OT: Why Americans allow Bush to "pass the buck"
Uncle Tantra
"The buck stops here." By now we all know that for George W. Bush
the buck never stops at his desk. He has *never* taken any personal
responsibility for any of his mistakes and failings in his whole life, and
he's not about to start now that he's president.
That shouldn't surprise us. He's a spoiled frat boy who has been bailed
out every time he's fucked up in the past, by Daddy and his rich friends.
He's counting on being bailed out this time, too. But is it *only* Daddy
and his rich friends who are waiting in the wings to "forgive and forget,"
to pretend that George never did anything wrong?
I think not. I think that one of the reasons (besides stupidity, of course)
that George W. Bush isn't more worried about his ignorant and often
criminal actions catching up to him is that he's counting on *another*
group to bail him out after his term of grand larceny and murder is over
in the White House. That other group is the American public itself.
They're not going to force Bush to take any personal responsibility for
his actions. When all of this blows up, and they're faced with the stag-
gering vastness of his misdeeds and illegal acts and war crimes, they're
going to let him skate. They're going to give him a "Get out of jail free"
card and elect someone new and try to put the whole nasty business
behind them and forget that it ever happened.
And why?
Because the American public doesn't want to take any responsibility for
*its* actions. *They* allowed him to steal the election. *They* allowed
him to exploit a tragedy and make them afraid and then, from that fear,
*they* allowed him to lie to them and to the world and make war on a
nation that had never attacked their country. *They* allowed him to kill
800 of their own soldiers and 40,000 or more innocent Iraqi civilians.
*They* allowed the media to print stories only about the American dead,
and rarely, if ever, mention the Iraqi dead. *They* not only allowed the
lies to continue, they *encouraged* the lies, because they don't want
to know the truth. They don't want to *know* how many people were
killed in their name today.
The truth is that *they* -- the American people -- are essentially the
ones responsible for the war crimes done in their name. In a democracy
the "buck" stops with the people. And they don't want to be reminded
of that. They'll let Bush get away with everything for a very good reason.
*They* want to get away with condoning it.
Americans are the New Germans. They're already preparing the
Nuremberg Defense, "We didn't know." They knew. They know. But
they'll pretend until they die that they *didn't* know, because as a
group they're just as spineless as their president. The buck always
stops somewhere else. "If the war turns out to have been a lie, it
wasn't our fault. We were lied to. We didn't know. It's not like we
could have done anything about it, after all."
They could have stopped it at any moment in time. That is what a
democracy is FOR. They could stop it right NOW. But they won't.
And they won't take any of the responsibility for the killing when it's
all over, either. It'll be someone ELSE's fault, not theirs. And they
won't allow anyone to delve too deeply into exactly whose fault it
actually IS, because they'd rather the whole thing just went away
and they could get back to being Good Germans.
Bush is going to get away with it, because the American people are
going to let him get away with it. And they're going to get away with
it, on the surface, because they rarely deal with *anything* that
smacks of reality. But the world will know. And so will karma.
Karma, that elegant piece of operating system software that runs the
universe, isn't fooled for a moment by the Nuremberg Defense. It
knows *exactly* where the buck stops. And it knows how to collect
on debts owed, and with interest.
Just my opinon,
Unc
Judy Stein
<snip>
> Americans are the New Germans. They're already preparing the
> Nuremberg Defense, "We didn't know." They knew. They know. But
> they'll pretend until they die that they *didn't* know, because as a
> group they're just as spineless as their president.
Funny how the polls are reflecting increasing distrust of
Bush, then. A significant majority now say they believe
he wasn't straight with the American people about his
reasons for invading Iraq. His approval ratings are
dropping steadily, his disapproval ratings are on the
increase, and 59 percent of Americans say they think the
country is moving in the wrong direction.
Not such a great preparation for the "We didn't know"
defense, is it?
The buck always
> stops somewhere else. "If the war turns out to have been a lie, it
> wasn't our fault. We were lied to. We didn't know. It's not like we
> could have done anything about it, after all."
Assuming for the sake of argument that all this were accurate,
what do you think accounts for the massive change from the
days of Watergate, when Americans demanded Nixon's impeachment
or resignation and threw Ford out of office because they were
so angry about his pardon of Nixon?
The rhetoric of outrage is easy when you don't feel you have any
responsibility to keep it faithful to the facts.
Steve Ralph
"Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.04041...@posting.google.com...
> tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra) wrote in message
news:<20040416042103...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
> <snip>
> > Americans are the New Germans. They're already preparing the
> > Nuremberg Defense, "We didn't know." They knew. They know. But
> > they'll pretend until they die that they *didn't* know, because as a
> > group they're just as spineless as their president.
>
> Funny how the polls are reflecting increasing distrust of
> Bush, then. A significant majority now say they believe
> he wasn't straight with the American people about his
> reasons for invading Iraq. His approval ratings are
> dropping steadily, his disapproval ratings are on the
> increase, and 59 percent of Americans say they think the
> country is moving in the wrong direction.
Much the same with Blair. Nobody expects him to have any influence on Bush
at
all today. The dilemma here is how to get rid of Blair while keeping the
Labour
party in power. Blair knows this, and is using it as a big stick to beat us
with.
I think he has seriously underestimated the sense of outrage that most seem
to
feel at his distinctly undemocratic actions.
SR
> Not such a great preparation for the "We didn't know"
> defense, is it?
>
> The buck always
> > stops somewhere else. "If the war turns out to have been a lie, it
> > wasn't our fault. We were lied to. We didn't know. It's not like we
> > could have done anything about it, after all."
>
> Assuming for the sake of argument that all this were accurate,
> what do you think accounts for the massive change from the
> days of Watergate, when Americans demanded Nixon's impeachment
> or resignation and threw Ford out of office because they were
> so angry about his pardon of Nixon?
>
> The rhetoric of outrage is easy when you don't feel you have any
> responsibility to keep it faithful to the facts.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.657 / Virus Database: 422 - Release Date: 13/04/2004
Uncle Tantra
would think of it. I'll never know, of course, but I have to think that
he'd agree, based on early talks he used to give about what the
qualities of a national leader say about the nation itself.
At Squaw Valley all those years ago, someone got him talking about
Hitler, and a few of the Germans in the audience weren't terribly
pleased with what he said. He started with a rhetorical question
like, "Did Hitler create Nazi Germany and what it did?"
His own answer was short and to the point (again paraphrasing, but
I'm pretty sure I'm capturing the gist of it, as others here who have
heard similar talks can verify or correct) -- "No. Germany created
Hitler. Every nation gets *exactly* the leader it deserves. The leader
is a *reflection* of the overall state of consciousness of the nation.
The leader is *generated* by the overall state of consciousness of
the nation."
As most know I don't agree with everything MMY says...far from it.
But I still agree with this, if on no other level but the level of karma.
The collective karma of the nation is mirrored in its choice of a
democratically-elected leader or its acceptance of one that was
not elected. And I'd probably agree with him that each leader is,
to some extent, a pretty clear representation of the general state
of consciousness of the population. NOT the individuals them-
selves, who will of course vary in their intelligence and other traits,
but of the *collective* consciousness, yes.
The relationship of any nation's people and its leader is one of codepen-
dence. They elect someone (or tolerate someone) who most closely
matches their current collective state of consciousness. If that collec-
tive state of consciousness begins to shift, they rush to dump the
leader who represents the old one. *That* is one reason I think the
American people will let Bush get away with his stunts -- he's basic-
ally got the same values they have as a nation -- self-interest, a lack
of respect for the planet they live on, a lack of compassion not only
for the people of other nations but for their own neighbors. They won't
want him tried for crimes against humanity and the planet's ecology
because it'll remind them that they are just as guilty of the same crimes
on a daily basis, in their thoughts and in their actions.
If the American people manage to dump Bush in the election, that
will say one thing about their collective state of consciousness. If
they don't, that will say another. But either way he's going to get off
scot-free, because inwardly they all know that he represents some-
thing they would have to be ashamed of as a nation if it were fully
brought to light. And Americans will do *anything* to avoid feeling
ashamed of who they are.
Unc
Barry
"Uncle Tantra" <tantr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040416114509...@mb-m26.aol.com...
around to watch Donald Trump. I so hate the corporate environment that I
walked away from a well paying job several years because the company I was
working in had just got to big for it's britches and was becoming a bitch to
work for. So I had no appetite for watching "The Apprentice." I keep
hearing that we ought to take things out of governments hands and let
business run things. Then you have to remind them of Enron, WorldCom and
the espcapades of hundreds of other thugs that run the corporate world.
So I think MMY is right, Americans got a typical corporate CEO type, Bush.
And one who did not do too well in the corporate world. So the corporation
is failing and will soon file for chapter 11.
I wonder if humans will ever evolve to the point where they can balance
socialism and capitalism and enjoy a properly functioning society.
- Barry the other
>
Uncle Tantra
>Many Americans are VERY enamored with corporatism. Look at how they gather
>around to watch Donald Trump. I so hate the corporate environment that I
>walked away from a well paying job several years because the company I was
>working in had just got to big for it's britches and was becoming a bitch to
>work for. So I had no appetite for watching "The Apprentice." I keep
>hearing that we ought to take things out of governments hands and let
>business run things.
They're just longing to do outwardly what
is already happening inwardly. The corpor-
ations *already* run things.
>Then you have to remind them of Enron, WorldCom and
>the espcapades of hundreds of other thugs that run the corporate world.
>
>So I think MMY is right, Americans got a typical corporate CEO type, Bush.
Exactly. The very emblem of corrupt
globalism.
>And one who did not do too well in the corporate world.
The very emblem of *failed* corrupt
globalism.
>So the corporation
>is failing and will soon file for chapter 11.
I'm kinda afraid it will. And, because of the
economic interedependence of the fragile
make-believe that is the modern world,
when it does it won't be good for the rest
of the planet, either. Plus, if Americans
start seeing their kids starve, they own all
the nastiest weapons on the planet and
(obviously) aren't above using them to steal
what they need from weaker nations.
>I wonder if humans will ever evolve to the point where they can balance
>socialism and capitalism and enjoy a properly functioning society.
The French have their problems -- lots of
them -- but they seem to have managed.
Lots of local guvmints in France are capital-
istic, lots are socialist. And they aren't
afraid to "mix and match." Many of the
successful programs instituted by past
socialist governments are continued by
the more conservative, capitalistic govern-
ments that succeed them because they
*work*. Nobody seems to give a shit who
thought them up if they work.
Unc
Sara Bellum
> "The buck stops here." By now we all know that for George W. Bush
> the buck never stops at his desk. He has *never* taken any personal
> responsibility for any of his mistakes and failings in his whole life,
> and he's not about to start now that he's president.
