
should read:
"We cannot just
demolish it because it is old. There are times when that's
Pilgrim
I have to add that there is a purpose for the retreat of the Brahman
style, or let's say, monastic approach. If we are always outwardly
directed - think of other people as different parts of a whole - we
will not be able to practice any introspection. It's kind of like a
psychic healing and an internal investigation of the human being.
People who engage in a monastic practice provide that in great
quantity for humanity. Some of the most profound insights I've come
across have developed from the various monastic traditions. It's not
my way, but I respect it.
On the other hand, we also need people who are naturally more
outwardly directed so that the social and physical work can be
done.
Both sides are important to humanity.
Also, sorry about all my typo's and grammar issues. I'm multi-tasking
a bit too much.
Just Walkin'
You take far too much of what I said personally. My comments on
eastern mysticism were made unbeknownst of your affiliations or
affinities. They were based completely on my travels with Ram Dass and
others, over 35 years ago. Sure, I got a lot out of it, but like some
Sufi fable, the realization that it was a cul-de-sac was cosmic
enough.
Also, my comments about structures did not refer to human institutions
or social structures; I am not an anarchist. I was referring to the
contrived political labels that we use: Left, right, liberal,
conservative, etc., ad nauseum...They don't even come close to
describing the real issues. I promise that I will write with greater
accuracy if you read with greater precision.
Please accept the fact that I am not lecturing you, or anyone else. I
am fully aware of those in this world in need of healing and certainly
have cast my lot and life with those helping others actively where
needed. Incidentally, it's in this helping of others with real human
needs and not just to advance the things we believe that keeps us
young and optimistic.
Regarding the other hot topic you raised, I think that there are
people who define themselves by their sexuality and people who define
themselves by other criteria and for whom their sexuality is
incidental to the way they define themselves. There are gay doctors
and there are doctors who just so happen to be gay. Whichever way
people choose to define themselves and why is their business. As they
say, it takes all kinds to make a world.
In fact, there are several aerospace engineers that I know who live
completely monastic-like asexual lives in pursuit of bigger and faster
aircraft. Sexual identity doesn't even factor into the way they would
like to be seen or remembered. These people argue over the relative
roles of design versus engineering...and woe be those in lowly
manufacturing. The common denominator here is that social progress
will beget personal freedoms. Maybe that's why so many people are
against progress? Could they be afraid of the freedoms it'll bring?
BTW I don't like to be lectured to either, but it doesn't bother me
when people feel compelled to do it.
daysof48
> BTW I don't like to be lectured to either, but it doesn't bother me
> when people feel compelled to do it.<
LOL!
President_dudley
child left behind. That said...
Chinese bridge is falling down, falling down...
This just in (video & slideshows available for the mediaStarved, if
any or possible):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20254655/
}
BEIJING - A bridge on the verge of completion in south China has
collapsed, killing 28 people and injuring 22 in a possible indication
of safety standards ridden rough-shod in the face of breakneck
economic development.
...
An editorial in the official China Daily on Tuesday warned that
thousands of the country's bridges were unsafe. "If left unrepaired
these bridges may crumble at any time, wreaking economic havoc and
possibly claiming human lives," it said.
{
My fair lady...
Expect suicide or execution within days.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2147906,00.html
}
The Chinese toy factory owner at the centre of the storm over lead-
tainted Sesame Street figures has committed suicide, the state-run
media reported today.
Zhang Shuhong, the boss of a major supplier to Mattel, hung himself at
the weekend after his export licence was suspended and 1.5m products
withdrawn because of safety fears about toys sold in the US, Britain
and other parts of Europe.
{
Furthur,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6286698.stm
}
China food safety head executed
The former head of China's State Food and Drug Administration, Zheng
Xiaoyu, has been executed for corruption, the state-run Xinhua news
agency reports.
He was convicted of taking 6.5m yuan ($850,000; £425,400) in bribes
and of dereliction of duty at a trial in May.
The bribes were linked to sub-standard medicines, blamed for several
deaths.
China has been criticised over a number of recent cases involving
tainted goods, and correspondents say Zheng had become a symbol of the
crisis.
{
Anydoby believe china's still commie?
Not that i unnastan' financialStuff anymore than anything else, and it
depends on whether i read neoCon or neoLib reSources, but one thing i
read says that Chiner holds so much US Treasury bonds that by their
holding dumping putting or placing they actually wield more power over
US e-conomy than the FedReserve (whatEvery that is).
Perhaps someOne more knowledgeable can elucidate & enlighten, just
don't expect me to know what yer talkin' 'bout.
& here we are, to go no more aRoveing.
'Kay, gotta go brush muh teeths, such as remain.
Hopefully we'll send 'em a buncha Aid to help rebuild they's
inferstructium.
& how does any of this fix anyThing. You tell me.
Individuatedly yrs,
dudley
___
Individuate:
1 : to give individuality to
2 : to form into a distinct entity
Individuation:
Main Entry: in·di·vid·u·a·tion
Pronunciation: -"vi-j&-'wA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of individuating : as a (1) : the development
of the individual from the universal (2) : the determination of the
individual in the general b : the process by which individuals in
society become differentiated from one another c : regional
differentiation along a primary embryonic axis [whee doggies that's a
hot 'un... gotta have at least a 11th grade education for that!!!]
--Merriam-Webster
Pilgrim
> You take far too much of what I said personally. My comments on
> eastern mysticism were made unbeknownst of your affiliations or
> affinities. They were based completely on my travels with Ram Dass and
> others, over 35 years ago. Sure, I got a lot out of it, but like some
> Sufi fable, the realization that it was a cul-de-sac was cosmic
> enough.
Perhaps it just wasn't the road you needed to take in the long run.