>
anything other than 'canned' rhetoric, was the question; (paraphrased)
"...What, if any, mistakes you've made since 9/11?". Haha, he was
stumped, totally stumped, and made no comment except inept mumblings
among which was: "...asking that question in advance, so I have some
time to think of an answer", ... awww shucks.
> That shouldn't surprise us. He's a spoiled frat boy who has been bailed
> out every time he's fucked up in the past, by Daddy and his rich friends.
>
Apparently among those being; some rich Saudi-Arabians. Why DID all
those bin Ladens get to leave the country before the FBI could ask
them any questions, anyway?
> He's counting on being bailed out this time, too. But is it *only* Daddy
> and his rich friends who are waiting in the wings to "forgive and forget,"
> to pretend that George never did anything wrong?
>
Time will tell.
> I think not. I think that one of the reasons (besides stupidity, of course)
> that George W. Bush isn't more worried about his ignorant and often
> criminal actions catching up to him is that he's counting on *another*
> group to bail him out after his term of grand larceny and murder is over
> in the White House. That other group is the American public itself.
>
I think, more important for Dubya is "Corporate America". They make
BIG thing$ happen for Him, He makes BIG thing$ happen for them. The
"American public" is only a potential vote pool, as far as He's
concerned, to be manipulated to vote for him. All He has to do, is
keep *us* 50% happy (P.R. effort) and the cash flows to Him from the
corporations (biggest money-raiser in history). Then, He can do what
He wants. He gets to keep the change, too. What does it matter what
the opposition (also the American people) says or does?
> They're not going to force Bush to take any personal responsibility for
> his actions.
>
A wave doesn't break then build, first it has to build, a little at a
time. A pendulum doesn't swing one way without swinging back.
Granted, He has proven He won't do that responsibility thing Himself,
on national TV.
Personally, being one of this group you mention, I'd like to ask you
in front of this indictment; what could I do beyond carrying a sign,
installing a bumpersticker in a conservative haven, writing all my
congressmen, senators & Dubya himself (which I did) opposing the war
in Iraq? And, how will it effect *my* "karma" because Dubya is still
in office pulling strings and killing people?
> When all of this blows up, and they're faced with the stag-
> gering vastness of his misdeeds and illegal acts and war crimes,
>
We're *already* faced with this. Only some close their eyes and think
in terms of rationale for aggressive/pre-emptive/save Iraq from
Saddam/fear-based war.
> they're going to let him skate.
>
I have a big red sign over MY desk that says "Indict Bush Now".
<snip>
> Just my opinon,
>
Ditto.
Sara
Uncle Tantra
>Personally, being one of this group you mention, I'd like to ask you
>in front of this indictment; what could I do beyond carrying a sign,
>installing a bumpersticker in a conservative haven, writing all my
>congressmen, senators & Dubya himself (which I did) opposing the war
>in Iraq? And, how will it effect *my* "karma" because Dubya is still
>in office pulling strings and killing people?
I wish I knew. You do what you can, that's
all. If you're a writer, you write; if you're a
marcher, you march. One person really
*can* change a lot -- look at what happened
when Michael Moore called Bush a deserter.
The story had been basically *ignored* by
most mainstream news media, but within
a week the story was on all of them. I find
it heartening that he's hard at work on a
new film that will come out just before the
election. It's called "Fahrenheit 911"...gee,
I wonder what it could be about. He has
film crews working in Iraq, and at home.
One thing you or any American could do
is study up on Black Box voting and, if it
strikes the same fear in your heart it does
in the hearts of most computer professionals,
join the ranks of those trying to stop what
is quite possibly an attempt to steal a
second election. Me, I'll be using a mail-in
ballot, so I'm pretty sure my vote will count.
If you use a machine that has no paper
trail for recounts, has been proven to be
susceptible to hacking, runs on software
that no independent agency has been
allowed to audit, and was manufactured
by a guy who swore to do anything in his
power to re-elect Bush, who knows where
your vote will go.
Yours is a good question. I really don't
know, for you. For me, I write articles, I do
whatever I can to keep from feeling impotent
with regard to the American political situation.
They *want* you to feel impotent. That's
how they stay in power. Anyone who man-
ages to fight that conditioning has done a
lot.
Unc
Stu
> So I think MMY is right, Americans got a typical corporate CEO type, Bush.
> And one who did not do too well in the corporate world. So the corporation
> is failing and will soon file for chapter 11.
There is a strong case to be made that "chapter 11" is exactly what
Bush wants. I just heard an interview with David Cay Johnston, a New
York times investigative reporter. He has been researching the tax
system and wrote a book "Perfectly Legal". He suggests that the upper
1% of the wealthy has systematically been reducing their tax
obligations. With a greater goal of starving the federal budget to
reduce it to bare necessities, roads, military, police etc. Since 1992
the upper 1% has reduced their tax burden by 40%.
http://www.perfectlylegalthebook.com/
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/03/int04017.html
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2004/02/09/johnston/index_np.html
--
~Stu
Richard (Little Dick) Williams
John Manning
Uncle Tantra wrote:
Not just yours, Unc. But here's another take on it.
"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with
the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own
oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the
individuals and their families selected for the trust."
~ Thomas Jefferson, 1812
--
John
>
> Unc
>
>
J.Rocha
>Uncle Tantra wrote:
<Snip>
>> They could have stopped it at any moment in time. That is what a
>> democracy is FOR. They could stop it right NOW. But they won't.
>> And they won't take any of the responsibility for the killing when it's
>> all over, either. It'll be someone ELSE's fault, not theirs. And they
>> won't allow anyone to delve too deeply into exactly whose fault it
>> actually IS, because they'd rather the whole thing just went away
>> and they could get back to being Good Germans.
I have a few comments.
While I agree with you about the ugly side of America on display, I'll
present for consideration another explanation, possibly complementary.
Many americans *really believed* in the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, and
having supported it actively are just as appalled as you and me with the way(s)
it all got out of hand.
Being supporters, or believers of a primitive vision of Karma -- As vengeance and
retaliation in kind, without the possibility of redemption, (an eye for an eye) --- and
noticing what has been done, and that Iraq has less than one tenth of the population
of the USA, the (vague) realization of the size (in proportion) of the "karmic repayment"
can never be allowed to become fully conscious.
Desperation and bankruptcy (also moral) tempts with the dangerous and often fatal
paradox of : "lost for 1, lost for 1000".
The tasks that are left for these people are at one side the momentary and panic-struck
care of each day's growing crisis, disgrace and deficit, -- and they never mind how big
this deficit becomes-- and on the other, several diversionary attacks meant to divert
the attention from their concrete crimes, and calling it instead to their own personal
incapacities and failures.
It's this secondary line of action that we see in the posts of the (once) defenders of the
invasion in AMT, with their publishing of outrageous posts, like the ones from Billy and
Willtex, or the plain diversionary ones from Shemp.
-------------
If I succedeed in making clear my diagnosis of the disease, I hope my view of the steps
needeed will be clear and follow logically.
I think some sort of reconciliation will be needeed, and it must include the understanding
of the reasons (how stupid they may seem) why many people fell for the warmongering
rhetorics of the "ideologists" in power in the USA. It must include the understanding of
the people themselves, and not only of the reasons.
It must include a sane, positive evolutionary vision and explanation of the process of
Karma, (or i.o.w. Justice) not the one of "Vengeance, Retaliation, and an eye for an
eye".
It must combat at all times the concept of "Eternal Perdition" and as well of "Eternal
Salvation", bringing hope in situations that look like bottomless dispair, and real
humility to the arrogance of those who believe to be "Saved no matter what".
>> Bush is going to get away with it, because the American people are
>> going to let him get away with it. And they're going to get away with
>> it, on the surface, because they rarely deal with *anything* that
>> smacks of reality. But the world will know. And so will karma.
>> Karma, that elegant piece of operating system software that runs the
>> universe, isn't fooled for a moment by the Nuremberg Defense. It
>> knows *exactly* where the buck stops. And it knows how to collect
>> on debts owed, and with interest.
>> Just my opinon,
>
Ah! -- Karma --- and the Law --- the Great Law.
I had to change once in my life, and in a radical way, my own understanding
of what was Karma, and how it worked.
It seemed to me once like mountains of Karma, that I was in no way able to cope
with, started falling in my way, and upon me, leaving nothing over.
Then I saw, and now I see, that I received the most positive and evolutionary gift and
empowerment I could have received in my life, at that time. Perhaps even more
than I could.
Karma, in its proper sense, is a great, and mysterious, even mystifying concept
that one can see -- better: that I have seen -- working with the rigor and harshness of
Saturnus, and the lightening fast insight and revolution of Uranus.
So, uncle, now I think I know that one would need to be enlightened, and/or receive a
real transmission from an enlightened master to start to *understand* its works.
And to the well known chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times !", I can
imagine even a worse, most terrifying one, but one that happilly will not come out: "May
your Karma not return to you !"
>Not just yours, Unc. But here's another take on it.
>
>"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with
>the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own
>oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the
>individuals and their families selected for the trust."
>
>~ Thomas Jefferson, 1812
And I also have the conviction that
So under, so above:
When all the base of power and justification of the USA will be military power,
then the power in the USA will be (justly) taken over by its military
Greetings
J. Rocha
Barry
conference. He was saying "fuck you, America! I'll do what I want! You
can all eat cake!"
Americans should march on Washington, D.C. with torches ablaze and demand
real answers.
- Barry the other
"J.Rocha" <nos...@nospam.nl> wrote in message
news:d4r080p4opqm44r6u...@4ax.com...
Barry
too.
"Barry" <nooz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Rd2gc.14144$k05....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Uncle Tantra
>I have a few comments.
And perceptive ones.
>While I agree with you about the ugly side of America on display, I'll
>present for consideration another explanation, possibly complementary.
>
>Many americans *really believed* in the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, and
>having supported it actively are just as appalled as you and me with the
>way(s) it all got out of hand.
I'm not sure the vast majority of them believed the reasons given
to them to invade Iraq. They *wanted* to believe the reasons
given to them to invade Iraq because they just wanted to *hit*
somebody. Anybody. It's the same reaction someone has when
they've been mugged by someone who got away, and then starts
picking fights with strangers in bars.
>Being supporters, or believers of a primitive vision of Karma -- As vengeance
>and retaliation in kind, without the possibility of redemption, (an eye for an
>eye) --- and
>noticing what has been done, and that Iraq has less than one tenth of the
>population of the USA, the (vague) realization of the size (in proportion) of
the
>"karmic repayment"
>can never be allowed to become fully conscious.
>
>Desperation and bankruptcy (also moral) tempts with the dangerous and often
>fatal paradox of : "lost for 1, lost for 1000".
Yup. That's the problem. When a *country's* karma puts it in the
toilet, a lot of good people get flushed down the drain.
>The tasks that are left for these people are at one side the momentary and
>panic-struck
>care of each day's growing crisis, disgrace and deficit, -- and they never
>mind how big this deficit becomes--
Why should they? That's the way most of them live *their* lives,
constantly in debt.
>and on the other, several diversionary attacks meant to divert
>the attention from their concrete crimes, and calling it instead to their
>own personal incapacities and failures.
>
>It's this secondary line of action that we see in the posts of the (once)
>defenders of the invasion in AMT, with their publishing of outrageous
>posts, like the ones from Billy and
>Willtex, or the plain diversionary ones from Shemp.
I tend to agree. It's difficult to believe that anyone at this point
still believes the lies that sent the most powerful armed forces
on the planet to invade a country that had been systematically
reduced to having almost nothing to defend itself with. To some
extent, it's like the kids on the playground who cheered on the
bully as he beat smaller kids up, and now that everyone else
has figured out that the bully is really a bad guy who needs to
be stopped, they're still defending him because they're ashamed
to have cheered him on. They know that if the bully falls, their
reputation will fall with him.
>-------------
>If I succedeed in making clear my diagnosis of the disease, I hope my view
>of the steps needeed will be clear and follow logically.
Even if not, don't worry about it. This is a.m.t. No one will notice. :-)
>I think some sort of reconciliation will be needeed, and it must include the
>understanding
>of the reasons (how stupid they may seem) why many people fell for the
>warmongering
>rhetorics of the "ideologists" in power in the USA. It must include the
>understanding of
>the people themselves, and not only of the reasons.
I agree. I think a great deal of the rationalie behind supporting
the war came from FEAR and HURT. The American people were
attacked. That's really never happened to them, in any of their
lifetimes. They're used to being the 900-pound gorilla, to being
the bully of the block. Nobody fucks with the bully. And then
somebody did. And it wasn't even a big, organized and well-
provisioned army. It was a bunch of (the way many of them
think) ignorant ragheads, and they used readily-available com-
mercial aircraft.
*Nothing* is meaner than a bully who has publicly been punched
in the nose by a smaller kid, in full view of the playground full of
people he's used to dominating. It's not about justice, or even
retaliation. It's about humiliation, and trying to get one's "rep"
back again so they can get back to the business of bullying.
>It must include a sane, positive evolutionary vision and explanation of the
>process of
>Karma, (or i.o.w. Justice) not the one of "Vengeance, Retaliation, and an
>eye for an eye".
I'd love to see that understanding come about, but it's not a
philosophy I ever see taking hold in America. Or most places,
for that matter, because it's the Great Leveller. *Everyone* is
*fully* responsible for his or her thoughts and actions. No one
else can be blamed. You can't hire a lawyer and sue someone,
you can't hope to get an all-white jury and "beat the rap."
This is *not* a philosophy that's gonna go down well in America. :-)
Heck, I even saw it in the Rama guy I studied with for a while.
While well-read and generally knowledgeable about Eastern
spirituality and philosophy, and while giving long and fascinating
talks on the nature of karma (in which he claimed to believe),
pretty much every time something shitty happened to him, it
was Somebody Else's Fault.
>It must combat at all times the concept of "Eternal Perdition" and as well
>of "Eternal
>Salvation", bringing hope in situations that look like bottomless dispair,
>and real
>humility to the arrogance of those who believe to be "Saved no matter what".
Yup again. That's really the *happy* aspect of Eastern philosophies.
Nothing is eternal except eternity. You can be a fuckup today and
still turn things around tomorrow. Karma builds on *today* as well
as yesterday, and a bunch of good actions today can more than
balance out the misdeeds of the past.
>>> Bush is going to get away with it, because the American people are
>>> going to let him get away with it. And they're going to get away with
>>> it, on the surface, because they rarely deal with *anything* that
>>> smacks of reality. But the world will know. And so will karma.
>
>>> Karma, that elegant piece of operating system software that runs the
>>> universe, isn't fooled for a moment by the Nuremberg Defense. It
>>> knows *exactly* where the buck stops. And it knows how to collect
>>> on debts owed, and with interest.
>
>>> Just my opinon,
>
>Ah! -- Karma --- and the Law --- the Great Law.
>
>I had to change once in my life, and in a radical way, my own understanding
>of what was Karma, and how it worked.
>
>It seemed to me once like mountains of Karma, that I was in no way able to
>cope with, started falling in my way, and upon me, leaving nothing over.
>
>Then I saw, and now I see, that I received the most positive and
>evolutionary gift and empowerment I could have received in my life,
>at that time. Perhaps even more than I could.
Not knowing the specifics, it's hard to comment. But I can
empathize. Sometimes a good kick in the pants is *exactly*
what one needs to realize there is a big asshole underneath
them. :-)
>Karma, in its proper sense, is a great, and mysterious, even mystifying
>concept that one can see -- better: that I have seen -- working with the
>rigor and harshness of Saturnus, and the lightening fast insight and
>revolution of Uranus.
>
>So, uncle, now I think I know that one would need to be enlightened,
>and/or receive a real transmission from an enlightened master to
>start to *understand* its works.
I'm personally not convinced that even the greatest masters
understand karma and its everyday details. And they don't
have to. They don't have to know, for example, that a dog
pissing on their leg was the direct result of speaking ill of
others forty-three lifetimes ago in Benares, during a full moon.
It's enough to know that the universe is kiind enough to provide
an automatic feedback mechanism to remind you when you're
a little "off track," and help you get back on it.
>And to the well known chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times !",
>I can imagine even a worse, most terrifying one, but one that happilly will
not
>come out: "May your Karma not return to you !"
For those of us who believe not only in karma, but in the essentially
*benevolent* and *loving* nature of karma, that would indeed be
hell. One could go through incarnation after incarnation with NO
feedback from the universe to serve as a "course correction" to the
path one was taking.
>>Not just yours, Unc. But here's another take on it.
>>
>>"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with
>>the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own
>>oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the
>>individuals and their families selected for the trust."
>>
>>~ Thomas Jefferson, 1812
>
>And I also have the conviction that
>
>So under, so above:
>
>When all the base of power and justification of the USA will be military
>power, then the power in the USA will be (justly) taken over by its military
Which has *already*, as warned of by Eisenhower as he left office,
been taken over by the "military industrial complex." The US
military today is driven by the defense contractors who profit from
it, not by real military needs. They get stuck with tanks that don't
run and guns that don't fire because some shitty contractor wanted
to make money and convinced the generals and the Congress (often
through bribery) to give the contracts for those weapons to him.
And when the contract ends and there is a time of peace, well that's
BAD, don't you know? Peace is bad for business, because the
military doesn't need to buy any new weapons. So let's start a
war to use up the old ones.
It's a vicious cycle, and the ones pedaling are all pedlars.
Unc
Uncle Tantra
>conference. He was saying "fuck you, America! I'll do what I want! You
>can all eat cake!"
>
>Americans should march on Washington, D.C. with torches ablaze and demand
>real answers.
While I agree, the image that popped into
my mind when I read that was the scene
from Young Frankenstein with the torch-
carrying villagers pursuing the monster.
And that made me laugh, because in that
flick the monster was not only cooler than
any of the villagers, but had a bigger
schwanstucke. :-)
Unc
LawsonE
Ahhh, sweet mystery of life at last I've found you....
Uncle Tantra
>> my mind when I read that was the scene
>> from Young Frankenstein with the torch-
>> carrying villagers pursuing the monster.
>> And that made me laugh, because in that
>> flick the monster was not only cooler than
>> any of the villagers, but had a bigger
>> schwanstucke. :-)
>
>Ahhh, sweet mystery of life at last I've found you....
"What knockers!"
"Oh, thank you, Herr Doktor."
:-)
I see there is another fan of Young Frank-
enstein out there. Now *that* is the film I
would *most* like to see a good, collector-
edition DVD made of. Wouldn't you just
*love* to see outtakes from that film?
It's so obvious that the people making it
had a Good Time making it that I'm sure
the outtakes would be just as funny, if not
more so, than the real flick. And the cast!
You'd get to see fuckups by Gene Wilder
and Maeleine Kahn and Terry Garr and
Marty Feldman and Cloris Leachman and
Peter Boyle and Gene Hackman. You'd
get to see how Mel Brooks actually directs
something that zany and hilarious.
Unc
LawsonE
Mel Brooks is strange/fun to watch, period. I saw him on Larry King a few
years ago. He literally jumped on top of King's interview table at one point
to announce a movie idea that he'd just come up with while talking to King:
"Chassidic Park! A bunch of long-hairs growing giant mutant radioactive
cloned chickens somewhere in the Middle East." Larry was smiling indulgently
during the entire rant.
Uncle Tantra
>Mel Brooks is strange/fun to watch, period. I saw him on Larry King a few
>years ago. He literally jumped on top of King's interview table at one point
>to announce a movie idea that he'd just come up with while talking to King:
>"Chassidic Park! A bunch of long-hairs growing giant mutant radioactive
>cloned chickens somewhere in the Middle East." Larry was smiling indulgently
>during the entire rant.
That's Mel. I love him. There is a line in
Young Frankenstein that I believe is inten-
tionally self-referential, about his over-the-
top, often vulgar style of filmmaking. It's
the scene at the breakfast table where the
doctor is explaining to Terry Garr and Eye-
gor :-) how he made the monster from a
big guy...the large size made the parts
bigger and thus easier to work with.
Terry Garr says, "Oh. He must have an
enormous schwanstucke."
Gene Wilder looks pensive for a moment
and then says, "That goes without saying."
In a Mel Brooks movie, *nothing* goes
without saying. That's the beauty of it.
Unc
Uncle Tantra
>"May your Karma not return to you !"
Unc replies:
>For those of us who believe not only in karma, but in the essentially
>*benevolent* and *loving* nature of karma, that would indeed be
>hell. One could go through incarnation after incarnation with NO
>feedback from the universe to serve as a "course correction" to the
>path one was taking.
Although it's OT within a larger OT post,
that's the beauty of completely ignoring
a poster on Usenet when you've figured
out that they're "cruising for attention."
For many of them it's obvous that they
really don't care what *kind* of attention
they get, as long as it's attention. If you
give them none, you've consigned them
to their own private Hell. If their former
victims were actually interested in finding
out what the ignorees had to say for
purposes of their own feedback, they still
have the option of finding out. But the
ignorees no longer have the option of
getting any direct feedback from their
former victims. Ever.
I *said* I was a sadist... :-)
Unc
Mike Doughney
Uncle Tantra <tantr...@aol.com> wrote:
<editing, to what is perhaps the core of the argument:>
>They're not going to force Bush to take any personal responsibility for
>his actions. When all of this blows up, and they're faced with the stag-
>gering vastness of his misdeeds and illegal acts and war crimes, they're
>going to let him skate. They're going to give him a "Get out of jail free"
>card and elect someone new and try to put the whole nasty business
>behind them and forget that it ever happened.
>
>And why?
>
>Because the American public doesn't want to take any responsibility for
>*its* actions.
...
>The truth is that *they* -- the American people -- are essentially the
>ones responsible for the war crimes done in their name. In a democracy
>the "buck" stops with the people. And they don't want to be reminded
>of that. They'll let Bush get away with everything for a very good reason.
>*They* want to get away with condoning it.
While everything you say might someday come to pass, everything you
describe exists in and is made possible by the more general context of
life in America for many decades if not more than a century. And in
that context are two central myths: the myth of American supremacy,
and the myth of American democracy.
That myth of American supremacy exists in two forms: secular and
religious. We live in a culture saturated with Christian (so-called)
"fundamentalism," relative to most of the rest of the Western world,
because that kind of Christianity is in turn a reflection of the same
kind of supremacist myth; it layers on top of, and takes some of its
claimed legitimacy from, the more general, secular supremacist
myth. Such a secular myth has long been with us, but the current,
dominant political form of it has risen out of the drumbeat of an
atheistic at its core, neocon propaganda that proclaims that America
will lead the planet in a "new American Century" once all those
lily-livered, light-in-the-loafers, pinko queer liberals who think too
much are discredited and removed from positions in which they are just
in the way. Both forms are manifestations of the same thing, one side
of true believers, the other, the exploiters of the religious who
truly believe in only the arbitrary exercise of raw power over others,
and sometimes it's impossible to tell the two apart, when they can
often be seen standing side-by-side.
Likewise, the American supremacist myth has a domestic and an
international component. Domestically, taken to the extreme end
towards which we may be heading, it leads to a one-party system;
domestically, in the religious context, it works to discredit even the
suggestion that any expression or interpersonal relationship can be
allowed to exist that runs contrary to the dominant evangelical
interpretation of Biblical laws. Coupled with this is an attack on
religious pluralism, in which those practicing faiths other than
Christianity, or who are atheists, are faced with second-class
citizenship, despite the obvious centrality of religious freedom in
American history and culture. Internationally, this supremacist myth
results in the go-it-alone, the rest of the world can kindly fuck
itself, kind of debacle that is shaping up in the Middle East and
eventually elsewhere, which also seems to assume that America is a
land of (or unopposed acquirer of) infinite resources of every kind
which can be used to bend the rest of the planet to its unique
assumptions about social architecture. Missionaries (with or without
aid work), and short-term missionary tourism, have a role in the
religious aspect of the international expression of this supremacist
myth, along with everything involving Israel as an expression of the
fulfillment of Christian prophecy.
The myth of American democracy sets up a number of problems that have
played out in the run-up to this action in Iraq. The myth of
democracy, as you have laid out in your post, suggests that everyone
is responsible for the state of and the actions of the nation. The
flip side of this is that, when those in charge go and do something
abominable and unthinkable, that action can't be seen for what it is,
because in a democracy, it would have to be taken as an affront to the
intent, and self-image, of every American. This myth makes an accurate
assessment of these kinds of actions of our government impossible by
most people, because the dissonance between the self-image of a good
and just American people and the true actions of the U.S. government
must be reconciled somehow. That dissonance might be reconciled by the
kind of outcome that you've laid out in the first paragraph of yours I
quoted above - as you say, figuring out how to forget the whole
episode and letting Bush and company get away with it.
While some might hold up Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon, and Ford's
subsequent loss of the next election, as some kind of example of
America's intolerance of this kind of behavior, I would say that that
episode is an example of the contrary. Nixon got away with it, and
thus there is no warning, no downside, no cautionary historical
example of what might happen to a clearly criminal President. We are
not a nation that has a long history of bloody coup attempts that
might bring home the potential lethality of poor-to-criminal
governance. In fact, after the Clinton administration, we have the
association of "impeachment" with the conflation of serious criminal
abuses with the triviality of the aftermath of a White House blowjob,
making the very idea of "impeachment" of a President something of a
joke in all possible directions.
>Karma, that elegant piece of operating system software that runs the
>universe, isn't fooled for a moment by the Nuremberg Defense. It
>knows *exactly* where the buck stops. And it knows how to collect
>on debts owed, and with interest.
I don't believe in karma, other than how it might be an expression of
long-term social or institutional memory. What I do see happening is
the continuation of events much as they are until, or unless, there
are serious consequences for the U.S. of some kind. One of three
things may happen, or a combination of these things.
One is economic collapse, brought about by overextension, natural
catastrophe, or any number of possible causes that aren't presently
obvious. Issues of energy and water supply figure in here too.
Another is domestic social unrest, leading to vigilante action and
low-intensity conflict, stemming from the domestic aspect of the
supremacist myth.
The third is the obvious - that the international aspect of the
American supremacist myth, and the military campaigns that are the
inevitable result of that, come up against the simple fact that the
rest of the planet is occupied by nations, corporations and webs of
influence that won't stand for it over the long term.
Which brings me full circle back to the myth of American
democracy. The simple fact is that there is very little that we as
individuals in this country can do about the present situation,
despite the assumption that we as a people should or must be doing
something about it. I've referred to the present day as the
"post-protest era" because the effectiveness of protest against the
government seems much less effective and results in a greater cost to
the individual, as a loss of personal freedom or privacy, than in
times past.
What I'm keeping an eye on right now is the development of what might
be called Christian neo-vigilante groups at the local level; these may
become the ultimate expression of the supremacist myth in everyday
American life through the enforcement, through intimidation and
perhaps eventually other more direct means (since the means are always
described in an open-ended fashion), of the currently fashionable set
of evangelical wet dreams regarding the imposition of their version of
Biblical law. There may be opportunities to address these developments
and thus more generally address the problem of these supremacist myths
at both levels.
Another development is the fact that more and more people are
discussing emigrating from the U.S. to other places more openly, with
varying degrees of seriousness. The mere broaching of this subject in
a place where such a thing rarely happens, particularly when it's
accompanied by an admission that life really might be better somewhere
else, is one of those simple things that might serve to erode the
supremacy myth over time.
Uncle Tantra
and rants for a while:
>While everything you say might someday come to pass, everything you
>describe exists in and is made possible by the more general context of
>life in America for many decades if not more than a century. And in
>that context are two central myths: the myth of American supremacy,
>and the myth of American democracy.
I was just kidding about the rant, Mike. You make
some good points here. The above are two of them.
>That myth of American supremacy exists in two forms: secular and
>religious. We live in a culture saturated with Christian (so-called)
>"fundamentalism," relative to most of the rest of the Western world,
>because that kind of Christianity is in turn a reflection of the same
>kind of supremacist myth; it layers on top of, and takes some of its
>claimed legitimacy from, the more general, secular supremacist
>myth. Such a secular myth has long been with us, but the current,
>dominant political form of it has risen out of the drumbeat of an
>atheistic at its core, neocon propaganda that proclaims that America
>will lead the planet in a "new American Century" once all those
>lily-livered, light-in-the-loafers, pinko queer liberals who think too
>much are discredited and removed from positions in which they are just
>in the way. Both forms are manifestations of the same thing, one side
>of true believers, the other, the exploiters of the religious who
>truly believe in only the arbitrary exercise of raw power over others,
>and sometimes it's impossible to tell the two apart, when they can
>often be seen standing side-by-side.
Damn. Nothing to say about this, Mike. I agree with
not only every word, but the way you expressed them.
>Likewise, the American supremacist myth has a domestic and an
>international component. Domestically, taken to the extreme end
>towards which we may be heading, it leads to a one-party system;
>domestically, in the religious context, it works to discredit even the
>suggestion that any expression or interpersonal relationship can be
>allowed to exist that runs contrary to the dominant evangelical
>interpretation of Biblical laws. Coupled with this is an attack on
>religious pluralism, in which those practicing faiths other than
>Christianity, or who are atheists, are faced with second-class
>citizenship, despite the obvious centrality of religious freedom in
>American history and culture.
Absolutely true about America, in my opinion.
>Internationally, this supremacist myth
>results in the go-it-alone, the rest of the world can kindly fuck
>itself, kind of debacle that is shaping up in the Middle East and
>eventually elsewhere, which also seems to assume that America is a
>land of (or unopposed acquirer of) infinite resources of every kind
>which can be used to bend the rest of the planet to its unique
>assumptions about social architecture. Missionaries (with or without
>aid work), and short-term missionary tourism, have a role in the
>religious aspect of the international expression of this supremacist
>myth, along with everything involving Israel as an expression of the
>fulfillment of Christian prophecy.
Very short term missionary tourism. Remember the data:
less than 7% of Americans even own a passport; less than
10% of those have used them in the last five years. Why
would anyone want to leave the Promised Land? :-)
>The myth of American democracy sets up a number of problems that have
>played out in the run-up to this action in Iraq. The myth of
>democracy, as you have laid out in your post, suggests that everyone
>is responsible for the state of and the actions of the nation. The
>flip side of this is that, when those in charge go and do something
>abominable and unthinkable, that action can't be seen for what it is,
>because in a democracy, it would have to be taken as an affront to the
>intent, and self-image, of every American. This myth makes an accurate
>assessment of these kinds of actions of our government impossible by
>most people, because the dissonance between the self-image of a good
>and just American people and the true actions of the U.S. government
>must be reconciled somehow.
That is *exactly* the term I would use for what the
problem is plaguing the American people right now --
cognitive dissonance. They are being forced to deal
with the difference between what they myth of America
is and what the reality of America is, and they don't
like it, because it puts them into the classic psych-
ological state of cognitive dissonance -- when two
things that are *supposed* to be in synch aren't.
>That dissonance might be reconciled by the
>kind of outcome that you've laid out in the first paragraph of yours I
>quoted above - as you say, figuring out how to forget the whole
>episode and letting Bush and company get away with it.
That is most people's reaction to the state of cognitive
dissonance. Other reactions are anger at those who keep
reminding them of the things that are causing their cog-
nitive dissonance, and in some extreme cases, imprison-
ment or murder of those who won't shut up, as happened in
Germany in the early Nazi Germany days.
>While some might hold up Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon, and Ford's
>subsequent loss of the next election, as some kind of example of
>America's intolerance of this kind of behavior, I would say that that
>episode is an example of the contrary.
I completely agree, and so do most historians I've read.
Ford lost the next election not because he pardoned Nixon
(Hell, America inwardly *loved* the fact that he pardoned
Nixon, because that made it "go away" and ceased their
cognitive dissonance), but because he was a nonentity with-
out an ounce of charisma. Nice guy, but not presidential
material. Besides, he was a Republican, and Republicans
had *caused* this latest bout of cognitive dissonance.
There was not a chance in hell that the country was going
to put the same party back into office that had made them
realize that their view of How Things Work in Washington
was mythical, a total fiction.
>Nixon got away with it, and
>thus there is no warning, no downside, no cautionary historical
>example of what might happen to a clearly criminal President. We are
>not a nation that has a long history of bloody coup attempts that
>might bring home the potential lethality of poor-to-criminal
>governance. In fact, after the Clinton administration, we have the
>association of "impeachment" with the conflation of serious criminal
>abuses with the triviality of the aftermath of a White House blowjob,
>making the very idea of "impeachment" of a President something of a
>joke in all possible directions.
Agreed. The exercise *weakened* the entire notion of
impeachment to the point that no future president ever
has to worry about it again.
>>Karma, that elegant piece of operating system software that runs the
>>universe, isn't fooled for a moment by the Nuremberg Defense. It
>>knows *exactly* where the buck stops. And it knows how to collect
>>on debts owed, and with interest.
>
>I don't believe in karma,...
That's cool. I'm not trying to convert anyone.
>...other than how it might be an expression of
>long-term social or institutional memory. What I do see happening is
>the continuation of events much as they are until, or unless, there
>are serious consequences for the U.S. of some kind. One of three
>things may happen, or a combination of these things.
>
>One is economic collapse, brought about by overextension, natural
>catastrophe, or any number of possible causes that aren't presently
>obvious. Issues of energy and water supply figure in here too.
There are almost an infinite number of potential causes.
When I worked in the insurance industry, it was an open
secret that a *big* California earthquake, on the level
of the ones that reoccur every 150-200 years and of which
the last was during the US Civil War, would cause *every*
insurance company in the nation to go bankrupt, which
would then spiral into causing banks and investment houses
that had invested in the "safe" insurance companies to go
bankrupt, etc. We only know about the things we can
predict from the past; the future undoubtedly has even
more interesting shit ready to be flung at the cosmic fan.
>Another is domestic social unrest, leading to vigilante action and
>low-intensity conflict, stemming from the domestic aspect of the
>supremacist myth.
Certainly a possibility.
>The third is the obvious - that the international aspect of the
>American supremacist myth, and the military campaigns that are the
>inevitable result of that, come up against the simple fact that the
>rest of the planet is occupied by nations, corporations and webs of
>influence that won't stand for it over the long term.
>
>Which brings me full circle back to the myth of American
>democracy. The simple fact is that there is very little that we as
>individuals in this country can do about the present situation,
>despite the assumption that we as a people should or must be doing
>something about it. I've referred to the present day as the
>"post-protest era" because the effectiveness of protest against the
>government seems much less effective and results in a greater cost to
>the individual, as a loss of personal freedom or privacy, than in
>times past.
Sadly true. The current administration has discovered a
simple truth. If it doesn't make the five-o-clock News,
it never existed. So they have "free speech zones," far
away from the television cameras, whenever Bush goes any-
where. They pressure stations (with threats of losing
their licenses) to not report protest activities. The
time of marching in the streets may well be past, because
if there are no cameras pointed at that street, the march
never happened.
I'm still hoping that our hope lies in people like Michael
Moore and Al Franken, loudmouths who have been granted (as
a result of *being* colorful and entertaining loudmouths)
access to the mass media. They can say things that get
action, whereas 10,000 protesters can say the same things
and have it ignored. The classic example is Michael calling
Bush a deserter. The day before he said that, you couldn't
find a recent mention of that scandal in any of the major
media. The week after, it was on the front page of all of
them.
>What I'm keeping an eye on right now is the development of what might
>be called Christian neo-vigilante groups at the local level; these may
>become the ultimate expression of the supremacist myth in everyday
>American life through the enforcement, through intimidation and
>perhaps eventually other more direct means (since the means are always
>described in an open-ended fashion), of the currently fashionable set
>of evangelical wet dreams regarding the imposition of their version of
>Biblical law. There may be opportunities to address these developments
>and thus more generally address the problem of these supremacist myths
>at both levels.
I almost *hope* for such things. If a buncha Christians
start doing illegal things in the name of Jeez-US, that
might be enough to shake the sleeping masses out of their
trance enough to do something about it.
>Another development is the fact that more and more people are
>discussing emigrating from the U.S. to other places more openly, with
>varying degrees of seriousness.
Is that happening? I'd not heard of it.
:-)
>The mere broaching of this subject in
>a place where such a thing rarely happens, particularly when it's
>accompanied by an admission that life really might be better somewhere
>else, is one of those simple things that might serve to erode the
>supremacy myth over time.
Thus the entire rationale for many of the things I write.
Good rant, Mike.
Unc
Sara Bellum
> "Sara Bellum" asks:
> >Personally, being one of this group you mention, I'd like to ask you
> >in front of this indictment; what could I do beyond carrying a sign,
> >installing a bumpersticker in a conservative haven, writing all my
> >congressmen, senators & Dubya himself (which I did) opposing the war
> >in Iraq? And, how will it effect *my* "karma" because Dubya is still
> >in office pulling strings and killing people?
>
> I wish I knew.
>
an Iraqi, black or white, polititian or lawyer. You can't paint
everyone in any group with the same brush.
> You do what you can, that's all. If
> you're a writer, you write; if you're a
> marcher, you march. One person really
> *can* change a lot -- look at what happened
> when Michael Moore called Bush a deserter.
> The story had been basically *ignored* by
> most mainstream news media, but within
> a week the story was on all of them. I find
> it heartening that he's hard at work on a
> new film that will come out just before the
> election. It's called "Fahrenheit 911"...gee,
> I wonder what it could be about. He has
> film crews working in Iraq, and at home.
>
Your response doesn't follow with the original post. Your indictment
of the "American public", of course, included Michael Moore, as one of
the indicted. Being born in America doesn't make one anything but
that, born in America.
Haha, were you just stirring up the troops that are sitting on their
butts, right?
Sara
Uncle Tantra
>>>in front of this indictment; what could I do beyond carrying a sign,
>>>installing a bumpersticker in a conservative haven, writing all my
>>>congressmen, senators & Dubya himself (which I did) opposing the war
>>>in Iraq? And, how will it effect *my* "karma" because Dubya is still
>>>in office pulling strings and killing people?
>>
>> I wish I knew.
>>
>Right! Beyond that, it's not for you to judge, whether an American or
>an Iraqi, black or white, polititian or lawyer. You can't paint
>everyone in any group with the same brush.
Don't be silly. Of course I can. I just did.
You may not like the painting, but I can
do it anytime I want.
>> You do what you can, that's all. If
>> you're a writer, you write; if you're a
>> marcher, you march. One person really
>> *can* change a lot -- look at what happened
>> when Michael Moore called Bush a deserter.
>> The story had been basically *ignored* by
>> most mainstream news media, but within
>> a week the story was on all of them. I find
>> it heartening that he's hard at work on a
>> new film that will come out just before the
>> election. It's called "Fahrenheit 911"...gee,
>> I wonder what it could be about. He has
>> film crews working in Iraq, and at home.
>>
>Your response doesn't follow with the original post. Your indictment
>of the "American public", of course, included Michael Moore, as one of
>the indicted. Being born in America doesn't make one anything but
>that, born in America.
And a participant in the shared karma of
the United States, if one lives there. Even
if you don't, because their economic fate
affects everyone else's on the planet. You
may not like it, just like you didn't like the
painting, but that's the truth.
>Haha, were you just stirring up the troops that are sitting on their
>butts, right?
Nope. I was trying to stir up *everyone*.
Unc
J.Rocha
>J Rocha:
(...)
>>Many americans *really believed* in the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, and
>>having supported it actively are just as appalled as you and me with the
>>way(s) it all got out of hand.
>
> Uncle:
>I'm not sure the vast majority of them believed the reasons given
>to them to invade Iraq.
It looks like "a vast majority of americans" is something of the past :--(
>They *wanted* to believe the reasons
>given to them to invade Iraq because they just wanted to *hit*
>somebody. Anybody. It's the same reaction someone has when
>they've been mugged by someone who got away, and then starts
>picking fights with strangers in bars.
Yes, but as for "picking fights", it would be much more probable they would
direct their efforts to Afghanistan.
Most people know that Bin Laden, Al Quaida and the Taliban are there still
and coming back in full strenght.
>>Being supporters, or believers of a primitive vision of Karma -- As vengeance
>>and retaliation in kind, without the possibility of redemption, (an eye for an
>>eye) --- and noticing what has been done, and that Iraq has less than one tenth of the
>>population of the USA, the (vague) realization of the size (in proportion) of
>>the "karmic repayment" can never be allowed to become fully conscious.
>>Desperation and bankruptcy (also moral) tempts with the dangerous and often
>>fatal paradox of : "lost for 1, lost for 1000".
>Yup. That's the problem. When a *country's* karma puts it in the
>toilet, a lot of good people get flushed down the drain.
I meant that the ones "lost" were not only the americans and their allies, but
also their victims, and the morals of the country, the troops and supporters.
That's (one of) the problem(s) with the death penalty.
When you know that for killing someone (even if in your mind it was mostly an accident)
you get the death sentence, killing two, or a hunderd, or thousand doesn't make any more
difference.
Same with bankruptcy --- When you owe a bank a thousand dollars, you have a problem,
but if you owe a thousand million, then *the bank* has a problem.
>>The tasks that are left for these people are at one side the momentary and
>>panic-struck care of each day's growing crisis, disgrace and deficit, -- and they never
>>mind how big this deficit becomes--
>Why should they? That's the way most of them live *their* lives,
>constantly in debt.
Well, I suppose most americans expect they will be able to repay their debts to
the banks ;--)
I wish the american people would have a lucid moment in madness and understand
that what happened, and what probably is going to happen again was *only* an attack
upon the *Symbols* of american dominance and bullying.
There can be little doubt that if Bin Laden (or who else carried the attacks) was really
wanting to wipe out the power of the USA, and as many people as possible, he would
have chosen to attack nuclear power plants, plutonium and atomic bomb factories, and
other such places as biologic war laboratories, leaving the whole USA as a radioactive
desert for the next million years :--(
(...)
>>It must include a sane, positive evolutionary vision and explanation of the
>>process of Karma, (or i.o.w. Justice) not the one of "Vengeance, Retaliation,
>>and an eye for an eye".
>I'd love to see that understanding come about, but it's not a
>philosophy I ever see taking hold in America. Or most places,
>for that matter, because it's the Great Leveller. *Everyone* is
>*fully* responsible for his or her thoughts and actions. No one
>else can be blamed. You can't hire a lawyer and sue someone,
>you can't hope to get an all-white jury and "beat the rap."
I am more optimistic than you, perhaps because I was in the great demonstrations
that precedeed the start of the war.
There was everywhere a wonderfull sense of understanding that people may have
perfectly "valid" reasons for hate and vengeance, but that the vicious circle can only
be broken by conscious acts of reparation, and very conscious efforts of forgiving.
You know, like lots of people carrying boards saying "An eye for an eye, and we all will
go blind".
The idea that probably the real *highest* ethical christian teachings in the USA are
being hijacked by some so-called "christians", and the *lowest* manifestations of a new
dominant "supremacist jewish-christian culture", an ideology of a powerfull, revengefull
and tenacious hatreds and jealousies holding "Jehova-God", are everywhere to be seen
saddens me the most.
I think you underestimate the american people, and their spirit, because it's not needeed
that they have "that understanding come about", but that they find it *again*, the
visionary courageous and generous spirit that the older europeans never tire to give
witness about.
... And I'm not beeing romantic or specially kind; every older, and not-so-older
dutchman knows about it, just as most germans, and even french (...mais pas volontiers...)
;--)
>This is *not* a philosophy that's gonna go down well in America. :-)
>Heck, I even saw it in the Rama guy I studied with for a while. While well-read and
>generally knowledgeable about Eastern spirituality and philosophy, and while giving long
>and fascinating talks on the nature of karma (in which he claimed to believe), pretty much
>every time something shitty happened to him, it was Somebody Else's Fault.
... Was it ? ;--)
I wonder what I would have thought of the Rama guy if I had known him ...
I think you must have some sort of "love at first sight" with someone that is to teach
you the most essential knowledge.
But ... if no enlightened being is available near you, then (as first expedient) any
utmost lovable *or* bitchy woman -- In your most sincere opinion -- will do ...
BTW, uncle, I think it was a bad idea to put Judy in your killfile. Just my opinion.
Don't kill me for saying it ... ;--)
----------
The only fellow I knew and talked to, and touched that was enlightened was a dutch
advaita-vedanta called Jan van Delden, you can see his site (in dutch alas) and a photo
at http://www.ods.nl/la-rousselie/interview1.htm , he is living and teaching in France,
and I plan to visit him there at least once.
It's a really funny fellow, and the opposite of the "perfect showman" type I think Lentz
was.
>>It must combat at all times the concept of "Eternal Perdition" and as well
>>of "Eternal Salvation", bringing hope in situations that look like bottomless dispair,
>>and real humility to the arrogance of those who believe to be "Saved no matter what".
>Yup again. That's really the *happy* aspect of Eastern philosophies.
>Nothing is eternal except eternity. You can be a fuckup today and
>still turn things around tomorrow. Karma builds on *today* as well
>as yesterday, and a bunch of good actions today can more than
>balance out the misdeeds of the past.
Or better yet (IMO) , your misdeeds and their consequences appear before you, and
demand to be repaired.
(...)
>>Ah! -- Karma --- and the Law --- the Great Law.
(...)
>>Then I saw, and now I see, that I received the most positive and
>>evolutionary gift and empowerment I could have received in my life,
>>at that time. Perhaps even more than I could.
>Not knowing the specifics, it's hard to comment. But I can
>empathize. Sometimes a good kick in the pants is *exactly*
>what one needs to realize there is a big asshole underneath
>them. :-)
... Or bumping your head hard enough against the wall will spontaneously
open up your seventh chacra :--) , talking in a symbolic manner, no need for
specifics...
(...)
>>So, uncle, now I think I know that one would need to be enlightened,
>>and/or receive a real transmission from an enlightened master to
>>start to *understand* its works.
>I'm personally not convinced that even the greatest masters
>understand karma and its everyday details. And they don't have to.
>They don't have to know, for example, that a dog pissing on their leg was
>the direct result of speaking ill of others forty-three lifetimes ago in Benares,
>during a full moon.
But I think they can, if they so wish, because "forty-three lifes ago" is quietly
laying there and here to be seen in the eternal present.
(...)
>>And I also have the conviction that
>>
>>So under, so above:
>>When all the base of power and justification of the USA will be military
>>power, then the power in the USA will be (justly) taken over by its military
>Which has *already*, as warned of by Eisenhower as he left office,
>been taken over by the "military industrial complex." The US
>military today is driven by the defense contractors who profit from
>it, not by real military needs. They get stuck with tanks that don't
>run and guns that don't fire because some shitty contractor wanted
>to make money and convinced the generals and the Congress (often
>through bribery) to give the contracts for those weapons to him.
>And when the contract ends and there is a time of peace, well that's
>BAD, don't you know? Peace is bad for business, because the
>military doesn't need to buy any new weapons. So let's start a
>war to use up the old ones.
>It's a vicious cycle, and the ones pedaling are all pedlars.
>Unc
Let's try to keep optimistic and cheerfull ... It could be even much worse
J. Rocha
Uncle Tantra
>>toilet, a lot of good people get flushed down the drain.
>
>I meant that the ones "lost" were not only the americans and their allies,
but
>also their victims, and the morals of the country, the troops and
>supporters.
Yup. And the sense of moral "rightness"
and actual pride in their country may be
the biggest loss in the long run for the US.
>That's (one of) the problem(s) with the death penalty.
>
>When you know that for killing someone (even if in your mind it was mostly an
>accident)
>you get the death sentence, killing two, or a hunderd, or thousand doesn't
>make any more
>difference.
>
>Same with bankruptcy --- When you owe a bank a thousand dollars, you have a
>problem,
>but if you owe a thousand million, then *the bank* has a problem.
Good points both.
< biggus snippus >
>I wish the american people would have a lucid moment in madness and
>understand
>that what happened, and what probably is going to happen again was *only* an
>attack
>upon the *Symbols* of american dominance and bullying.
>
>There can be little doubt that if Bin Laden (or who else carried the attacks)
>was really
>wanting to wipe out the power of the USA, and as many people as possible, he
>would
>have chosen to attack nuclear power plants, plutonium and atomic bomb
>factories, and
>other such places as biologic war laboratories, leaving the whole USA as a
>radioactive
>desert for the next million years :--(
Or even simpler, and with no security in
the way, chemical plants. A well-placed
explosion in *any* of them would produce
Bhopal squared.
>I think you underestimate the american people, and their spirit, because it's
>not needeed
>that they have "that understanding come about", but that they find it
>*again*, the
>visionary courageous and generous spirit that the older europeans never tire
>to give
>witness about.
>
>... And I'm not beeing romantic or specially kind; every older, and
>not-so-older
>dutchman knows about it, just as most germans, and even french (...mais pas
>volontiers...)
>;--)
I hope you're right. I *am* cynical about
the US, and hope that I'm wrong.
>>This is *not* a philosophy that's gonna go down well in America. :-)
>>Heck, I even saw it in the Rama guy I studied with for a while. While
>well-read and
>>generally knowledgeable about Eastern spirituality and philosophy, and while
>giving long
>>and fascinating talks on the nature of karma (in which he claimed to
>believe), pretty much
>>every time something shitty happened to him, it was Somebody Else's Fault.
>
>... Was it ? ;--)
Well, he was definitely targeted for a "hit"
by a buncha people who didn't like him, so
on that level, yeah there were some other
people involved in the cries of "cult leader."
On the other hand, they targeted him for
his flamboyant lifestyle, and he never saw
that. When one of his great business
ideas turned into yet another pipedream,
it tended to always be somebody else's
fault instead of just a dumb idea. :-)
>I wonder what I would have thought of the Rama guy if I had known him ...
No telling. Some liked him, some loathed
him. I set up some talks for him in Amster-
dam, and in general the Dutch loathed him.
Too American. :-)
>I think you must have some sort of "love at first sight" with someone that
>is to teach
>you the most essential knowledge.
There is something to that. Because
another way of explaining "love at first
sight" is "remembering them" from some-
time in the past.
>But ... if no enlightened being is available near you, then (as first
>expedient) any
>utmost lovable *or* bitchy woman -- In your most sincere opinion -- will
>do ...
I've certainly learned as much from the
women in my life as I have from any of the
spiritual teachers in my life.
>BTW, uncle, I think it was a bad idea to put Judy in your killfile. Just
>my opinion.
>Don't kill me for saying it ... ;--)
Naaaah. I like your way of saying what
you have to say, even when it's critical.
Her I just got tired of. It was like talking
to a wall.
>The only fellow I knew and talked to, and touched that was enlightened was a
>dutch
>advaita-vedanta called Jan van Delden, you can see his site (in dutch
>alas) and a photo
>at http://www.ods.nl/la-rousselie/interview1.htm , he is living and
>teaching in France,
>and I plan to visit him there at least once.
>
>It's a really funny fellow, and the opposite of the "perfect showman" type I
>think Lentz
>was.
Cool. Hope you enjoy yourself. I don't
know anything about him.
Unc
Judy Stein
> Mike Doughney gets a little of Willy's coke in his Wheaties
> and rants for a while:
Both of you are completely off the scale of any kind of
rationality. It's so much easier to write rhetoric in a
black-and-white vacuum where you don't even try to make it
a reasonable facsimile of the many-shades-of-gray reality.
<snip>
> >That myth of American supremacy exists in two forms: secular and
> >religious. We live in a culture saturated with Christian (so-called)
> >"fundamentalism," relative to most of the rest of the Western world
Actually this is an illusion. The fundamentalists are vocal way
out of proportion to their numbers. We're "saturated" with
Christianity in terms of demographics, but it's a huge mistake
to equate Christianity as a whole with fundamentalist Christianity.
That doesn't need we don't need to keep a very careful eye on
the latter, especially with regard to their attempts to grab
political power, but it's essential to maintain a sense of
proportion.
<snip>
> Very short term missionary tourism. Remember the data:
> less than 7% of Americans even own a passport; less than
> 10% of those have used them in the last five years. Why
> would anyone want to leave the Promised Land? :-)
To introduce a note of rationality here, this is another of
Barry's bogus statistics; the real percentage is around 20
percent or higher (22 percent according to the Guardian,
hardly a big fan of the U.S.) and is increasing rapidly.
Any comparison with Europeans, of course, is also thoroughly
bogus because of the relative distances involved. If you had
to get a passport to travel from state to state, virtually all
Americans would have one. It's kinda silly to characterize
Americans as insular when their "island" is thousands of miles
wide. On a per capita lifetime basis, we probably travel
much greater distances than Europeans do.
<snip>
> >While some might hold up Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon, and Ford's
> >subsequent loss of the next election, as some kind of example of
> >America's intolerance of this kind of behavior,
Ford's *pardon* wasn't held up by anyone as an example of
America's intolerance of bad behavior. I think Mike meant
to write "Nixon's resignation" but was too wrapped up in his
own rhetoric to pay attention to what he was writing.
I would say that that
> >episode is an example of the contrary.
>
> I completely agree, and so do most historians I've read.
That's a pretty selective reading.
You don't have to consult historians if you were alive during
that period, as I was, and as Barry was as well, I believe;
it's easy to recall the howling outrage over Watergate and
then the nearly universal gasket-blowing that occurred when
Ford pardoned Nixon, including the accusation that Ford had
made a deal with Nixon to pardon him if he resigned.
(Turns out there wasn't, at least according to one of Nixon's
lawyers, who recently said Nixon didn't want a pardon, he
wanted to be able to make his case in a public trial. His
lawyer talked him out of refusing the pardon by explaining
he wouldn't be able to get a fair trial, which was almost
certainly true.)
Certainly there were other factors involved in Ford's losing
the election, but the pardon was a biggie. There was even
a revival of the outrage a year or so ago when the Kennedy
Foundation gave its Profiles in Courage award to Ford for
the Nixon pardon; it was widely and very sharply criticized
for doing so.
But whether the pardon was the right or wrong thing to do,
it unquestionably took courage because public opinion was
so vehemently, violently against it.
> Ford lost the next election not because he pardoned Nixon
> (Hell, America inwardly *loved* the fact that he pardoned
> Nixon, because that made it "go away" and ceased their
> cognitive dissonance)
That's just blatantly untrue. Most people wanted to see
Nixon publicly drawn and quartered.
, but because he was a nonentity with-
> out an ounce of charisma. Nice guy, but not presidential
> material. Besides, he was a Republican, and Republicans
> had *caused* this latest bout of cognitive dissonance.
> There was not a chance in hell that the country was going
> to put the same party back into office that had made them
> realize that their view of How Things Work in Washington
> was mythical, a total fiction.
Also way off the mark. Ford was running, as I suspect Barry
could recall if he wanted, against a completely unknown
and even *less* charismatic peanut farmer from Georgia, and he
lost by only a little over a million votes. Many people still
trusted Ford, despite the pardon, to put things back together
again because he was perceived as guileless.
Barry also seems to have forgotten about all the legislation
that was passed after Nixon's resignation to prevent the kinds
of abuses of power he had engaged in.
The point is that the country confronted the Nixon disaster
right up front, as unpleasant as it was. Watergate changed
the public perception of government, if not permanently at
least for the long term.
> >Nixon got away with it, and
> >thus there is no warning, no downside, no cautionary historical
> >example of what might happen to a clearly criminal President. We are
> >not a nation that has a long history of bloody coup attempts that
> >might bring home the potential lethality of poor-to-criminal
> >governance.
And this is just idiotic. Former Nixon counsel John Dean's
latest book, which is on the verge of publication, is getting
a lot of attention. It's yet another expose of the Bush
administration, and it's titled "Worse Than Watergate." You
don't call a book you expect to be an explosive blockbuster
"Worse Than" something if that something wasn't an exceptionally
vivid cautionary tale.
Moreover, Mike contradicts his own case by pointing out that
we have no history of bloody coup attempts. We haven't
*needed* bloody coup attempts to bring home the potential
"lethality" of bad governance because we *are* a democracy.
In fact, after the Clinton administration, we have the
> >association of "impeachment" with the conflation of serious criminal
> >abuses with the triviality of the aftermath of a White House blowjob,
> >making the very idea of "impeachment" of a President something of a
> >joke in all possible directions.
>
> Agreed. The exercise *weakened* the entire notion of
> impeachment to the point that no future president ever
> has to worry about it again.
You guys are truly in Never-Never Land. Clinton's impeachment
was a joke because it was such an obvious misuse of the
procedure, and most Americans realized that. It has if
anything *strengthened* the idea of impeachment because
nobody is going to dare to try it again on such ridiculous
grounds, at least not for a good long while. *It* was a
cautionary tale about the "lethality" of bad governance--
not by Clinton but by his right-wing enemies in Congress.
<snip>
> Sadly true. The current administration has discovered a
> simple truth. If it doesn't make the five-o-clock News,
> it never existed. So they have "free speech zones," far
> away from the television cameras, whenever Bush goes any-
> where. They pressure stations (with threats of losing
> their licenses) to not report protest activities.
It's fruitless to ask Barry for documentation of this last,
but I'll ask anyway just to make the point that he can't
provide any.
The
> time of marching in the streets may well be past, because
> if there are no cameras pointed at that street, the march
> never happened.
Again, this simply isn't the case.
There's been plenty of coverage of protests against Bush
appearances, "free speech zones" or not. And there was, of
course, *massive* coverage of the big demonstrations before
the war and of subsequent antiwar marches, and of other types
of protests as well, local, national, and international.
> I'm still hoping that our hope lies in people like Michael
> Moore and Al Franken, loudmouths who have been granted (as
> a result of *being* colorful and entertaining loudmouths)
> access to the mass media. They can say things that get
> action, whereas 10,000 protesters can say the same things
> and have it ignored. The classic example is Michael calling
> Bush a deserter. The day before he said that, you couldn't
> find a recent mention of that scandal in any of the major
> media. The week after, it was on the front page of all of
> them.
It was on the front page because ABC's Peter Jennings had the
cojones to ask Wes Clark about Moore's comment at one of the
Democratic presidential debates. His question to Clark was
widely perceived as attacking Clark, but in fact the reason
he asked was specifically to get it out front where it couldn't
be ignored. And he succeeded brilliantly.
> >What I'm keeping an eye on right now is the development of what might
> >be called Christian neo-vigilante groups at the local level; these may
> >become the ultimate expression of the supremacist myth in everyday
> >American life through the enforcement, through intimidation and
> >perhaps eventually other more direct means (since the means are always
> >described in an open-ended fashion), of the currently fashionable set
> >of evangelical wet dreams regarding the imposition of their version of
> >Biblical law. There may be opportunities to address these developments
> >and thus more generally address the problem of these supremacist myths
> >at both levels.
>
> I almost *hope* for such things. If a buncha Christians
> start doing illegal things in the name of Jeez-US, that
> might be enough to shake the sleeping masses out of their
> trance enough to do something about it.
It ain't gonna get that far. But the masses aren't "sleeping."
They aren't easy to energize, but when they get going, their
momentum is unstoppable. And that's beginning to happen.
> >Another development is the fact that more and more people are
> >discussing emigrating from the U.S. to other places more openly, with
> >varying degrees of seriousness.
>
> Is that happening? I'd not heard of it.
"More and more" people than what? "More openly" than what?
Got any statistics, or is this yet another personal anecdotal
data point that Mike has decided to declare a universal
established fact?
The situation in the U.S. is *bad*, no question about it. But
the kind of fluffy, shallow extremist ranting the two of you so
enjoy indulging in just gets in the way of remedy.
Sara Bellum
> > Right! Beyond that, it's not for you to judge, whether an
> > American or an Iraqi, black or white, polititian or lawyer.
> > You can't paint everyone in any group with the same brush.
>
> Don't be silly. Of course I can. I just did.
> You may not like the painting, but I can
> do it anytime I want.
>
Sure, you can be anything you want, including a bigot.
> > Your response doesn't follow with the original post. Your
> > indictment of the "American public", of course, included Michael
> > Moore, as one of the indicted. Being born in America doesn't
> > make one anything but that, born in America.
>
> And a participant in the shared karma of
> the United States, if one lives there.
>
Only in as much as that one identifies with America. You talk as if
one has no choice in their karma (actions/thoughts).
> Even if you don't, because their economic fate
> affects everyone else's on the planet.
>
"Theirs" is not necessarily "mine", again, you intimate "I" have no
choice. It's not my country any more than it's my world. Nationalism
is an obsolete concept, even for Americans.
> You may not like it, just like you didn't like the
> painting, but that's the truth.
>
No, it's not THE truth. It's your truth, just like the broad brush.
Sara
Uncle Tantra
>>> make one anything but that, born in America.
>>
>> And a participant in the shared karma of
>> the United States, if one lives there.
>>
>Only in as much as that one identifies with America. You talk as if
>one has no choice in their karma (actions/thoughts).
Of course they have a choice about the
karma that they themselves generate.
The individual American has a choice to
act however he or she wants. But if large-
scale karma comes down on the country
as a whole, they're going to participate,
no matter whether they "identified" with
the place or not. If a bunch of crazies
bomb a chemical plant in your neighbor-
hood and release a cloud of Bhopal-like
death into the air, do you think your
"identification" with the place or lack
thereof is gonna do anything to help you?
If there is a widespread depression as a
result of insane deficits, and you lose your
job, do you think your "right thinking" is
going to feed you?
That's the level at which one shares in the
karma of one's country. If you live in it,
anything that happens to it as a result of
its actions happens to you, even if you
"didn't identify" with those actions.
Or do you somehow believe that all the
Iraqis who have died in this conflict "ident-
ified with" Saddam Hussein, and somehow
the ones who didn't were miraculously
spared from any harm by the all-knowing
benevolence of karma?
>> Even if you don't, because their economic fate
>> affects everyone else's on the planet.
>>
>"Theirs" is not necessarily "mine", again, you intimate "I" have no
>choice. It's not my country any more than it's my world. Nationalism
>is an obsolete concept, even for Americans.
It's not just an obsolete concept, it's a
dangerous one. But I don't see a lot of
Americans dropping the concept and acting
as "world citizens" and clammoring for
their government to respect their wishes.
Instead they sit there in front of their TVs
like quiet sheep, thinking they're not a
part of it because they're not *personally*
dropping the bombs and shooting the kids.
They're a part of it. If they're silent while
bombs are dropped and kids are shot in
their name, they're doing it.
Unless they're *doing* something to stop
it, like Michael Moore is, and like the
people who march even though they know
it's probably not going to be reported.
They at least are mitigating the karma of
the place somewhat. They aren't just
"not identifying" with what's happening,
they are trying to stop it from happening.
But those who claim that they're not a
part of it because they don't identify with
it are just sticking their heads in the sand.
What exactly is it you've *done* to change
the direction America is heading in lately,
except "not identifying with it?" There
were probably a lot of Germans who didn't
identify with what Hitler did, either. But
they let him keep doing it. So far nothing
you've said suggests that you're any
different from them.
Unc
Uncle Tantra
>>>> make one anything but that, born in America.
>>>
>>> And a participant in the shared karma of
>>> the United States, if one lives there.
>>>
>>Only in as much as that one identifies with America. You talk as if
>>one has no choice in their karma (actions/thoughts).
Let's use an example that's in the news
today, in virtual form. The state of Israel
just assassinated another Hamas leader.
It is a virtual *certainty* that this is going
to cause reprisals, and that Israeli citizens
are going to die in those reprisals. Some
of the dead won't have "identified" with the
criminal actions of their government; they
will, in fact, have been horrified by them.
Some of the dead might even have partici-
pated in marches against the Israeli policy
of assassination, or have written articles
protesting it. But they'll still be dead.
Unc
Sara Bellum
> >>> Being born in America doesn't
> >>> make one anything but that, born in America.
> >>
> >> And a participant in the shared karma of
> >> the United States, if one lives there.
> >>
> > Only in as much as that one identifies with America.
> > You talk as if one has no choice in their karma
> > (actions/thoughts).
>
> Of course they have a choice about the
> karma that they themselves generate.
> The individual American has a choice to
> act however he or she wants.
>
> But if large-scale karma comes down on the
> country as a whole, they're going to participate,
> no matter whether they "identified" with the
> place or not.
>
I disagree. If someone kills me it's their karma, not mine. "Karma"
is the action, not the results of the action. The results are
irrefutable, but they aren't the karma.
> If a bunch of crazies bomb a chemical plant
> in your neighborhood and release a cloud of
> Bhopal-like death into the air, do you think
> your "identification" with the place or lack
> thereof is gonna do anything to help you?
>
No, I wouldn't need any help, I'd be dead. Dying doesn't generate
karma, in and of itself. It's 'their' karma, killing people, not
mine. It would be my response to their actions that would be my
karma. This is the crux of Jesus' teachings on turning the other
cheek.
> If there is a widespread depression as a
> result of insane deficits, and you lose your
> job, do you think your "right thinking" is
> going to feed you?
>
Yes, it would 'feed' me what I 'need', along with right action and
right meditation.
> That's the level at which one shares in the
> karma of one's country.
>
..if one chooses to.
> If you live in it, anything that happens
> to it as a result of its actions happens
> to you, even if you "didn't identify" with
> those actions.
>
> Or do you somehow believe that all the
> Iraqis who have died in this conflict "ident-
> ified with" Saddam Hussein, and somehow
> the ones who didn't were miraculously
> spared from any harm by the all-knowing
> benevolence of karma?
>
As I said; dying, in itself doesn't generate karma. It is the karmic
result of being born. One's death is irrelevant to their past karma,
except that it denotes the time of 'seeing clearly' has arrived.
> >> Even if you don't, because their economic fate
> >> affects everyone else's on the planet.
> >>
> >"Theirs" is not necessarily "mine", again, you intimate "I" have no
> >choice. It's not my country any more than it's my world. Nationalism
> >is an obsolete concept, even for Americans.
>
> It's not just an obsolete concept, it's a
> dangerous one.
>
Agreed.
> But I don't see a lot of
> Americans dropping the concept and acting
> as "world citizens" and clammoring for
> their government to respect their wishes.
>
How could you *SEE* someone drop a concept?
> Instead they sit there in front of their TVs
> like quiet sheep, thinking they're not a
> part of it because they're not *personally*
> dropping the bombs and shooting the kids.
>
For those that do as you say, maybe you're right. *BUT*, not all do
as you say, hence you statement is full of shit.
> They're a part of it. If they're silent
> while bombs are dropped and kids are shot \
> in their name, they're doing it.
>
> Unless they're *doing* something to stop
> it, like Michael Moore is, and like the
> people who march even though they know
> it's probably not going to be reported.
> They at least are mitigating the karma of
> the place somewhat. They aren't just
> "not identifying" with what's happening,
> they are trying to stop it from happening.
>
Which, of course, starts with 'not identifying' with the actions of
the Dubya administration. Michael Moore is an American, too.
> But those who claim that they're not a
> part of it because they don't identify with
> it are just sticking their heads in the sand.
>
> What exactly is it you've *done* to change
> the direction America is heading in lately,
> except "not identifying with it?"
>
From a previous post in this thread: "...carrying a sign, installing a
bumpersticker in a conservative haven, writing all my congressmen,
senators & Dubya himself opposing the war in Iraq".
Beyond that, it's not for you to judge my actions. Although, you are
welcome to do so, that's *your* karma.
> There were probably a lot of Germans who didn't
> identify with what Hitler did, either.
>
Like Schindler?
> But they let him keep doing it.
>
This might be an over-simplification. How could "they" have stopped
him when so many others were following right along?
> So far nothing you've said suggests that you're
> any different from them.
>
Invalid observation noted.
Sara
LawsonE
"Sara Bellum" <knee_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:269b4f78.04041...@posting.google.com...
> tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra) wrote in message
news:<20040418110318...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
> > >>> Being born in America doesn't
> > >>> make one anything but that, born in America.
> > >>
> > >> And a participant in the shared karma of
> > >> the United States, if one lives there.
> > >>
> > > Only in as much as that one identifies with America.
> > > You talk as if one has no choice in their karma
> > > (actions/thoughts).
> >
> > Of course they have a choice about the
> > karma that they themselves generate.
> > The individual American has a choice to
> > act however he or she wants.
> >
> This is the end of the "karma" story.
>
> > But if large-scale karma comes down on the
> > country as a whole, they're going to participate,
> > no matter whether they "identified" with the
> > place or not.
> >
> I disagree. If someone kills me it's their karma, not mine. "Karma"
> is the action, not the results of the action. The results are
> irrefutable, but they aren't the karma.
Karma is the action. The "laws of karma" are that every action has a
reaction. And, in the context of reincarnation, you wouldn't be able to
claim certain "innocence" if someone approached you out of the blue and shot
you. For all you know, you're getting payback from 20 lifetimes ago. The
point is, you don't worry about "past karma," but only about your current
actions. Thats all you can control anyway.
willytex
> Funny how the polls are reflecting increasing distrust of
> Bush, then.
Judy - Funny how I always trust your opinions on TM practice but I
don't trust your one-sided political opinions. I've just reviewed
several opinion polls and none of them reflected an "increasing
distrust" of President Bush and the way he is conducting the War on
Terror.
> A significant majority now say they believe
> he wasn't straight with the American people about his
> reasons for invading Iraq.
What poll showed that "a significant majority" of Americans believe
Bush wasn't straight with the American people about his reasons for
invading Iraq?
According to a recent USA Today Opinion Poll, a majority of Americans
would vote for George W. Bush over John F. Kerry in the next election.
Kerry 46%
Bush 51%
In the USA Today poll, 52% of Americans approve of the way George W.
Bush is handling his job as president; 60% approve of Bush's
anti-terrorism policies; 56% of Americans approve of George W. Bush
and 59% approve of Condleeza Rice.
> His approval ratings are dropping steadily, his disapproval ratings
> are on the increase, and 59 percent of Americans say they think the
> country is moving in the wrong direction.
Not according to the USA Poll: 57% of those surveyed think we DID NOT
make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq.
USA Today Opinion Poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm
Poll: Bush support holds despite Iraq, 9/11 hearings
y Susan Page
USA Today, April 4,2004
WASHINGTON — President Bush's lead over Democrat John Kerry has
widened a bit in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll despite two weeks that
have been dominated by a deteriorating security situation in Iraq and
criticism of his administration's handling of the terrorism threat
before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, showed Bush leading Kerry 51%
to 46% among likely voters, slightly wider than the 3-point lead he
held in early April.
The president's job approval rating was steady at 52%.
Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for Bush's campaign, says the USA TODAY
findings show the "resilience" of Bush's support. He notes that Bush's
job approval rating is about what presidents Clinton, Reagan and Nixon
scored at this point in the election year before winning second terms.
Bush's strongest advantage over Kerry is in handling terrorism. By 2
to 1, those surveyed say only Bush would do a good job on handling
terrorism. By nearly as much, 40% to 26%, they say only Bush would do
a good job on handling Iraq.
Even more, 60%, give the Clinton administration a fair amount of
blame.
And nearly two-thirds of those polled, 63%, say the government
agencies responsible for preventing terrorist attacks in the USA need
major reforms or a complete overhaul.
Read the full stroy:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/
Uncle Tantra
>Karma is the action. The "laws of karma" are that every action has a
>reaction. And, in the context of reincarnation, you wouldn't be able to
>claim certain "innocence" if someone approached you out of the blue and shot
>you. For all you know, you're getting payback from 20 lifetimes ago. The
>point is, you don't worry about "past karma," but only about your current
>actions. Thats all you can control anyway.
Yup. I like the Tibetan notion of "interdep-
endent origination" with regard to karma.
That is, there is your own -- that which
you have generated in this lifetime -- and
that of the other people around you and
the country you live in and the planet you
live on, etc. *Both* affect you, and the
sum total of all those effects can be seen
as your karma, a combination of your actions
and those of your surroundings.
It's a sticky subject for those who want to
avoid responsibility for their own actions.
Was it the people in the WTC's karma to
be there that morning? Well, yes, accord-
ing to interdependent origination. Did they
do anything in this life to make them
"deserve" being in the building that morn-
ing? Nope. The reactions that led them
there might have been created by actions
(either their own or those of others around
them) lifetimes ago.
So it's "not to worry" about the everyday
"details" of karma. Seers differ over whether
anyone can *ever* know the truth about
*which* actions or set of actions precipitated
a certain karmic event in our lives and whether
they were performed by us or by the environ-
ment or both. The only thing we need
to concern ourselves about is doing the
best we can here and now. And interestingly,
in "bad times," when the environment is "off
track," the very thing that might create "good
karma" for us is the very *opposite* of what is
acceptable in the external environment. Think
Schindler's List. Think the German general
who was ordered to burn Paris to the ground
by Hitler in the last days of WWII and refused,
and then was shot for it when he got back to
Germany. Interdependent origination. He was
killed by his environment for doing the right
thing. But the important thing, for those who
believe in reincarnation and karma, is that he
did the right thing.
Unc