Ram Dass, from what I understand, is doing quite a lot of good these
days.
>
> Also, my comments about structures did not refer to human institutions
> or social structures; I am not an anarchist. I was referring to the
> contrived political labels that we use: Left, right, liberal,
> conservative, etc., ad nauseum...They don't even come close to
> describing the real issues. I promise that I will write with greater
> accuracy if you read with greater precision.
I think they are a structure through which we understand the real
issues. I know you disagree, of course. The problem I see in our
culture is that there really isn't much of a difference between the
right and the left where it really matters. Both are in the grip of
uncontrolled capitalism which is being allowed to run the entire
game. An external show is put on to disquise what is really happening
behind the scenes and this fools many, many people into believing that
the politicians are acting in their interests. This by no means is
meant to convey the idea that the opposites of progressive and
conservative are not necessary and vital to human change and growth.
I think they are, though I would prefer more active parties, perhaps
something closer to the British system. I'm convinced that the
dialectic is important and will always be with us. America is just
stagnating under the reality show of big money and marketing, of
uncontrolled Capitalism and a corrupt system that hasn't been
functional in quite a while.
>
> Please accept the fact that I am not lecturing you, or anyone else. I
> am fully aware of those in this world in need of healing and certainly
> have cast my lot and life with those helping others actively where
> needed. Incidentally, it's in this helping of others with real human
> needs and not just to advance the things we believe that keeps us
> young and optimistic.
Also, eating well, laughing with our friends and getting plenty of
excercise.
>
> Regarding the other hot topic you raised, I think that there are
> people who define themselves by their sexuality and people who define
> themselves by other criteria and for whom their sexuality is
> incidental to the way they define themselves. There are gay doctors
> and there are doctors who just so happen to be gay. Whichever way
> people choose to define themselves and why is their business. As they
> say, it takes all kinds to make a world.
Gay people who identify with their sexuality seem to be healing a
wound within themselves because all their lives they have been
attacked for being who they are and already defined by their
sexuality. I try to be sympathetic. The very fact of being gay is
sometimes enough to politicise a person, not out of their nature but
out of necessity.
>
> In fact, there are several aerospace engineers that I know who live
> completely monastic-like asexual lives in pursuit of bigger and faster
> aircraft. Sexual identity doesn't even factor into the way they would
> like to be seen or remembered. These people argue over the relative
> roles of design versus engineering...and woe be those in lowly
> manufacturing. The common denominator here is that social progress
> will beget personal freedoms. Maybe that's why so many people are
> against progress? Could they be afraid of the freedoms it'll bring?
I think you are quite right about that. Freedom means having to make
one's own decisions and being responsible for success or failure.
Many people seem to feel rudderless without a manual or an authority
figure telling them what is right and wrong.
>
> BTW I don't like to be lectured to either, but it doesn't bother me
> when people feel compelled to do it.
I wasn't bothered, just telling you in my own way you could chill out
a bit. Perhaps I am taking things you're saying more personally than
I should.
Just Walkin'
Thank you Br'er Dudley for waxing wisely on the topics of the
day...and for bringing that breaking news to our attention.
And personally, I don't think smart is the word you're looking for;
you seem as smart as anyone around these parts. I think loquacious
would be a better choice for a word to describe our antics here.
But to your point, for a feller that's just walkin', I sure do a
lotta' talkin'.
Maybe I'll just put a muzzle on it for now and just amble on down the
road...
Pilgrim
It's a mutual thing here, JW. Now I'm very tired and I had to look up
what loquacious meant.
But! Loquacious being that I am, I'm weighing in on China still being
Communist, but also Capitalist. Impossible, you say? Well maybe no
one will say that. My neighbors took their business to China because
it's cost effective. China has become one of the manufacturing
centers of the world, so if you're wondering where all those jobs
went... they were outsourced big time to China. The government is
still controlled by the Communists. It's still a one party system and
there is still no freedom of speech and no dissent. The party still
can arrest at will and there are no labor unions. There is also
absolutely no regulation of any kind in the manufacturing industries.
This is what makes it so good for the capitalists and why the products
are so crappy and often dangerous. China is a now a capitalist
country with an authoritarian Communist government.
Today we have neo-conservatives who aren't conservative at all, neo-
liberals who are actually conservatives and neo-communists who are
really capitalists.
I need to go lie down now.
Ten
> Today we have neo-conservatives who aren't conservative at all, neo-
> liberals who are actually conservatives and neo-communists who are
> really capitalists.
>
What will it matter how we label ourselves
when China rules the world completely?
Pilgrim
I'm not that paranoid. I do, however, think the world has gone quite
mad.
Red Headed Stranger
ruling party of us regime preparing dump of chinese problem in lap of
emerging majority after fattening up on outsource labor
chinese party never renounced ideology or subjected workers to market
relations in process
hence introduction of consumer goods did not corrupt system in same
way as ussr
organization of socialism according to western bookkeeping for
accounting purposes only
superficial capitalism in transitory stage
soon chinese will declare price cost volume victory over capitalism
fulfilling khruschev prophecy of burying the west with production
then enemies will change again
the script is being written now
beppe
"Ten" <Tennis...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1187152548.2...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Under which point of view does China rule the world???
--
Beppe
www.giuseppegazerro.com
www.myspace.com/gazerro
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gazerro
Ten
> "Ten" <TennisCon...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:1187152548.2...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, Pilgrim
>
> >> Today we have neo-conservatives who aren't conservative at all, neo-
> >> liberals who are actually conservatives and neo-communists who are
> >> really capitalists.
>
> > What will it matter how we label ourselves
> > when China rules the world completely?
>
> Under which point of view does China rule the world???
>
This says it better than I could, beppe: