A Final Word (Perhaps)
Dale Houstman
-- or --
Xenoerotic Response In The American Citizen
___________________________________
"I believe in the absolute virtue of anything that takes place,
spontaneously or not, in the sense of non-acceptance, and no reasons of
general efficacy, from which long, pre-revolutionary patience draws its
inspiration - reasons to which I defer - will make me deaf to the cry which
can be wrenched from us at every moment by the frightful disproportion
between what is gained and what is lost, between what is granted and what is
suffered."
...Andre Breton
(in a footnote to the "simplest surrealist act" passage
in later editions of the second manifesto)
There was one low angle view of United Airlines 175 penetrating the southern
tower of the World Trade Center that was exquisitely and beautifully
revealing for its violent composition: diagonally vertical rise sliced by a
horizontal wedge, the vertical absorbs the plane, red and black burst into
the blue sky as sparkle and gray falls toward the camera, Hollywood
spectacle meets Manhattan finance, the banal special effect pierces the
mundane Tuesday morning with extraordinary, fiery fascination at the moment
real life meets real death. America awakens from its old dream and instantly
goes to sleep.
"No one could concentrate on what they were doing,
and what they were doing didn't seem very important."
...an editor of a bicycle enthusiasts magazine
(commenting on his staff's reaction to the events of Sept 11 2001)
From a surrealist perspective, it's not that difficult to understand the
events of Sept 11. The "frightful disproportion between what is gained and
what is lost, between what is granted and what is suffered", as Breton put
it, or as the Situationists put it: "the appalling contrast between the
possible constructions of life and its present poverty" is what lies at the
core of most violence, terrorism included.
This same "frightful disproportion" is at the core of the spectator's
fascination with, and obsessive fear of violence.
So in the current context, as in all previous contexts, that "something we
need to do" is quite simple and extraordinarily difficult: create the
surrealist revolution. Which is to say desire must be our guide, and we must
work to liberate the imagination and fully integrate it into every day
living - all imaginations, everyday, on a global scale.
That includes helping people recognize when their desire (to live fully and
freely) has been falsified (into a thirst for revenge), and that there is a
need for something quite different than war at a time like this.
"...in a Situationist city there wouldn't be a 110 story tower
held up only by the tension between the top and the bottom."
...Kubhlai
(in a post to a situationist mailing list)
It's easy enough to see how flying large passenger jets into buildings full
of people runs counter to a surrealist revolution. As convulsively beautiful
as some of the images were, the brutally flawed brilliance of turning one
icon of global commercialization against others was clearly not intended to
liberate imaginations, but rather to imprison them (to say nothing about
those deliberately sacrificed and destroyed).
The subsequent recouperation of this event, the use of it by the existing
order to further secure and enhance its position was predictable.
By the time networks did a cross-fade to transform the wide-eyed "gee-wiz"
of the morning show hosts into a somber star anchor melodrama, the typical
preservation pattern was in full dismal display.
The "experts" showed up for their obligatory speculations, and the siege
mentality was quickly established, reinforced by close-ups of the burning
towers, shots of emergency personnel scrambling, tape loops of the second
plane hitting the south tower, repeated references to Pearl Harbor, "war
zones", etc. The pornography of holy blood in service to the dissolution.
The attack was personalized for the TV viewer even as he/she was reduced to
spectator. Interviews in the rubble: a guy who was walking to work and saw
the planes hit; a husband looking for his wife; a wife looking for her
husband, child clinging to her arm. Of course, there was no easy access to
established box-office magnets, but the full power of public relations made
as many starlets out of the merely startled as possible, given the tight
schedule.
We were told that we were attacked because "America is the brightest beacon
for freedom," when - of course - it is only to often a dark curtain between
certain peoples and that commodity. Declaring the actions "senseless" and
"insane" made the population feel vulnerable to further attacks by a
"faceless coward" we have no way of understanding or coming to terms with.
Another boogieman took the stage and far too many seemingly cognizant beings
are now more than willing to surrender all their options because they can't
imagine that they have any. They can't imagine they have any because they
have surrendered their imaginations to POWER, leaving them weak and
vulnerable, with no hope of ever understanding the kind of people who would
do such a thing. They DEMAND that the government punish the "enemy" of
"freedom loving nations" because there's obviously nothing they can do
themselves.
"I think we need to get back into the down and dirty business
[of assassinating our 'enemies']."
...James Baker
(blaming the Church Committee hearings
into the 'abuses' of the CIA for our vulnerability)
So now the USA is a war machine (again!) in search of a target from which to
extract its revenge. Patriotism infects the wounds of every good citizen.
The US House the Senate both voted unanimously to support Bush's crack down
and revenge proposal. Remember the Alamo, remember the Maine, swim in the
Gulf of Tonkin. Many pundits and government types have been heard suggesting
that we just may have to give up some of our liberty to ensure our safety,
forgetting that true liberty is always dangerous, if only to those who would
defuse it.
[And now, as this is written, we learn of more symptoms of this patriotic
fever: pustules on this legislation that will further swell the ears and
distend the arms of the FBI - already a pock-marked caricature - so as to
make it easier for both local and federal cops to "find the bad guys". Of
course some of us know that, in so far as their role is to stabilize the
existing order which perpetuates injustice, cops actually are the bad guys
(to say nothing of the more overt personal "badness" demonstrated by recent
"scandals" in Miami and Los Angeles and dozens of other places around the
country).]
After all, as one of the heads said Tuesday, "the bill of rights isn't a
suicide pact." Perhaps it is just another treaty scribbled on toilet paper?
"It's very, very important that we show the American people
that the institutions of government remain intact."
...Senator Mark Dayton (MN)
Unfortunately, the institutions of government do remain intact and the pleas
for security and revenge fit their mission much better than pleas to end
executions or provide health care. And as the war drums beat louder they are
encouraged to even greater stupidity.
But it's important we don't just see this as a failure of government but
rather as a pervasive falsified reality supported on the stilts of our own
complicity. This falsification depends as much upon the Taliban as it does
Microsoft; depends as much upon Al Sharpton as it does the NYPD; depends as
much upon the dollars of consumers as it does the outrage of patriots.
As long as we continue to play the roles as written, the existing order --
POWER -- thrives.
It's just that the government is center stage today, and the bad actor is
replaced by a burlesque clown.
"And he has disappeared down the rabbit hole."
...ABC reporter Ann Compton
(describing Bush's descent into an underground
bunker at Offut Air Force base)
And what were we really seeing all day on the TV?
The collapse of the World Trade Center. The cutting open of the Pentagon.
And Bush on the run. And long may he run.
If we paid attention, we were seeing that the target of the attack was the
US as an arrogant global bully "the most powerful nation on earth"
intoxicated by its own power, too paranoid to actually support the cause of
liberty when it comes against a friendly dictator, too clumsy to avoid
getting punched in the nose and blind to even the most obvious lessons of
its own past.
Isn't it about time we refused yet another serving of false dichotomy and
fixed ourselves a real meal?
_____________________
the blue feathers project
surrealists in minnesota
sur...@magneticfields.org
www.MagneticFields.org
"a favorable wind has blue feathers" - Picabia
Michael C
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote in message wrote:
"Sophie, I'm walking in a landscape of broken hearts. There are tears
here, and the strongest man admits to them, and the gentlest to anger.
But there is no hatred here, no lust for revenge, no pleasure in the
prospect of retribution. Just the quiet, sad knowledge that we will
have to fight."
<snip>
Chuckk Hubbard
This may sound silly, but I have a hard time understanding what your
viewpoint is. You've proclaimed not to care about anything but
yourself, to have no faith in humankind, etc. So have I, on occasion,
and over the past few months that has changed.
But this still strikes me as primates killing other primates, perhaps an
over-population thing, though I have trouble believing that last bit.
Knowing the US government will make certain restrictions on freedom of
press I'm certain only invigorates you.
I think the falling-back-to-sleep you mention is due to security.
Enough comparisons were made to Pearl Harbor, Antietam, the Gulf War,
within the first few hours, all things Americans know and about which
they have a sense of proportion and place, things they can nail down,
that, understandably, this was identified with those, and honestly I
think that if there is a choice between panic and blind, unjustified
faith in empty symbols, the average creature capable of making the
choice is going to choose the remote possibility that the beloved
comfort might not really be gone. In a way not unlike the pushing of
Christianity on American slaves, and of course not at all unlike the
belief that dying in Jyhad is a ticket to Paradise. Valhalla. The
Indian caste system. Americans see most of these things as distant and
therefore would deny that this is what is happening, but if people do it
people do it. To project a future in one's imagination of what the
desired thing would taste like, and, to avoid despair, believing it. I
think some of the geniuses (genii) imprisoned by the Nazis probably
understood this.
I don't wish to piss off the machine, but I think it's ironic that
sports were canceled unanimously: who could think about cheering on
empty fetish symbols on the backs of big men trying to break each
other's knees at a time when we're trying to cheer on empty fetish
symbols on the backs of big men trying to vaporize each other. My dad
drinks a lot, but he's STILL bigger than your dad.
I give you Zappa:
Whoever we are
Wherever we're from
We shoulda noticed by now
Our behavior is dumb
And if our chances
Expect to improve
It's gonna take a lot more
Than tryin' to remove
The other race
Or the other whatever
From the face
Of the planet altogether
They call it THE EARTH
Which is a dumb kinda name
But they named it right
'Cause we behave the same...
*We are dumb all over*
Dumb all over,
Yes we are
Dumb all over,
Near 'n far
Dumb all over,
Black 'n white
People, we is not wrapped tight
Nurds on the left
Nurds on the right
Religous fanatics
On the air every night
Sayin' the Bible
Tells the story
Makes the details
Sound real gory
'Bout what to do
If the geeks over there
Don't believe in the book
We got over here
You can't run a race
Without no feet
'N pretty soon
There won't be no street
For dummies to jog on
Or doggies to dog on
Religous fanatics
Can make it be all gone
(I mean it won't blow up
'N disappear
It'll just look ugly
For a thousand years...)
You can't run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state
TO ARMS! TO ARMS!
Hooray! That's great
Two legs ain't bad
Unless there's a crate
They ship the parts
To mama in
For souvenirs: two ears *(Get Down!)*
Not his, not hers, *(but what the hey?)*
The Good Book says:
*("It gotta be that way!")*
But their book says:
*"REVENGE THE CRUSADES...
With whips 'n chains
'N hand grenades..."*
TWO ARMS? TWO ARMS?
Have another and another
Our God says:
*"There ain't no other!"*
Our God says
*"It's all okay!"*
Our God says
*"This is the way!"*
It says in the book:
*"Burn 'n destroy...*
*'N repent, 'n redeem*
*'N revenge, 'n deploy*
*'N rumble thee forth*
*To the land of the unbelieving scum on
the other side*
*'Cause they don't go for what's in the book*
*'N that makes 'em BAD*
*So verily we must choppeth them up*
*And stompeth them down*
*Or rent a nice French bomb*
*To poof them out of existence
*While leaving their real estate just where we need it*
*To use again*
*For temples in which to praise OUR GOD*
*("Cause he can really take care of business!")*
And when his humble TV servant
With humble white hair
And humble glasses
And a nice brown suit
And maybe a blond wife who takes phone calls
Tells us our God says
It's okay to do this stuff
Then we gotta do it,
'Cause if we don't do it,
We ain't gwine up to *hebbin!*
(Depending on which book you're using
at the time...Can't use theirs... it don't work
...it's all lies...Gotta use mine...)
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night...
Every day...
Hey, we can't really be dumb
If we're just following *God's Orders*
Hey, let's get serious...
God knows what he's doin'
He wrote this book here
An' the book says:
*He made us all to be just like Him,"
so...
If we're dumb...
Then God is dumb...
*(An' maybe even a little ugly on the side)*
-Dumb All Over, from You Are What You Is, 1981.
I think people's need even for comfort is in a way a fetish for the need
for survival and procreation. It's no surprise that people who laugh a
lot live longer. And this is fine, but I think expansionism, BMWs,
candy, philosophy, and even sex are all fetishes, things that are taken
to extremes which were originally secondary tools.
You know, if the hippies had stayed hippies this might not be
happening. Perhaps that's not true, since plenty of them did. There
are hippies my age, vegans who farm together and walk everywhere and
smile at people.
But still, you don't write like one who views this largely from an
anthropological stance.
I have a book, Language in Thought and Action, by S.I. Hayakawa, which
for the most part is mildly interesting, but in which he suggests that
in some ways advertising is a form of poetry, in that both use compact,
affective language to induce emotional responses. He acknowledges that
advertising caters to masses while poetry is more refined, but I think
he has a point, and I think you have a pretty extensive grasp of the
techniques at work here. But I'm not sure why. Just something to do?
Or have you gradually become more the humanitarian?
-Chuckk
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2001-09-15 dm...@citilink.com said:
> [...mega-snip...]
>
>If we paid attention, we were seeing that the target of the attack
>was the US as an arrogant global bully "the most powerful nation on
>earth" intoxicated by its own power, too paranoid to actually
>support the cause of liberty when it comes against a friendly
>dictator, too clumsy to avoid getting punched in the nose and blind
>to even the most obvious lessons of its own past.
This needs a lot of work. Much high-flown and idealistic
sound and fury here, but very little practical light.
>Isn't it about time we refused yet another serving of false
>dichotomy and fixed ourselves a real meal?
And what, specifically, might that meal consist of? What's
your ultimate prescriptive menu?
Chuck Lysaght
form. Revenge clarifies. It's human nature to want revenge. Revenge is
healthy. And America will have it's revenge. Question is, how will it
be served?
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:<9nvrc...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
Chuck Lysaght
Naturally your response to my post was snotty. It's the standard
bleeding heart
knee-jerk reaction that is so prevelant in this newsgroup. If I have
my way? It's not my call. It's President Bush's call. I am proud of
our President. He has demonstrated his leadership, and I am confident
he will lead our country to victory. The majority of America feels the
same way. Save a few snotty, idealistic bleeding heart liberals. I
know the difference between revenge, and staying safe. In order for
our people to be safe, we have to make sacrifices. You have to fight
to be free. The freedom we Americans enjoy, has been paid for by the
blood of millions of American veterans. The people responsible for
this attack on America must be punished. And so should the cities, and
countries that have supported these evil bastards.
I suppose you'd rather sit down and reason with them? Wake up.
"Michael C" <co...@mw.mediaone23.net> wrote in message news:<_0Ro7.78011$Hm.8...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
Jonathan
Wow! A great read!
It just seems to me that your desire to see the contrasts limits your
perspective and distorts your conclusions.
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:9nvrc...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> 9-11
> -- or --
> Xenoerotic Response In The American Citizen
> ___________________________________
>
>
>
> "I believe in the absolute virtue of anything that takes place,
> spontaneously or not, in the sense of non-acceptance,
>and no reasons of
> general efficacy, from which long, pre-revolutionary patience draws its
> inspiration - reasons to which I defer - will make me deaf to the cry which
> can be wrenched from us at every moment by the frightful disproportion
> between what is gained and what is lost, between what is granted and what is
> suffered."
I'm not sure why one would become immune from understanding the effects
of their actions just because they accept the necessity. The decision that
some pain must be accepted and inflicted now to prevent greater
tragedies comes from a compassionate desire.
> ...Andre Breton
> (in a footnote to the "simplest surrealist act" passage
> in later editions of the second manifesto)
>
>
> There was one low angle view of United Airlines 175 penetrating the southern
> tower of the World Trade Center that was exquisitely and beautifully
> revealing for its violent composition: diagonally vertical rise sliced by a
> horizontal wedge, the vertical absorbs the plane, red and black burst into
> the blue sky as sparkle and gray falls toward the camera, Hollywood
> spectacle meets Manhattan finance,
Yes we have imagined such horrible scenes in our movies and literature.
The terrorists obsession with creating utopia allowed their imagination
to become reality.
>the banal special effect pierces the
> mundane Tuesday morning with extraordinary, fiery fascination at the moment
> real life meets real death. America awakens from its old dream and instantly
> goes to sleep.
Why do you view a consensus as automatically unthinking?
>
>
> "No one could concentrate on what they were doing,
> and what they were doing didn't seem very important."
> ...an editor of a bicycle enthusiasts magazine
> (commenting on his staff's reaction to the events of Sept 11 2001)
>
>
> From a surrealist perspective, it's not that difficult to understand the
> events of Sept 11. The "frightful disproportion between what is gained and
> what is lost, between what is granted and what is suffered", as Breton put
> it, or as the Situationists put it: "the appalling contrast between the
> possible constructions of life and its present poverty" is what lies at the
> core of most violence, terrorism included.
Yes, one extreme creates another. The awe inspired by this truth
should not cloud the understanding that reducing such painful
extremes is to our benefit. You seem to assume that when these
two opposing forces meet that they will perpetuate or amplify each other.
They can also cancel each other out. If we eliminate one extreme then
we may eliminate the other.
>
> This same "frightful disproportion" is at the core of the spectator's
> fascination with, and obsessive fear of violence.
>
> So in the current context, as in all previous contexts, that "something we
> need to do" is quite simple and extraordinarily difficult: create the
> surrealist revolution. Which is to say desire must be our guide, and we must
> work to liberate the imagination and fully integrate it into every day
> living - all imaginations, everyday, on a global scale.
So the disparity between our imagination and reality make it difficult to
chose unimaginative, or efficatious paths? It is clear there's a concensus
on how we should react, and you view this fact as an indication of
a unintelligent or misguided decision. I view the collective intelligence of
a free and interactive society as having much greater wisdom than
any one person could. And the leaders of such a society are so
numerous and diverse that they are not forceful leaders of sheep that bow
to the will of their power. But simply a microcosm of society that
mirrors it with remarkable precision and responsiveness.
>
> That includes helping people recognize when their desire (to live fully and
> freely) has been falsified (into a thirst for revenge), and that there is a
> need for something quite different than war at a time like this.
But you fail to provide the alternatives or extrapolate how our
response will echo into the future. Where would your limits be in
preventing the world from suffering another, say, Hitler?
>
>
> "...in a Situationist city there wouldn't be a 110 story tower
> held up only by the tension between the top and the bottom."
> ...Kubhlai
> (in a post to a situationist mailing list)
>
>
> It's easy enough to see how flying large passenger jets into buildings full
> of people runs counter to a surrealist revolution. As convulsively beautiful
> as some of the images were, the brutally flawed brilliance of turning one
> icon of global commercialization against others was clearly not intended to
> liberate imaginations, but rather to imprison them (to say nothing about
> those deliberately sacrificed and destroyed).
>
> The subsequent recouperation of this event, the use of it by the existing
> order to further secure and enhance its position was predictable.
In a perfect democracy it would not be possible to tell whether the
government is leading the people, or the other way around. I feel
this democracy is close enough to argue that they are doing the
people's bidding. I may not win the argument but I doubt I'll lose.
>
> By the time networks did a cross-fade to transform the wide-eyed "gee-wiz"
> of the morning show hosts into a somber star anchor melodrama, the typical
> preservation pattern was in full dismal display.
>
> The "experts" showed up for their obligatory speculations, and the siege
> mentality was quickly established, reinforced by close-ups of the burning
> towers, shots of emergency personnel scrambling, tape loops of the second
> plane hitting the south tower, repeated references to Pearl Harbor, "war
> zones", etc. The pornography of holy blood in service to the dissolution.
Fascination with pain is somehow perverse?
"I like a look of agony,
because I know it's true.
Men do not sham convulsion,
or simulate a throe"
Or is it a part of a search for truth and guidance? I see nothing menacing
in the coverage, quite the opposite, the flood of coverage from every
conceivable angle serves to form a wiser concensus.
>
>
> The attack was personalized for the TV viewer even as he/she was reduced to
> spectator. Interviews in the rubble: a guy who was walking to work and saw
> the planes hit; a husband looking for his wife; a wife looking for her
> husband, child clinging to her arm. Of course, there was no easy access to
> established box-office magnets, but the full power of public relations made
> as many starlets out of the merely startled as possible, given the tight
> schedule.
>
>
> We were told that we were attacked because "America is the brightest beacon
> for freedom," when - of course - it is only to often a dark curtain between
> certain peoples and that commodity. Declaring the actions "senseless" and
> "insane" made the population feel vulnerable to further attacks by a
> "faceless coward" we have no way of understanding or coming to terms with.
The images and facts alone told us all we needed to know. The rest is
the inevitable noise any such impact generates. We've just
experienced a black and white situaton in a world of greys. Why
would you be surprised by an equally concrete reaction?
>
> Another boogieman took the stage and far too many seemingly cognizant beings
> are now more than willing to surrender all their options because they can't
> imagine that they have any. They can't imagine they have any because they
> have surrendered their imaginations to POWER, leaving them weak and
> vulnerable,
Who is it that lacks imagination, you or the concensus of our society?
I see in your sstatements a failure to even try to imagine the future based on our
possible decisions now. You seem to be esposing that we should
base all our actions around fulfilling our dreams while all the
time denouncing and ridiculing the very process that is doing
just that.
>with no hope of ever understanding the kind of people who would
> do such a thing. They DEMAND that the government punish the "enemy" of
> "freedom loving nations" because there's obviously nothing they can do
> themselves.
The demand is an action that has concrete consequences. The people
take control through concensus in a democracy. Conforming can be
an empowering act for the indvidual. How would a surrealist see this?
>
>
> "I think we need to get back into the down and dirty business
> [of assassinating our 'enemies']."
> ...James Baker
> (blaming the Church Committee hearings
> into the 'abuses' of the CIA for our vulnerability)
>
>
> So now the USA is a war machine (again!) in search of a target from which to
> extract its revenge.
If the police chase a murderer, does it matter whether they wish
revenge while doing it? You seem to transpose cause and effect
for purposes of making a point that fits your desired view of reality.
Patriotism infects the wounds of every good citizen.
> The US House the Senate both voted unanimously to support Bush's crack down
> and revenge proposal. Remember the Alamo, remember the Maine, swim in the
> Gulf of Tonkin. Many pundits and government types have been heard suggesting
> that we just may have to give up some of our liberty to ensure our safety,
> forgetting that true liberty is always dangerous, if only to those who would
> defuse it.
>
> [And now, as this is written, we learn of more symptoms of this patriotic
> fever: pustules on this legislation that will further swell the ears and
> distend the arms of the FBI - already a pock-marked caricature - so as to
> make it easier for both local and federal cops to "find the bad guys". Of
> course some of us know that, in so far as their role is to stabilize the
> existing order which perpetuates injustice, cops actually are the bad guys
When they become obsessed with eliminating evil, as the terrorists are, they
can be the bad guy. But in this case it's the people that are obsessed. You again
confuse cause and effect.
> (to say nothing of the more overt personal "badness" demonstrated by recent
> "scandals" in Miami and Los Angeles and dozens of other places around the
> country).]
>
> After all, as one of the heads said Tuesday, "the bill of rights isn't a
> suicide pact." Perhaps it is just another treaty scribbled on toilet paper?
>
>
> "It's very, very important that we show the American people
> that the institutions of government remain intact."
> ...Senator Mark Dayton (MN)
>
>
> Unfortunately, the institutions of government do remain intact
Because the institutions of govt stay intact the evils you denounce will
remain under control.
and the pleas
> for security and revenge fit their mission much better than pleas to end
> executions or provide health care. And as the war drums beat louder they are
> encouraged to even greater stupidity.
>
> But it's important we don't just see this as a failure of government but
> rather as a pervasive falsified reality supported on the stilts of our own
> complicity. This falsification depends as much upon the Taliban as it does
> Microsoft; depends as much upon Al Sharpton as it does the NYPD; depends as
> much upon the dollars of consumers as it does the outrage of patriots.
>
> As long as we continue to play the roles as written, the existing order --
> POWER -- thrives.
The stupidity comes from assuming, without justification, that the unity
of the opinions of the people and government show they are coercing
us to act and not the other way around. How many times have I heard
in recent years how aweful it is our politicians follow the polls so
relentlessly and mindlessly? I take great comfort in this as the govt becomes
an extension of our desires, not the ruler of them.
The messiness and complexity of democracy prevent you from seeing it's
true elegance and wisdom.
>
> It's just that the government is center stage today, and the bad actor is
> replaced by a burlesque clown.
>
>
> "And he has disappeared down the rabbit hole."
> ...ABC reporter Ann Compton
> (describing Bush's descent into an underground
> bunker at Offut Air Force base)
>
>
> And what were we really seeing all day on the TV?
>
> The collapse of the World Trade Center. The cutting open of the Pentagon.
> And Bush on the run. And long may he run.
>
> If we paid attention, we were seeing that the target of the attack was the
> US as an arrogant global bully "the most powerful nation on earth"
> intoxicated by its own power, too paranoid to actually support the cause of
> liberty when it comes against a friendly dictator, too clumsy to avoid
> getting punched in the nose and blind to even the most obvious lessons of
> its own past.
The lessons of history are vastly overrated. Change is the essential aspect of
any dynamic system and the present is far more important to deciding our
actions.
>
> Isn't it about time we refused yet another serving of false dichotomy and
> fixed ourselves a real meal?
Your conclusions are based on faulty assumptions. The world needs
democracy, freedom and stabilty which is the dish I wish to see served.
The terrorist act is an attempt to stop this tide of freedom and keep
people isolated and under control of the few.
Jonathan
s
Michael C
Oh yes I forgot, the paper route, then its off to your new job as head
janitor with the Jacksonville Department of Social Services. Well it's a
job Chuck and if you play your cards right some day they may entrust the
urinals to your expert care, it's a goal worthy of a man of your stature.
Alacrity Stone
"Are you on the pad?"
T. Robbins "Half asleep in frog Pajamas"
R.F.
Chuck Lysaght
occupation? I have just as much respect for a janitor, as I do for a
CEO of a large company. You should learn how to do that yourself, when
you get out into the real world. Let me clear up a few things for you
asshole. I don't work on the weekends. I am employed with the City of
Jacksonville. Not with the Dept. of Social Services, but I do know a
few people who do work in that department, and they are fine
individuals. I'm not a janitor, nor do I deliver newspapers. Your
comments are childish. You need to grow up. Bye stupid.
http://www.1avenue.com/lysaghtc/DiaryofaMadman.html
"Michael C" <co...@mw.mediaone23.net> wrote in message news:<6%0p7.79181$Hm.8...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
Michael C
occupation?"
I base my judgment of you on your actions, your speech both past and
present.
You Charles are a "Cyber Terrorist" Like all terrorists you hide behind
false identities and fake addresses you spew a doctrine of hate and violence
based on a convoluted logic that all of histories most vile and contemptible
persons and groups have used to justify their respective doctrines. You
have made death threats, promised violence on individuals, harassed by
letter and phone those who disagree with you, You Charles are a terrorist.
You embody the worst of human nature, you are manifestly two things;
ignorant and without principle.
mdc
Paula
Dear Michael,
many Americans are hurting now and so I say this with all respect and
I do not mena to hurt your feelings at all, but now is surely not the
time for you to provoke ill-feeling and animosity.
If you think of Our Lord Jesus and ask yourself what advice he would
give you then I dare to summarise it as "love is the thing, hate
isn't".
May you find a gentler path and overcome your hate and loneliness,
kindest regards
Paula
PS do we know that everyone on the Group is safe? Has anyone heard
from George Tollis?
Chuck Lysaght
"Michael C" <co...@mw.mediaone23.net> wrote in message news:<6%0p7.79181$Hm.8...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
Aidan Tynan
>Dear Michael,
>
>many Americans are hurting now and so I say this with all respect and
>I do not mena to hurt your feelings at all, but now is surely not the
>time for you to provoke ill-feeling and animosity.
>
>If you think of Our Lord Jesus and ask yourself what advice he
Wouldn't you like to canker yourself even further by invoking the Lord Jerry
Fallwell?
-Aidan
j r sherman
did you miss anything?
no. very precise.
j r sherman
Michael C
Do you know me have we met before? Were you with me thirty years ago on
that street corner in Picayune Mississippi? Was twenty years ago as we sat
in the boardroom of the newspaper where we worked deciding who was going to
win the next local election.
Or was it ten years ago, Montana that must be it.
Paula, I have no feelings that can be hurt and neither hate to disseminate
nor loneliness to lament just a love of truth. You have assumed a great
deal in your post I will assume no facts about yourself only those expressly
stated in your post and so I can state;
No, you do not know me
Dale Houstman
> Paula,
>
> Do you know me have we met before? Were you with me thirty years ago on
> that street corner in Picayune Mississippi? Was twenty years ago as we sat
> in the boardroom of the newspaper where we worked deciding who was going
to
> win the next local election.
> Or was it ten years ago, Montana that must be it.
> Paula, I have no feelings that can be hurt and neither hate to disseminate
> nor loneliness to lament just a love of truth. You have assumed a great
> deal in your post I will assume no facts about yourself only those
expressly
> stated in your post and so I can state;
> No, you do not know me
>
knows you, and so Paula knows you vicariously through God. Silly as a
drunken midget on a Clydesdale, but there you are.
dmh
j r sherman
isn't there a Leonard Cohen song that goes like that?
>Silly as a
>drunken midget on a Clydesdale,
didn't Fellini have a drunken midget on a Clydesdale in 8 1/2?
i need to see it again.
most sincerely,
j r sherman
Dale Houstman
"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9o3r2...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >knows you, and so Paula knows you vicariously through God.
>
> isn't there a Leonard Cohen song that goes like that?
No I don't think so. But he does have a beautiful song on his last album
which pretty much sums up what we are all going through together - although
some seem to be more together than others - "The Future": which goes:
"Give me back my broken night,
my secret room, my secret life,
it's lonely here,
there's no one left to torture.
Give me absolute control
over every living soul
and lie beside me, baby,
that's an order!
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that's left
and stuff it up the hole
in your culture
Give me back the Berlin Wall
give me Stalin and St. Paul
I've seen the future, brother:
it is murder
Things are going to slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT
I wonder what they meant
You don't know me from the wind
you never will, you never did
I'm the little Jew
who wrote the Bible
I've seen nations rise and fall
I've heard their stories heard them all
but love's the only engine of survival
Your servant here he has been told
to say it clear, to say it cold:
it's over, it ain't going any further
And now the wheels of heaven stop
you feel the devil's riding crop
Get ready for the future:
it is murder
There'll be the breaking of the ancient western code
Your private life will suddenly explode
There'll be phantoms,
there'll be fires on the road
and the white man dancing
You'll see the woman hanging upside down
here features covered by her fallen gown
and all the lousy little poets coming round
trying to sound like Charlie Manson
Give me back the Berlin Wall
give me Stalin and St. Paul
Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby:
it is murder"
>
> >Silly as a
> >drunken midget on a Clydesdale,
>
> didn't Fellini have a drunken midget on a Clydesdale in 8 1/2?
As clear as I can remember through all this smoke and broken mirrors is that
there was a dwarf eating tuna fish out of a pith helmet as a gynecologist
sang "Who's Sorry Now?" to a crowd of Republican wives bathed in dolphin
blood.
Or was that a Dick Van Dyke episode?
dmh
gga...@excite.com
Fucking Falwell and Pat Robertson were blaming the events of September
11 on the fact that Americans had *turned their backs on God*.
Actually, both those morons have a lot in common with a certain
dissident Saudi who is currently wilderness camping in northern
Afghanistan.
During the big prayer service last Friday, one of the networks had
Billy Graham's son doing a voice over as Jimmy, Jerry, George Sr, were
exiting the cathedral. He was actually advocating the use of nuclear
weapons to kill bin Laden.
Maybe four good things will come out of all this turmoil:
1) That Condit character will sink into the obscurity he so richly
deserves.
2) Airline security people will start making enough money to nudge
them to the upper reaches of poverty.
3) We won't hear any more bullshit about Star Wars technology.
(Why didn't that die with Reagan?)
4) And most importantly, perhaps those cocksucking morons Falwell and
Robertson will finally be exposed for the hypocrite snake oil salesmen
that they always have been.
gg
"Up here, it is on life a brand new lease"
Candice Lee
Jeannekhan
I wrote to Powell the younger who chairs the FCC when I heard from PFAW re:
Falwell-Robertson, Fifth Columnists as defined by the Spanish. I copied the
Resident and a few friends as is my wont
and as you may recall...;> Complaints
to FCC and suggesting who sows hate
ad nauseum may help some feel better.
Jeanne who hopes she wrote it like a
devout repugnant with those trigger words
they use for code...;> Oh, well, some of my stripes showed here and there. I do
not do hypocrite Xtian as well as the pros...;>
Copy of what I sent to FCC and wh 16 Sept, subject: where do I complain?
Mr. Powell,
In the olden days, the term Fifth Column began in Spain.
I see Falwell-Robertson as Fifth Columnists of the worst stripe
in these times as President Bush rallies the country toward war.
Their words, like Robertson's Pipeline/Coneco connections in Santa Fe Springs
and Huntington Beach, California make me queasy. They sow hate of the
worst kind when they blame non-donors to their horrendous wealth drawn
from sad folks for the recent catastrophe. No wonder Arab Americans are afraid.
These unchristian men and their nasty supporters are not American
taxpaying citizens, but leaches who issue a divide and conquer message
contra Democrat principles. They arrange for an Apocalypse with their hate.
No different from the Taliban who torture women and support terrorists;
Jesus would spit them out, imo. They obviously missed the point of His life.
Who licenses their moneymaking machine on our airwaves?
They do not exercise free speech, they prey on the poor and needy;
they spew anti-American rhetoric to sow seeds of discord and fear
among the majority of United States citizens who fit one or more of their
labels.
My paltry pennies to PFAW, Norman Lear's idea for fair play after his
Archie Bunker success, paid dividends when one there noticed how
700 Club operates to sow hate and anti-American distrust to blame of others.
My follow-up through various media shows no withdrawal of their "spiritual"
advice re: who is the ultimate cause of the WTC attack. It was not God, but men
so like Falwell-Robertson and their ilk that I have been gagging and looking up
the origin of the words: Fifth Column to understand their intent. Shame on
them.
Shame on us for permitting their views to incite hate for non-donors among
their viewers and listeners on American federal communications channels.
I wonder if that gay man who helped put that plane in Pittsburgh soil had a
family
who knows about slander and disrespect for the dead who may be called brave.
Thank you for your attention.
Jeanne Khan
You said and I also applauded four points:
Dale Houstman
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3ba5f5b7....@news.supernews.com...
I saw that, and another session also. They were male hysterics and quite
beyond the human pale. Of course, it was certainly expected: this is the
ecology such growths expand best in.
>
>
> During the big prayer service last Friday, one of the networks had
> Billy Graham's son doing a voice over as Jimmy, Jerry, George Sr, were
> exiting the cathedral. He was actually advocating the use of nuclear
> weapons to kill bin Laden.
Billy Graham has done so much for us for so long, now we are lucky enough to
have his son take over the onerous duty of hobnobbing with the wealthy,
famous, and powerful. I would endorse the expenditure to purchase him an
island on the moon.
>
> Maybe four good things will come out of all this turmoil:
>
> 1) That Condit character will sink into the obscurity he so richly
> deserves.
He's always been obscure to me.
> 2) Airline security people will start making enough money to nudge
> them to the upper reaches of poverty.
Corporate consciousness seems preternaturally resistant to the idea that
such measures are useful, although they think giving 14 million as a bonus
to one person somehow does promote value. But workers are a different breed
no doubt: money only makes them lazy.
> 3) We won't hear any more bullshit about Star Wars technology.
> (Why didn't that die with Reagan?)
Mainly because Clinton - given the clear chance to eliminate it entirely -
decided to spend more money on it while moving its components earthward,
thus lowering its visibility for the public, but retaining the
infrastructure and the budget. This kept the kettle hot enough to be
revisited by Bush and his ilk. We have to realize that such programs really
constitute shell games: it isn't so much the actual content of the effort
that counts, but whether or not its promotion keeps the budget up. For all
our inverstment in - say - the Osprey, all we have is - according to the
pilots who fly it - a useless pile of unflyable crap. We have even seen that
military officials were expected to lie about the Osprey tests to keep the
financial committment (from you and me) up to snuff. Has this revelation
stopped the production? No. We are too far contracted-in to pile out so
easily. The stars wars phenomenon is - of course - the largest and least
understood sinkhole going. We will never really find out where that
investment of ours actually went, but I can tell you it isn't funding space
security.
> 4) And most importantly, perhaps those cocksucking morons Falwell and
> Robertson will finally be exposed for the hypocrite snake oil salesmen
> that they always have been.
>
One doesn't hold their breaths in such situations, but we can pretend.
dmh
gga...@excite.com
<dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>Mainly because Clinton - given the clear chance to eliminate it entirely -
>decided to spend more money on it while moving its components earthward,
>thus lowering its visibility for the public, but retaining the
>infrastructure and the budget.
In my best Johnny Carson voice:
I did not know that.
Speaking of Bubba, did you see him pressing the flesh in NYC the other
day? Notice how only the shots of him caressing the grieving babes
escaped the cutting room floor?
It should also be pointed out that Bubba lobbing a few cruise missiles
at that Afghani aspirin factory wasn't exactly the smoothest move of
his administration. To paraphrase that old Frontline special on bin
Laden: A lot of Saudi dissidents looked at bin Laden in a new light
after that event. They reasoned that anyone who could get the US to
respond with cruise missiles must really be somebody.
gg
"You'd practically kill not to be afraid."
The Tragically Hip
Dale Houstman
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3baf3143....@news.supernews.com...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:46:42 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mainly because Clinton - given the clear chance to eliminate it
entirely -
> >decided to spend more money on it while moving its components earthward,
> >thus lowering its visibility for the public, but retaining the
> >infrastructure and the budget.
>
> In my best Johnny Carson voice:
>
> I did not know that.
And you weren't supposed to. He changed the name - making it seem like just
another military project - but basically it was the same idiocy with a new
monicker, just holding its financial hole until another dog came to dig it
up. At any rate, although we are discussing a further investment in this
egotistic nightmare, we've already spent a load of dough on it that might
have given us a real public health system. But - hey - you gotta make
choices! I suppose I doubt if they'll be able to push the damn thing through
now, but I don't put anything past them. They could make a few "theoretical"
changes and claim it is now able to detect terrorists and their secret
conversations from an orbitting Anti-Bad Guy Satellite, and get money for
that too. Who knows?
>
> Speaking of Bubba, did you see him pressing the flesh in NYC the other
> day? Notice how only the shots of him caressing the grieving babes
> escaped the cutting room floor?
Are the rest of the shots him grab-assing good looking black girls in
Harlem? Don't tell - don't ask.
>
> It should also be pointed out that Bubba lobbing a few cruise missiles
> at that Afghani aspirin factory wasn't exactly the smoothest move of
> his administration.
It bordered on the criminal, and - again - recruitment levels soared for
terrorist groups. This was a telling strike, because it is a good example of
our dumb-as-dirt intelligence boys in combination with our top-heavy
military hamfisters, and another President in over his head, but damned
determined not to back down despite any apparent futility and potential
disasters
>To paraphrase that old Frontline special on bin
> Laden: A lot of Saudi dissidents looked at bin Laden in a new light
> after that event. They reasoned that anyone who could get the US to
> respond with cruise missiles must really be somebody.
What the US seems unable to realize is that both the original terrorist act
and any extreme response by us serve as recruiting posters. It seems the
number of young men and women who leave their homes to join these
organizations skyrockets after each event. And the next generation of
orphans that the States seems intent on creating, are not going to have any
less reason to find the US invasive and oppressive. So this is a several
generation problem we are about to create. But America has been unusually
stupid in its relations since WWII, that process accelerating with Mr. Henry
"I Kill Cambodians" Kissinger, and his real politics. If it's all a matter
of practicality and the expedient, why not associate oursleves with thugs
and killers, as long as they can get us something. The CIA is now begging
for more money and more "sympathy" but they were very well funded during
some of their dumbest adventures. I say reduce their budget to $1 a year and
demand "value for money." I doubt we'd notice the difference.
dmh
>
Candice Lee
the best country in the world? 1% of the people make the laws. Yes, we vote in
the legislature but after that, it is theirs. Should I feel guilty because I am
not poor? Fate and hard work perhaps. Not enough for me to ever justify the
acts of those less fortunate than myself. Those with nothing to lose have
everything to gain. I do not think killing innocent people gains them very
much. To truly strike at America they needed to get us on their side in a less
dreadful manner. Yet, I am not saying they are wrong to want their land back.
Now all that remains is more death.
candice
Candice Lee
gga...@excite.com
>Are we wrong for being what we are?
What are we?
>Are we guilty by association for living in
>the best country in the world?
Every year some international agency takes into account a number of
factors such as: standard of living, infant mortality, life
expectancy, pollution, education, etc. and compiles a list of the
*best* countries of the world in which to live. The United States
hasn't cracked the top five in years.
>1% of the people make the laws.
The concepts of representative democracy and mathematics are equally
foreign to you, I see.
>Yes, we vote in
>the legislature but after that, it is theirs.
You don't vote in the legislature unless you are elected to the
legislature.
>Should I feel guilty because I am
>not poor?
I don't know.
>Fate and hard work perhaps.
Not a sentence.
>Not enough for me to ever justify the
>acts of those less fortunate than myself.
Not a sentence.
>Those with nothing to lose have
>everything to gain.
A sentence, but it sounds like an aphorism from Chariman Mao.
>I do not think killing innocent people gains them very
>much.
This is the second funniest thing I've read today.
>To truly strike at America they needed to get us on their side in a less
>dreadful manner.
This makes no sense.
>Yet, I am not saying they are wrong to want their land back.
>Now all that remains is more death.
You should learn to order your thoughts in a coherent manner while you
are trying to express yourself with the written word. Until you can
acheive this seemingly impossible task, you shouldn't try to write
poetry because you can't write even mediocre poetry unless you can
write really flawless prose. You have a lot of work to do before your
prose even starts to make basic sense. I'm not trying to be mean here,
I'm serious. Your poetry is terrible because you can't express
yourself coherently in writing of any genre.Try taking a
correspondence course in remedial English.
Good luck
gg
"I see the truth even more brightly than before
at least in your instance."
Cheryl Brown
Dale Houstman
"Candice Lee" <clss...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010917182815...@mb-mw.aol.com...
Did you have your dog write this? Then it's good. If you wrote it, it's
teetering on the edge of incomprehensibility, when it isn't floating up
chunks of easy dismissal,.the sentimentality of the complicit, and startling
misunderstnadings of reality.
If you want me to answer in such a way as to make you feel better about your
life, I'm afraid I'm not in that business at the moment. But why do you
reduce complex processes/relationships to simple matters of personal
feelings? I couldn't care less if you feel bad about not being poor, but it
might be interesting for you to try to understand the connections between
those who have way too much and those who have far too little. Your degree
of guilt is irrelevant. Do you really think (seeing as now fully 40% of the
homeless in Minnesota for example work full-time or more) that it is just
"bad luck" and laziness that makes so many have so little? Do you see the
connection between the efficiency that certain technologies bring to work,
and (since workers do not control those technologies) the fact that human
work loads keep increasing, even as their income shrinks. Do you really
think this is a matter of karma? When a corporation takes the results of its
laborers pains, gives a CEO 14 million (or more!) dollars as a bonus,
invests in unrelated businesses, and then turns around and lays off a few
thousand workers: do you think this is just a random process? Is it perhaps
the capricious gods having their laughs?
The vast majority of Islamics in the world are peaceful beyond belief, yet
what has it gotten them from America? You feel put upon just from a few mild
comments in a newsgroup: imagine the depth of your emotions if you had had
your family destroyed by Israeli police, or your cousins bombed by
Americans, or any of a hundred other indignities and horrors over the years.
Who do you think trained Israeli secrety police in their methods of torture:
Sweden? No, good old USA.
As for whether or not killing people gains anyone very much, let's just say
the US seems to think so: in North Vietnam alone, we killed over one million
people. And this does not include our illegal secret bombings of Cambodia,
which led to a destabilization of the government and the millions more who
died in Poil Pot's Year Zero campaign. They seemed to think killing
thousands upon thousands of Indians was an efficient method of expansion. We
seem to think killing retarded people in Texas is good policy. We seem to
find the bombing of a 5-year-old Lybian girl to be useful. We didn't mind
killing the President of Chile (democratically elected) and replacing him
with a right-wing murderer. We seemed to love using the CIA to first install
the Shah in Iran, and then to act surprised when those we had lent this
autocratic monster to were not more grateful in the end. And so on. The list
is endless.
Should you feel bad, should you shed a tear?
Who gives a fuck what you do? It's not about your little feelings. It's
about realities that seem to escaped you up to this moment. "It's not my
fault. The poor are lazy and unlucky. someone else is running the show. Why
are those people so angry at us?"
Tripe.
dmh
Paula
> Paula,
>
> Do you know me have we met before? Were you with me thirty years ago on
> that street corner in Picayune Mississippi? Was twenty years ago as we sat
> in the boardroom of the newspaper where we worked deciding who was going to
> win the next local election.
Dear Michael,
I don't believe we have met before and none of those situations you
describe are at all familiar. But please don't worry, it is not at all
unusual to confuse people particularly at a time of great stress.
I was really trying to bring you some comfort as it seemed you were in
some pain and lashing out.
I do hope that this letter finds you in better spirits! We are all
G-d's children,
Paula
> knows you, and so Paula knows you vicariously through God. Silly as a
> drunken midget on a Clydesdale, but there you are.
>
> dmh
Thank you Dale for your kind words. I agree with your point
absolutely. We are all One and we are all His children
kind regards
Paula
Michael C
Odd, a trace of your ip leads to a single modem at the offices of
Netkonect.net in the UK,
Rack9, Southwalk Bridge Road, 51.500North by 0.100West, London.
Deus Ex Machina, could it be true?
"Paula" wrote in message:
Jean-Phillipe
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01091...@posting.google.com...
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news
> 2001-09-15...
>
> [...]
>
> > > ... we must work to liberate the imagination and fully integrate it
> > > into every day living - all imaginations, everyday, on a global
> > > scale.
> >
> > > That includes helping people recognize when their desire
>
> > > (to live fully and freely)
>
> > > has been falsified (into a thirst for revenge)...
>
>
> > "America Burns! Surrealists Too Happy To Dream..."
>
> > "These sorts of occurences are commonplace enough outside the US.
> > Personally, it is strangely gratifying that it comes home to roost
> > now and again."
> - Dale Houstman, 11 Sept 2001.
>
> >"I admit to these, written in early hours and bereft of that decorous
> >and fey consideration that passes for weeping patriotism and solemn
> >apathy."
> - Dale Houstman
>
> [...]
>
>
> > > As long as we continue to play the roles as written, the existing
> > > order -- POWER -- thrives.
>
>
> >2001-05-25 02:52:44 PST
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:<3b0d709f$0$329$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
> > "Paula" <phan...@yesbox.net> wrote in message
> > news:bfc2b1fd.01052...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Why don't you crawl up your own rearend and set up shop next to your
> > > twinky
> > > little lower colon... Just die for
> > > pete's
> > > sake"
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh no, this is way over the top, Dale. The last line is just gutter
> > > material.You seem to have lost control and perspective.
> >
> > Oh - fuck off...
> >
> > And die for pete's sake.
> >
> > dmh
>
Joshua P. Hill
tropical drinks, all full of fruits and flowers and little umbrellas,
and sipped at by a sad suburban housewife desperate to disguise her
alcoholism.
"Public relations"? Yeah, right. I'm there myself in the background of
hundreds of those shots, you'd be surprised at how the cameras are
concentrated at a few locations, and I can tell you that the producers
showed what I saw, less the things at which they felt a misplaced duty
to protect the viewer. Sometimes a better shot, sometimes worse. But
the people they interviewed were standing next to me.
That censorship was in error, I think; it is needed to convey the full
reality here; it is supposed to protect children and keep up morale,
but ultimately, it only serves masturbations like your own, the
pudwhacking fantasies of those who are convinced they are at the nerve
center of comprehension when in reality, they are just watching a
monster devour Tokyo on the teevee screen, judiciously trimmed by the
MPAA so that the maiden is eaten off screen, watching it over the
comforting paunch of their beer guts while they philosophize like
freshman who have just discovered Great Thought or what passes for it
among freshman, and are now to be seen poring over their copies of the
sage of the decade at the corner cafe, listening to a sad imitation of
Charlie Parker (how like *real,* man!) and rotting their lungs with
Galoises.
And that's true from both directions. Because one of the reasons there
*isn't* blood-lust here -- perhaps *the* reason -- is that today we
understand as you never can just what it is that those innocents will
face when the terrorists, as contemptuous of their own people as they
are of ours, use them as human shields. But then you understand that,
on some level, don't you, Dale:
"These sorts of occurences are commonplace enough outside the US.
Personally, it is strangely gratifying that it comes home to roost now
and again."
Or rather think you do, because if you saw it or felt it you would not
be prating from your masturbatory pleasure-peak about gratification.
Oh, you're convinced of course that because, with your superior
discernment, you see through a certain elementary blather -- that
because you see the obvious in our scurry to our sad little mammalian
burrows, because you see the master mice shivering at the unacustomed
scent of predation, you are somehow Above and Beyond the Fray.
Come, don't be shy now, Dale! -- No need to assure us, as you so often
have, that you don't believe in things like talent and intelligence
and all the other bourgeois quantifications that you deny in church,
but practice in life. Ever so 'umble, as you would say. Ever so
sanctimonious (thank you, Dale).
Well, know you're not the only one who see those patterns; just one of
the few who doesn't understand where manipulation ends and reality
begins and, frankly, is sick enough to gain pleasure from the death of
5000 while sanctimoniously (thank you, Dale) expressing your "disgust"
at those who care enough to do what must be done.
You've become so obsessed with the
help-the-AIDS-victims-in-today's-Dior-gown princess that you've
forgetten the victims themselves. No, scratch that: you never cared
about the victims. You hate the princess, because you were raised by
her, or rather her bad half, and never having known anything else, you
cannot see the good in her.
Like the witch who railed at the mirror, you hate and fear what you
are yourself.
Josh
Josh
Paula
> Paula,
>
> Odd, a trace of your ip leads to a single modem at the offices of
> Netkonect.net in the UK,
> Rack9, Southwalk Bridge Road, 51.500North by 0.100West, London.
> Deus Ex Machina, could it be true?
Dear Michael
I do hope you are not in any way Anti-British. We have been firm
allies of the United States for a long time now. But above all I
beseech you to remember that we are *all* G-d's children and my
letters to you have been written only to help you,
kindest regards
Paula
Jean-Phillippe
news:<W1Lp7.15906$lE3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > Don't you just love humanity? I know I do.
>
> I love humanity, but abhor the kind of behavior I've seen from Dale
> and a few others on this group.
>
> For months I've wondered how apparently decent people can read such
> unkind material and continue to say nothing.
>
> cythera.
>
I agree with you 100%. Except for the part about decent people. Yes, I'm
sure there are several who participate in this group. But there are several
others who take great delight in taunting and ridiculing others. This has
been going on for years and no one seems inclined to say anything about
that.
How many times has some wannabe writer posted something here only to be
asked "English isn't your first language, is it?"
Another question: How much has free speech been defended here? All well and
good, except when someone puts up a web page about what an asshole Gary
Gamble is. And then everyone (well, not everyone, I'm sure -- just the
regulars) whines to get it taken down.
I agree that Dale's remarks are inappropriate under the circumstances. I
also think that many things that have been written here are inappropriate.
But this is Usenet. Any coward can say what they like and never suffer a
consequence for it. Unless they crawl out from their hiding place and say
the same things in public.
One more question and then I'll quit: How many people here would love to
kick Dale's ass right now for some of the comments he's made in this
newsgroup? I doubt many of you will admit it, but judging from the responses
he's gotten to his remarks, I'm sure there's a few of you.
So try not to get yourselves into a holy uproar when someone wants to kick
Gary's ass. Or Sherman's. Or anyone else's who hides behind a computer
making unnecessary remarks. Cowards are the lowest form of scum there is.
Jean-Phillippe
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01091...@posting.google.com...
> cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:fadef76.01091...@posting.google.com...
> news:<W1Lp7.15906$lE3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> >>I love humanity, but abhor the kind of behavior I've seen from Dale
> >>and a few others on this group.
>
> >>For months I've wondered how apparently decent people can read such
> >>unkind material and continue to say nothing.
>
> >> cythera.
>
> >I agree with you 100%.
>
> >Except for the part about decent people. Yes, I'm sure there are
> several
> >who participate in this group. But there are several others who take
> >great delight in taunting and ridiculing others. This has been going
> on
> >for years and no one seems inclined to say anything about that.
>
> mid-June
> when I returned to poetry.comments. I've asked several of them
> directly
> to please stop.
> I've also urged those individuals to stop baiting the newcomers, as
> well
> as Charles Lysaght, and have asked the group as a whole to stop
> writing on
> any threads that do.
>
> This, in a nutshell, is what I got back:
>
> 1. silence: not a single post (except from the group's targets) in
> agreement
> with what I was writing.
>
That figures.
> 2. name-calling and baiting from the people I was addressing.
> a joke about my father who died of cancer.
>
So does that, I'm afraid. But they're cowards. What do you expect?
> 3. one post that read, "At one time you were determined to get
> everything
> you could out of the group to improve your poetry."
>
> I suppose the writer's thinking is/was that in order to work with the
> group, one has to turn a blind eye.
>
Believe me, this group used to have some members with integrity. It's too
bad you never met Jerry Jenkins. Or Sam. Or Skye. Or Carmen.
>
> > How many times has some wannabe writer posted something here only to
> > be asked "English isn't your first language, is it?"
>
> Oh thank you for reminding me I wanted to send a post to Gali.
>
You're welcome. That was my whole reason for writing : )
> > Another question: How much has free speech been defended here? All well
> and good, except when someone puts up a web page about what an asshole
> Gary Gamble is. And then everyone (well, not everyone, I'm sure --
> just
> the regulars) whines to get it taken down.
>
> It's the majority, which _encourages the small group through silence_,
> that I find the most troubling and hard to understand....
> I really do not get what it is that _they_ want.
>
To me, it's simple. They want praise. This is a small group of failed
writers who have found refuge here among other failed writers. (Joy lost a
bundle on her self-published chapbook, remember? She denies it, but what can
you expect? And the rest? Well, I'm sure you've read their "work.") And like
any group of failures, they want -- NEED -- to cloak their failure with some
illusion of success, no matter how superficial. So it's a case of "praise me
and I'll praise you and thank god almighty I'm not a loser anymore." Sad,
isn't it?
> A critique from some newsgroup icon?
> That hardly seems a fair trade for pretending to yourself that it's
> okay
> to turn away while the so-called leaders make a habit out of stepping
> on whoever they feel like.
>
> Well, for most people here, that this is my feeling is old news.
>
>
> On the subject of free speech, very few people exercise it here.
>
>
>
> >I agree that Dale's remarks are inappropriate under the
> circumstances.
>
> Dale is one of those who has been abusing people on the group for
> years.
>
> >I also think that many things that have been written here are
> >inappropriate.
>
> >But this is Usenet. Any coward can say what they like and never
> suffer
> >a consequence for it.
>
> Thank you, "coward" was the word I was looking for!
>
Best word I could come up with. I'm glad you agreed that it's appropriate.
> >Unless they crawl out from their hiding place and say the same things
> in >public.
>
> They wouldn't dare. Not a one of them.
>
Gamble has proven that, hasn't he?
> >One more question and then I'll quit: How many people here would love
> >to kick Dale's ass right now for some of the comments he's made in
> this
> >newsgroup?
>
> If the _same people_ didn't want to do that _same thing_ when they
> read
> him tell the Christian girl Paula to "fuck off and die"; when he
> called
> Karen a "moron"; when he told the group re Michael Stephens "kill the
> motherfucker" -- then maybe those same people will decide to think
> about
> it soon. Now seems like a good time to think about what it is that we
> want, and who we want to be, and what we want to create for ourselves
> and
> the world we live in.
>
I've never had anything bad to say about Dale until now. But then, neither
has Josh Hill. But you're right. To complain about someone saying "It's time
for killing" after having said these other things ... he's lost it.
> >I doubt many of you will admit it, but judging from the responses
> >he's gotten to his remarks, I'm sure there's a few of you.
> >So try not to get yourselves into a holy uproar when someone wants to
> >kick Gary's ass. Or Sherman's. Or anyone else's who hides behind a
> computer
> >making unnecessary remarks. Cowards are the lowest form of scum there
> is.
>
> Yes, even when they're people you kind of want to like.
>
I try to like everyone. The problem is, most people show their true colors
in time.
> cythera.
>
A few years ago I posted some of my poetry to this newsgroup hoping to get
some feedback. I knew my poetry wasn't very good. I knew this because I had
submitted some that I thought were my best to a few literary magazines whose
editors were kind enough to point out the weaknesses and what I should do to
improve. When I found this newsgroup I made the mistake of not lurking first
before posting. (I'm sure if I HAD lurked, just for a day or two, I would
have looked elsewhere for feedback.) I probably don't need to tell you what
kind of feedback I received, and from whom. And of course I got a little
pissed off. Not because I believed the poems were masterpieces deserving of
praise but because of the nature of the remarks. (And I'm sure I don't need
to tell you about THAT. The same sort of remarks are made everyday in this
group and by the same idiots.)
The people who were the rudest were Gary Gamble, Michael Stephens, Joy
Yourcenar, Mike Billard, Julie Carter, Morfydd and JR Sherman. Stephens
later emailed me and apologized, and we've corresponded off and on ever
since then. (I have two of his chapbooks on my shelf as well as a few of his
poems up at my web site.)(I'd give you the URL but, as you may have surmised
from some of my posts, the "cabal" as you call them like to get web sites
taken off the net. It's what cowards do.)
Then Stephens had his big falling out with the group. (His explanation can
be found at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1099628721d&hl=en&selm=7sdn8l%241im%2
41%40bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net -- this, incidentally, is the same thread
where Morfydd made the remark: "Everyone knows that Joy's a first class
bitch and Gary's her puppet...") While this was happening, he told me some
interesting things about the group, namely that they -- the aforementioned
idiots -- actually plan their little attacks on people via ICQ. (He showed
me some of the saved dialogues. Very interesting reading. "Hey, let's go
after Julie Damerell next..." and so on.)
I could go on, but this is already becoming longer than I had intended.
Needless to say, there's a lot that goes on behind what actually gets posted
here. It all sounds very sinister, I know. But it's indicative of what kind
of assholes we're talking about.
This thing about Michael Stephens threatening Gamble -- that's really
amusing. I've seen the emails, both Gamble's and Mike's. Gamble making all
kinds of accusations like Mike is a junkie, a wife beater, that his wife is
a prostitute, and so on. Words written to infuriate. Mike responding with an
invitation -- several invitations, I should say -- for Gamble to repeat
these things to his face. Gamble then telling the group that he had received
"death threats." Then the infamous phonecall where Gamble got all
weak-kneed and wouldn't even admit to having a computer. (I called the same
phone number myself and talked to his wife. Same Gary Gamble as the one who
posts here, though he's too big of a coward to admit to it.) Big soap opera,
right? But it just goes to show the kind of cowards who post here, the kind
of assholes who some people look up to.
Then there's Joy Yourcenar's "parody site" http://mcflow.tripod.com which
she created simply to ridicule some disillusioned woman named Sharon
McElroy. That was a whole 'nuther soap opera, believe me. It ended with the
woman's son calling Joy on the phone to ask her to quit, Joy telling the
group that she had received death threats (it's always "death threats" with
these people), Mike Stephens offering to kick the guy's ass, and JR Sherman
offering to pay for the trip. I mean, Jesus Christ, if that's not soap opera
material, I don't know what is!
And Sherman's relentless pursuit of Chuck and Candace. I don't know which is
the bigger nutcase. Plus so many others following suit, making sure that
Chuckles doesn't get in the last word. (There's no fun in kill-filing the
guy, is there. Besides, without Chuckles, they'd have to resort to
discussing poetry. And there aren't that many here capable of doing that
without making complete fools of themselves.)
Anyway, I don't post poetry here anymore. What would be the point? I'm not
that good of a writer, and this isn't the right group for feedback. But I do
stop in from time to time just to see how it's going. And I'm happy to
report that there's always something going on. Some new soap opera in the
works.
I will take back one thing I said though. Not all of the good writers have
left the group. There are a few left. I read some of Dai's work. I like it.
And Sophie's. (I don't hold it against her that she defends the likes of
Shermie and Gamble. Some people are easily led.) And you're not too bad
yourself. Though I do wonder why you bother posting your work here when
there are better groups for feedback. (Of course you might ask why do I keep
coming back every 6 months or so. I have no answer except that it amuses me
to see someone like Gamble deny the things he's said and done, and Joy
denying her failed self-published chapbook, and Sherman bouncing around
saying "I win! I win!" to someone who is just as idiotic as he is. Let's
just say I'm easily amused.)
At any rate, I'll be back tomorrow to read whatever clever things are
written in response to this. And I'll no doubt have more to say. Until then,
have a pleasant evening.
P.S. By the way, Gigi, Bezz sez hello.
Basil
callous manner? If I read the man correctly, his reaction is not
uncaring but objective. The overlay, of what appears to be
callousness, is secondary, and a product of frustration.
Dale's response is that of a man who is not emotionally attached to a
nation, a religion or to wealth. In this, he is able to be objective,
and has earned the right to be so. His response is the response of the
non-attached, nonconformist who has rejected the spontaneous
processing of gut emotion into culturally dictated reactions.
Similar responses are to be found in those who have cared too much -
who have cried themselves out at the stupidity of the human race - and
need to protect their minds from the destructive effects of
unfulfilled emotional needs.
Finally, it is the response of an individual whose sanity is in
jeopardy, for the simple reason that Dale, unlike the majority, is
actually sane - he is unwilling to take on the comforting, culturally
dictated madness that prevents us from truly appreciating the
enormity of the human condition.
Paradoxically, (as I assume Dale is an atheist) such realisation has
been the fountainhead of all the great religions of the world. We
still haven't got the message.
If Dale did not respond emotionally to the disaster, it is probably
because he recognises that emotion is a two-edged sword, directing us
equally to acts of good and evil.
I find it interesting that some members of this ng, who are so
repulsed by the cliche, have not recognised that aspects of all
emotive reactions can be viewed in a similar light. I do not think
Dale rejects an individual's valid reaction to personal tragedy, but
he is repulsed by cultural cliches that merely serve to reinforce the
barriers against change.
However, not all of us can effectively interpose philosophical musings
between the contemplation of events and the gut reactions they evoke,
and common sense dictates that we cannot damn those who are unable to
do so.
The scornful stance Dale takes has its dangers. The primate within all
of us demands expression, and this involves, on occasions at least,
swinging and emoting with our fellows. Isolating ourselves from the
main branches of the tree can leave us clinging precariously to twigs
that in the end refuse to bear the weight.
By the time one comes to realise that despising human beings, but
loving humanity, is a contradiction, and that levering the comfort
blanket of culture from the majority's grasp is an impossible task,
the intellectually excavated moat is so wide that access to any form
of comforting compromise is no longer possible or, indeed, acceptable.
Dale, I can only salute your courage and wish you well.
Basil.
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<u80bqto87cp6dpd4r...@4ax.com>...
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2001-09-20 den...@hotmail.com said:
>...Believe me, this group used to have some members with integrity.
>It's too bad you never met Jerry Jenkins. Or Sam. Or Skye. Or Carmen.
I knew Skye from the national BBS networks back in the
'90s. Liked her poetry a lot; still have a bunch of it
on my hard disk. I'd dearly love to read some of her
current stuff. She had a sensitive, feminine approach
to her work that was absolutely wonderful.
Do you happen to know if Skye can be found on any of the
public forums on the 'Net? If so, which one(s)? Thanks.
Michael C
mdc
"Basil" <bafa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:531c56f8.0109...@posting.google.com...
Michael C
My post was meant as a joke, my last reply to chuck (before kill-filing him
again) was a cleverly contrived bit of sarcasm. You didn't get the joke and
chuck did not understand what I wrote. Where did I go wrong?
"Beseech you to remember that we are *all* G-d's children and my
letters to you have been written only to help you,"
Ok what's with the "G-d" spelling? Your God is missing his o, I must insist
that all future references to deities be spelled correctly how else can I
know to which you refer?
Thank you for your help though in the future just send cash.
Well Paula that's a mean as I can get toward you, anything further would be
cruel.
mdc
"Paula" wrote in message:
Peter J Ross
of alt.arts.poetry.comments:
> Believe me, this group used to have some members with integrity. It's too
> bad you never met Jerry Jenkins. Or Sam. Or Skye. Or Carmen.
Sam, Skye and Carmen have all posted poetry or comments here recently,
as anybody with access to Google knows. Jerry is much missed in aapc,
but he still frequents poetry forums in which the very people you
pretend to despise regularly post. So what's your point? Have you a
point at all? Or are you merely yet another of aapc's long and
dishonourable succession of moronic witterers? I thought at first that
you showed signs of an intelligence that moderated your personal
animosity to some of the newsgroup regulars, but I'm beginning to
doubt it.
PJR :-)
--
I bet the reply is "Thank you for your support."
Dale Houstman
> "Michael C" <co...@mw.mediaone23.net> wrote in message
news:<r2Kp7.80274$Hm.8...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
> > Paula,
> >
> > Odd, a trace of your ip leads to a single modem at the offices of
> > Netkonect.net in the UK,
> > Rack9, Southwalk Bridge Road, 51.500North by 0.100West, London.
> > Deus Ex Machina, could it be true?
>
>
> Dear Michael
>
> I do hope you are not in any way Anti-British. We have been firm
> allies of the United States for a long time now.
Allies? Look, I was born in England, and love the country, but Britain isn't
just an ally: the tired old tart might as well be OUR colony. Truth is, she
has no where else to go since her bottom fell off, and America has her in
its harem, giving her pity pumps to keep a little smile in her old kit bag.
Sea power doesn't mean much anymore, and the weary little woman has to have
someone to accompany her to the dances. Unfortunately, she attached herself
to the modern Rome, but France wouldn't have her for a franc.
dmh
Jean-Phillippe
<anonymous@bogus_address.con> wrote in message
news:tqirup5...@corp.supernews.com...
Sorry. Different Skye. This was a man, though I think I know the woman
you're referring to. I'll see if it's the same one. (If it is, she wouldn't
have posted anything here.)
Jean-Phillippe
Peter J Ross <peter....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3ba97e30...@news.cis.dfn.de...
I bet you think I care. You're one of the idiots who can't resist Chuckles.
By the way, thank you for your support.
j r sherman
"Jean-Phillippe" says...
that Skye? the brain dead leftist? that guy couldn't write. Jerry and Carmen,
yeah, but you're putting Skye in their league? i don't think so.
you need to read more poetry. heh...
most sincerely,
j r sherman
Jean-Phillippe
j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9od6l...@drn.newsguy.com...
Pay attention, Jimmy. I was talking about integrity. In that respect, Skye
was "in their league." He also wasn't a coward.
> you need to read more poetry. heh...
>
>
> most sincerely,
>
> j r sherman
>
This coming from the idiot who wrote:
god is love
by JR Sherman
john 3 - sixteen,
fags zippo,
tied and bleeding to
a fence somewhere's so
we can let him find
the true joy
of jesus' love!
"he who believes in
me shall not die" i heard tell,
before he died,
he prayed to god:
"why has thou forsaken me?"
ya just never know.
one of em' might just kiss ya,
like jesus kissed judas once
and the only folks
who kiss other boys
is fags,
zippo,
finding out
the true joy
of jesus' love.
----------------------
You need to give up writing poetry, Jimmy. Even your friends think so. You
should read some of the things they've written about you when they didn't
know it was me.
j r sherman
"Jean-Phillippe" says...
>> >Sorry. Different Skye. This was a man, though I think I know the woman
>> >you're referring to. I'll see if it's the same one. (If it is, she
>wouldn't
>> >have posted anything here.)
>>
>> that Skye? the brain dead leftist? that guy couldn't write. Jerry and
>Carmen,
>> yeah, but you're putting Skye in their league? i don't think so.
>>
>
>Pay attention, Jimmy.
of course, mikey.
>I was talking about integrity.
leftists don't have integrity. they have "faith" in outmoded political ideas and
philisophical dogma. they're also not willing to compromise. compromise is life,
compromise is everything. if the Palestinians had compromised, they'd have their
own state now. if the leftists of the 60s had been willing to compromise we'd
have a better world now. without compromise you become marginalized and pissy,
until you get so pissy you start flying jet planes into buildings. if you are
unwilling to compromise, you can't call that "integrity" but you can call it
stupidity.
>In that respect, Skye
>was "in their league."
he was a bad poet, why would he be in their league? and how do you define your
"divine" league? the people who didn't openly call you crazy?
>He also wasn't a coward.
we're all cowards. that's what makes us so interesting.
>
>> you need to read more poetry. heh...
>>
>>
>> most sincerely,
>>
>> j r sherman
>>
>
>This coming from the idiot who wrote:
but as i've told the chuckles, i've never threatened to kill anyone, so i'm
still far out ahead on this deal.
>You need to give up writing poetry, Jimmy.
okay, mikey.
>Even your friends think so.
they're probably right.
>You should read some of the things they've written about you when they didn't
>know it was me.
heh. well, go ahead and post what they said, or you can write me personally if
you like. since none of what you're saying is true, the amusement factor should
be worth the time.
seeya mikey. don't do anything crazy today. heh... that's a good one.
Jean-Phillippe
everyone was AlphaOmegaPitBull.
Run along now. No more bandwidth wasted on idiots who can't figure things
out.
"Joy is a friend of mine. If you need anything for the trip, like money,
just let me know." -- JR Sherman
j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9odcl...@drn.newsguy.com...
Dale Houstman
I don't have much respect for "the left" per se myself, or "the right." I
find both ends of that tired dichotomy to be without much relevance. But the
Democrats (reputedly our "left wing" of the much-plucked chicken) have been
compromising for quite some time now, and they are precisely marginalized
and prissy. And history reveals quite readily that there are times and
situations in which no compromise can be envisioned without so dirtying
one's essential humanity and becoming a "Good German" or - more likely -
just an egg-sucking dog.
>
There really ARE times when one has to "stand on principle" and state your
positions without regard to how they come off "poll-wise" or - even - if
they are sure losers at the moment. This is how ideas eventually grow into
movements, rather than just more nests of political hackdom.
dmh
j r sherman
"Jean-Phillippe" says...
>
>Everyone is Mikey.
not everyone, just you.
>And they're all out to get you, Jimmy.
no, unlike you i am not crazy.
>Before that
>everyone was AlphaOmegaPitBull.
no, his insanity was far different and more creative than yours. alpha was
annoying, certainly, but he at least had some interesting complexities to his
insanity. while your insanity is merely a one note, bullshit-prison-bully kind
of insanity, which gets boring quick and remains boring through out it's
half-life.
>Run along now. No more bandwidth wasted on idiots who can't figure things
>out.
of course. see you the next time you write me to say that you're not going to
waste any more time on me.
Jim Sheard
<dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
Well, with our 'leaders' gibbering in a strange politicolect of poor
logic and strange register shifts, there's clearly a manifesto vacuum.
It must be good to be associated with a tradition that tends to bang
out manifestos at the least provocation.
>9-11
>-- or --
>Xenoerotic Response In The American Citizen
>___________________________________
<Bretonsnip>
>There was one low angle view of United Airlines 175 penetrating the southern
>tower of the World Trade Center that was exquisitely and beautifully
>revealing for its violent composition: diagonally vertical rise sliced by a
>horizontal wedge, the vertical absorbs the plane, red and black burst into
>the blue sky as sparkle and gray falls toward the camera, Hollywood
>spectacle meets Manhattan finance, the banal special effect pierces the
>mundane Tuesday morning with extraordinary, fiery fascination at the moment
>real life meets real death. America awakens from its old dream and instantly
>goes to sleep.
Although it is the case that aesthetics and composition form part of
the response of any viewer watching the *mediated* version of such an
event, it seems to me that it is no more than another layer of
analogue which we peel away. Others included the filmic, of course,
the cartoonish (object vanishes into solid object, leaving shape of
itself), and the metaphorical. Most people watching/studying the
event through mediated images required repeated views to peel away
these layers before - hopefully assuming that we are seeking something
other than analogy - breaking open the frame which has created those
layers.
It is correct that these overlays are an essential part of our
experience, and significant in themselves: but to derive certainties
from them is really no more than a connivance with the media which
produce them.
>"No one could concentrate on what they were doing,
>and what they were doing didn't seem very important."
>...an editor of a bicycle enthusiasts magazine
>(commenting on his staff's reaction to the events of Sept 11 2001)
A news update on British TV was followed by scheduled coverage of
horse racing from Doncaster. Cut to the Steward of Doncaster
Racecourse, who said something like: "In view of the tragic events in
the USA, it seems inappropriate to continue with the rather silly
spectacle of horses racing around a track. But after careful
consideration, the Committee have decided that the best response to
such an outrage is Business As Usual, so let's take a look at the
opening prices for the 3.15..."
Reporter: It's a delicate question, but did traders in London make a
lot of money on the 11th? Trader: Do you want the myth or the truth?
>From a surrealist perspective, it's not that difficult to understand the
>events of Sept 11. The "frightful disproportion between what is gained and
>what is lost, between what is granted and what is suffered", as Breton put
>it, or as the Situationists put it: "the appalling contrast between the
>possible constructions of life and its present poverty" is what lies at the
>core of most violence, terrorism included.
>
>This same "frightful disproportion" is at the core of the spectator's
>fascination with, and obsessive fear of violence.
>
>So in the current context, as in all previous contexts, that "something we
>need to do" is quite simple and extraordinarily difficult: create the
>surrealist revolution. Which is to say desire must be our guide, and we must
>work to liberate the imagination and fully integrate it into every day
>living - all imaginations, everyday, on a global scale.
>
>That includes helping people recognize when their desire (to live fully and
>freely) has been falsified (into a thirst for revenge), and that there is a
>need for something quite different than war at a time like this.
The thing about responses to such events is that they tend to flail
unpredictably for a while, until the the state and/or media catches
hold of the whip handle once more - whether through information or its
bastard brethren Mis- and Dis-. You may be right that there is some
small opportunity for liberation or revolution in such moments, but
I'm not convinced that people's reactions represent an awakening of
the sort you describe. Whilst they may suddenly shed the filters and
baffles that usually screen out the redundancy around them, it is
because the detail around them is no longer patterned and they need to
try to process it all. This is not a revolutionary consciousness,
since it is seeing the alien as alien, rather than seeing the accepted
as alien.
<snip>
...not because there isn't some more stuff worth discussing, just that
I'd like to keep it within bandwidth.
I've found it particularly disturbing to hear the way in which
coherent language and thought progression often doesn't make it to the
sentence boundary, starting with the utterly strange registers of your
President through to the ex-Colonel who proposed sewing the corpse of
Bin Laden into a pigskin "so he won't make it into Paradise" (might
have been an ecumenical stance, I suppose). Media commentators who
report airlines laying off thousands 'as a direct result of the
tragedy' (incisive industrial analysis there). Politicians talking
sternly about the need to dismantle some liberties 'so we all may feel
more free'. Truly, such events are liberating, but predominantly in
cabinet- and boardrooms.
So, it struck me that while this Response can be picked at for some
shaky analysis and for being too agit-proppy for the time, it
articulates some form of dissent amidst calls for some rather strange
mandates. It also seems right to me that the cynicism of the various
branches of the state should be met with some cynicism of our own.
Jim
--
AAPC FAQ and Resources
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
Jim Sheard
Amen, except for the scandalous accusation that she'd hawk herself to
France.
There was a decisive moment in 86 when Thatcher said that she "could
not conceive of saying No" to the use of British airbases for the
outrageous bombing of Libya, neatly demonstrating her utter lack of
moral imagination and degraded complaisance in one act.
Chuckk Hubbard
>
>
> Finally, it is the response of an individual whose sanity is in
> jeopardy, for the simple reason that Dale, unlike the majority, is
> actually sane - he is unwilling to take on the comforting, culturally
> dictated madness that prevents us from truly appreciating the
> enormity of the human condition.
>
> Paradoxically, (as I assume Dale is an atheist) such realisation has
> been the fountainhead of all the great religions of the world. We
> still haven't got the message.
Common enough, atheists aren't necessarily misanthropists.
>
> If Dale did not respond emotionally to the disaster, it is probably
> because he recognises that emotion is a two-edged sword, directing us
> equally to acts of good and evil.
>
> I find it interesting that some members of this ng, who are so
> repulsed by the cliche, have not recognised that aspects of all
> emotive reactions can be viewed in a similar light. I do not think
> Dale rejects an individual's valid reaction to personal tragedy, but
> he is repulsed by cultural cliches that merely serve to reinforce the
> barriers against change.
If so, I find that valid. I think personal tragedy is a result of
change.
-Chuckk
Dale Houstman
"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6G+qO=woR=G+GVb2ur9...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:19:28 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> Well, with our 'leaders' gibbering in a strange politicolect of poor
> logic and strange register shifts, there's clearly a manifesto vacuum.
> It must be good to be associated with a tradition that tends to bang
> out manifestos at the least provocation.
Well, let's just say I am prouder to be a part of a tradition that "bangs
out manifestos at the least provocation" (like WWI and WWII and political
murders) than I would be to be part of a tradition that wipes out people at
the least provocation. But you are free to choose any side of the tale you
wish to wag.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> callous manner? If I read the man correctly, his reaction is not
> uncaring but objective. The overlay, of what appears to be
> callousness, is secondary, and a product of frustration.
>
> Dale's response is that of a man who is not emotionally attached to a
> nation, a religion or to wealth.
Damn right, and this really gets up people's noses.
> If Dale did not respond emotionally to the disaster, it is probably
> because he recognises that emotion is a two-edged sword, directing us
> equally to acts of good and evil.
The point is that I DID respond to the disaster emotionally, but that - as
in poetry - I realized a long time ago that emotions - to mean anything -
have to be expressed in a complex manner that both critiques that emotion
(discovers what lies beneath it) and allows for a discussion of the subject
at hand. Thus, I could have (honestly) told you that I have been sleeping
badly, and that I feel very stressed out, like I'm sleep-walking, that my
job and most of the daily activities I indulged in have lost their vividness
for me. That I run across people every day whom I want to punch in the
mouth. And so on. But I don't happen - like too many here and there - to
think the world revolves about my feelings, or that a detailed description
of those feelings will mean anything but newspaper fodder..
>
> I find it interesting that some members of this ng, who are so
> repulsed by the cliche, have not recognised that aspects of all
> emotive reactions can be viewed in a similar light. I do not think
> Dale rejects an individual's valid reaction to personal tragedy, but
> he is repulsed by cultural cliches that merely serve to reinforce the
> barriers against change.
Yup...This is sharp. It is depressing to me that so many reputed poets so
quickly abandon the principles of the imagination when called to "a time for
killing" and that they don't see through the obsessive patterns of politic
blood rallying, and that they find it so difficult to forge some sense of
why we - of all the easier targets in the world - were chosen. If they truly
believe - as that damn moron Bush would have us believe - that it is because
they are all "mad," or "evil," and that they are jealous of what they have
no desire for, or that the just wanted to exitinguish that (oddly dim of
late) "beacon of freedom" then they simply haven't understood in the least
America's role in the world since WWII, and the blood on our hands, and our
support of the very men we end up fighting again and again and again.
Noriega: a paid "friend." Saddam Hussein, another paid "friend" whom we used
to fight Iran. Bushels of murders in central and south America, corrupt
police/military in the same arena. And - ta da, no surprise - Osama Bin
Laden, himself to whom we provided arms and money and logistical support.
Seems he feels like he got a raw deal: even if we can prove he had anything
to do with this. And our "intelligence"? Those same incompetents who had
satellites which could supposedly film a dime on the desert from space, but
somehow failed to catch Pakistan building an atomic bomb, and to whom now -
by the sweet by - we are planning to send money, and to remove sanctions
brought on them because of that "stealth A-Bomb" to win their grand support.
And Russia - our great "friend" - whom we helped to bankrupt (with the help
of Cargill) and now promise both money and help against the rebels in
Chechnya in exchange for their "full-hearted" aid. We make a few lights in
the sky, create new terrorists organizations, leave a few weapons and a
fistful of cash and hard feelings about the sands, and - what? - that's for
our children, and our children's children to deal with: right now we have to
put on our white hats and ride to glory.
There is plenty of emotion behind what I say. The same "tender feelings"
elicited in me by the Vietnam war and the Persian Gulf war: fatigue and
disgust. It is not my fault if too many are satisfied with little spurts of
mindless patriotism and wan weeping over the dead.
Bloody hell!
>
> The scornful stance Dale takes has its dangers. The primate within all
> of us demands expression, and this involves, on occasions at least,
> swinging and emoting with our fellows. Isolating ourselves from the
> main branches of the tree can leave us clinging precariously to twigs
> that in the end refuse to bear the weight.
I emote plenty with those who are able to appreciate the complexities of the
situation and not just the "gut reaction" that seems almost learned from TV.
People are dead, and I am aware that son many more people will be dead. And
don't think that many of them won't be "ours" if you are into nationalism,
and the dogma of "us versus them." We could all cry forever.
>
> By the time one comes to realise that despising human beings, but
> loving humanity, is a contradiction, and that levering the comfort
> blanket of culture from the majority's grasp is an impossible task,
> the intellectually excavated moat is so wide that access to any form
> of comforting compromise is no longer possible or, indeed, acceptable.
>
> Dale, I can only salute your courage and wish you well.
Thanks. But though I enjoy flattery and solace as much as the next egoist, I
reiterate: it is NOT about me, or about that woman crying on the
streetcorner. There is serious work afoot which will soon kill as many
people as anyone would wish for. This time, very much due to Bush's
too-much-too-soon speeches, the nation cannot settle for a few night lights
and repeated pictures of the same "smart" bomb going down the same chimney.
The country will demand blood sacrifice on BOTH sides, as proof we are
seriously dedicated to war. And how can it end? Since the (ridiculous)
avowed goal is to "eliminate" all terrorism anywhere, once we stop bombing
all anyone anywhere has to do is blow up a building, or hijack a plane to
make a liar of the President. Then we must be back to the dirty duty. There
is no end to it that I can see.
dmh
Chuckk Hubbard
on the same street as me I might add) is a "friend". Who'd have thought
Quakers would be involved in any of this?! I will not yield to
terrorism, we will win, and now how bout a big hand for N'Sync. HEY-O!
Someone on ABC compared Bush's address to Shakespeare. "Friends,
Romans, countrymen!" I guess.
-Chuckk
Dale Houstman
"Chuckk Hubbard" <chu...@paonline.com> wrote in message
news:3BAAF2EC...@paonline.com...
> I like the "friend" thing. England is a "friend".
England is a wonderful place; I was born there and love to visit, but it has
become (politically) a colony of the US; it does this lockstep that is
frankly just embarassing to one who prefers independent actions. It would be
an Uncle Tom if it were only blacker.
> Someone on ABC compared Bush's address to Shakespeare. "Friends,
> Romans, countrymen!" I guess.
>
I saw it: the responses are bound to be the result of
mass-hypnosis/hysteria. It was pretty mediocre performance and - all in
all - not exactly one to remember - even a day from now. Of course, I don't
expect - or even prefer - the roses of rhetoric, but lacking any flourishes
"for the books" the speech was empty of information also. A bad show I must
say. The only thing that would have saved that bad drama would have been a
plane running into the building, and don't think I wasn't hoping. Besides
the congenital idiots, and the "liberals without portfolio," there were
several actual war criminals in the building, and maybe a small handful of
those geniuses who lost the Vietnam War and defeated the farmers in Grenada.
The main point (and several senior military figures have expressed concenr
over this point) is that Bush has now several times set the bar for
"success" so high (the elimination of terrorism no less) that - for the time
being - I can see no possible way we can end the conflict once it gets
started. We bomb 55 countries for 55 months, we send 58,000 men down 58,000
rabbit holes, we destabilize Pakistan (which has The Bomb), and so on. We
quit declaring victory. Whatever "small" (and it won't be small) group is
left only has to set off a few strategic car bombs or assassinate one "high
profile" official, and our failure stares us in the face. Then what do we
do? Pretendit didn't happen? Depending on how the war goes (and if terror
takes a solid hold here in the US, it won't go well) Bush might get that
re-election that he didn't have a cat's chance in a bloodhound hotel of
getting before, but who'll end up paying the price for all this? Well, us
for one thing. I've been trying to keep score of all the money that is going
to be bleeding out of the country soon. It's heady.
Also - on another subject - the airline bailout! Do you know why it only
took three days for major airlines to start collapsing? It's because they
have been operating a long time now on 50% debt load. With the bailout,
we'll be helping them out of their debts made previous to any war, and -
once the smaller carriers are gone - paying them again in increased fares.
More piracy. What did happen to free enterprise? The thing to do of course,
let them take the tumble. Do you really think that all those then cut-rate
airplanes won't be picked up by a few intrepid souls, or that no one will
need to fly anymore, so airplanes as we know them will cease to exist, and
we'll all end up taking the train to the moon? And so what if this did
happen? Business Darwinism; they don't mind applying poor Charles to the
eradication of the poor, but screw "natural selection" for the rich: they
are fish that all want to be saved.
By the way, we all ought to be writing to the White House and Congress,
asking for our own personal bailout: I could use some help.
dmh
Jim Sheard
>"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6G+qO=woR=G+GVb2ur9...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:19:28 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
>> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, with our 'leaders' gibbering in a strange politicolect of poor
>> logic and strange register shifts, there's clearly a manifesto vacuum.
>> It must be good to be associated with a tradition that tends to bang
>> out manifestos at the least provocation.
>
>Well, let's just say I am prouder to be a part of a tradition that "bangs
>out manifestos at the least provocation" (like WWI and WWII and political
>murders) than I would be to be part of a tradition that wipes out people at
>the least provocation. But you are free to choose any side of the tale you
>wish to wag.
Oi, Matey - if you'd read beyond the (wrongly-perceived-as) sarcasm, you'd have
seen that I was 1) engaging seriously with your ideas and 2) broadly in
agreement with your position. Indeed, I've found your contributions on this
issue both intelligent and necessary, have described them elsewhere on this
newsgroup as 'militant and humane', and given them as evidence of healthy
US dissent when discussing these events on this side of the Atlantic. - yea,
even unto a recent debate in Tom Paine's old pub in Lewes.
Grumpily,
Jim
j r sherman
>I don't have much respect for "the left" per se myself,
come on, dale, didn't you call yourself and avowed Leninist, or something like
that? i'm not saying that's bad (for the most part. funny, sure, sometimes).
>or "the right." I
>find both ends of that tired dichotomy to be without much relevance. But the
>Democrats (reputedly our "left wing" of the much-plucked chicken)
not really. one of Bill Clinton's greatest achievements was marginalizing the
left wing of the democratic party. those clowns were keeping the demos from the
white house. this was not a good thing.
>have been
>compromising for quite some time now, and they are precisely marginalized
>and prissy. And history reveals quite readily that there are times and
>situations in which no compromise can be envisioned without so dirtying
>one's essential humanity and becoming a "Good German" or - more likely -
>just an egg-sucking dog.
so we go to Nazi Germany as an example. come on, Dale. let's go to Stalinist
Russia at the same time if we're gonna do that.
politics is the art of compromise. compromise is something all of us do. and you
don't compromise with someone who's trying to kill you.
so why should we compromise with Bin-Laden?
>There really ARE times when one has to "stand on principle" and state your
>positions without regard to how they come off "poll-wise" or - even - if
>they are sure losers at the moment. This is how ideas eventually grow into
>movements, rather than just more nests of political hackdom.
for the most part i agree with you, unless the lives of thousands, perhaps
millions, are at stake. and if helping those people the best way you can,
involves compromise, principle is only a pleasant, feel good luxury.
most sincerely,
j r sherman
>dmh
>
>
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2001-09-21 dm...@citilink.com said:
> [...snip...]
>
> I could use some help. dmh
Now THAT'S the most cogent statement
ever to emanate from your keyboard!
Dale Houstman
> In article <9odkt...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Dale says...
>
> >I don't have much respect for "the left" per se myself,
>
> come on, dale, didn't you call yourself and avowed Leninist, or something
like
> that? i'm not saying that's bad (for the most part. funny, sure,
sometimes).
An hallucination on your part I fear (no matter how much amusement this
delusion brings you). If I MUST (and I DON'T) describe myself, I would use
the term William Kunstler once bandied about: "an intuitive anarchist." As
for Lenin, I have nothing agin him in particular, as far as murdering heads
of state go, but I certainly do not call myself a Leninist, even as I find
it not particularly insulting considering the usual sources of this supposed
barb. You - as I remember - like to refer to me as espousing a "comical
Marxism," but I am much more akin to the sort of people Lenin had killed by
the scores after they had helped him organize small farflung Russian towns
and villages. He knew - as America has learned - that old "friends" grow new
teeth and then bite you in the ass.
>
> >or "the right." I
> >find both ends of that tired dichotomy to be without much relevance. But
the
> >Democrats (reputedly our "left wing" of the much-plucked chicken)
>
> not really. one of Bill Clinton's greatest achievements was marginalizing
the
> left wing of the democratic party. those clowns were keeping the demos
from the
> white house. this was not a good thing.
For me: it's like securing the hen house by killing all the good layers.
Undoubtedly, those "leftists" were keeping the "Good Democrats" from
achieving the storefront, but I am not overly concerned with such small
feats, and less than enamored of what the Democrats are without those who
kept them from grabbing the gold ring. If one is eventually forced to trash
all principles to put an empty suit in the White House, it doesn't strike me
as a very interesting accomplishment. But - at any rate - I was being
sarcastic (indicated by the quote marks) and really referring to how the
press and little monkeys like Limbaugh and other male-hysterics keep
referring to Democrats and the media as being "extreme leftists." A silly
idea of course, but good P.R.
>
> >have been
> >compromising for quite some time now, and they are precisely marginalized
> >and prissy. And history reveals quite readily that there are times and
> >situations in which no compromise can be envisioned without so dirtying
> >one's essential humanity and becoming a "Good German" or - more likely -
> >just an egg-sucking dog.
>
> so we go to Nazi Germany as an example. come on, Dale. let's go to
Stalinist
> Russia at the same time if we're gonna do that.
Irrelevant. Really... I would be glad to use Stalinist Russia as an example.
Stalin also had many of the progressives "marginalized" (in a rather more
brutal and final manner of course), and your repeated attempts to paint me
as a Marxist/Leninist ("comical" or otherwise) are futile. It simply an
untruth.
>
> politics is the art of compromise. compromise is something all of us do.
and you
> don't compromise with someone who's trying to kill you.
>
> so why should we compromise with Bin-Laden?
Who asked you to? As I have stated repeatedly (and obviously in vain), IF
Bin Laden is proven guilty of the recent events (and that hasn't happened
yet), I support bringing him to justice. I never spoke of "compromise" but
only of an complete re-investigation of the WHY of our involvement in the
Middle East, and how our actions in part led to this point. This is hardly a
"compromise with Bin Laden" and I don't know where you picked up this pale
piece of lint.
>
> >There really ARE times when one has to "stand on principle" and state
your
> >positions without regard to how they come off "poll-wise" or - even - if
> >they are sure losers at the moment. This is how ideas eventually grow
into
> >movements, rather than just more nests of political hackdom.
>
> for the most part i agree with you, unless the lives of thousands, perhaps
> millions, are at stake. and if helping those people the best way you can,
> involves compromise, principle is only a pleasant, feel good luxury.
A vastly too vague and undefined stance to comment upon.
dmh
j r sherman
>
>
>"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:9og87...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <9odkt...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Dale says...
>>
>> >I don't have much respect for "the left" per se myself,
>>
>> come on, dale, didn't you call yourself and avowed Leninist, or something
>like
>> that? i'm not saying that's bad (for the most part. funny, sure,
>sometimes).
>
>An hallucination on your part
what isn't?
>I fear (no matter how much amusement this
>delusion brings you). If I MUST (and I DON'T) describe myself, I would use
>the term William Kunstler once bandied about: "an intuitive anarchist."
oh, anarchist, right, now i remember.
that's even more funny. don't take it personally, dale. i just find anarchy the
Joey Bishop of political philosophy.
>As
>for Lenin, I have nothing agin him in particular, as far as murdering heads
>of state go, but I certainly do not call myself a Leninist, even as I find
>it not particularly insulting considering the usual sources of this supposed
>barb. You - as I remember - like to refer to me as espousing a "comical
>Marxism,"
Marxism, anarchy, it's the same thing. one's slightly funnier than the other.
>but I am much more akin to the sort of people Lenin had killed by
>the scores after they had helped him organize small farflung Russian towns
>and villages. He knew - as America has learned - that old "friends" grow new
>teeth and then bite you in the ass.
but they say Lenin was a laugh-riot at parties.
actually, they don't. he was a whining-ass bore. even John Reed said as much on
occasion.
>> >or "the right." I
>> >find both ends of that tired dichotomy to be without much relevance. But
>the
>> >Democrats (reputedly our "left wing" of the much-plucked chicken)
>>
>> not really. one of Bill Clinton's greatest achievements was marginalizing
>the
>> left wing of the democratic party. those clowns were keeping the demos
>from the
>> white house. this was not a good thing.
>
>For me: it's like securing the hen house by killing all the good layers.
i don't find the left of the Democratic party between 1970 and 1992 the most
productive producers in the henhouse. they were completely out of touch with the
average american, and could in now way communicate with the common citizen. they
highjacked the Democratic party to force and agenda that not even all of them
could agree on.
>Undoubtedly, those "leftists" were keeping the "Good Democrats" from
>achieving the storefront,
and allowed the Repo party during the Hitler years(Reagan/Bush I)to piecemeal
destroy Roosevelt's New Deal. bad for the country. bad for people. so i don't
see them as being a positive influence on the Democratic Party.
>but I am not overly concerned with such small
>feats, and less than enamored of what the Democrats are without those who
>kept them from grabbing the gold ring. If one is eventually forced to trash
>all principles to put an empty suit in the White House, it doesn't strike me
>as a very interesting accomplishment.
depends on the battle. half a loaf of bread is still something to a starving
person, don't you think?
>But - at any rate - I was being
>sarcastic (indicated by the quote marks) and really referring to how the
>press and little monkeys like Limbaugh and other male-hysterics keep
>referring to Democrats and the media as being "extreme leftists." A silly
>idea of course, but good P.R.
that's why Clinton was a great president. he kept the total psycho yahoos from
swallowing this country whole after the election of 1994.
>> >have been
>> >compromising for quite some time now, and they are precisely marginalized
>> >and prissy. And history reveals quite readily that there are times and
>> >situations in which no compromise can be envisioned without so dirtying
>> >one's essential humanity and becoming a "Good German" or - more likely -
>> >just an egg-sucking dog.
>>
>> so we go to Nazi Germany as an example. come on, Dale. let's go to
>Stalinist
>> Russia at the same time if we're gonna do that.
>
>Irrelevant. Really... I would be glad to use Stalinist Russia as an example.
>Stalin also had many of the progressives "marginalized" (in a rather more
>brutal and final manner of course), and your repeated attempts to paint me
>as a Marxist/Leninist ("comical" or otherwise) are futile. It simply an
>untruth.
okay, so you're an anarchist, an innocent mistake i my part.
>> politics is the art of compromise. compromise is something all of us do.
>and you
>> don't compromise with someone who's trying to kill you.
>>
>> so why should we compromise with Bin-Laden?
>
>Who asked you to? As I have stated repeatedly (and obviously in vain), IF
>Bin Laden is proven guilty of the recent events (and that hasn't happened
>yet), I support bringing him to justice. I never spoke of "compromise" but
>only of an complete re-investigation of the WHY of our involvement in the
>Middle East, and how our actions in part led to this point. This is hardly a
>"compromise with Bin Laden" and I don't know where you picked up this pale
>piece of lint.
chill out, dale. i also was being sarcastic. here's a non-sarcastic question,
what if we find out that the Iraqi government helped out in this?
>> >There really ARE times when one has to "stand on principle" and state
>your
>> >positions without regard to how they come off "poll-wise" or - even - if
>> >they are sure losers at the moment. This is how ideas eventually grow
>into
>> >movements, rather than just more nests of political hackdom.
>>
>> for the most part i agree with you, unless the lives of thousands, perhaps
>> millions, are at stake. and if helping those people the best way you can,
>> involves compromise, principle is only a pleasant, feel good luxury.
>
>A vastly too vague and undefined stance to comment upon.
how come you always say this when you can't come up with a good response. i give
you en example of principle over politics.
Michael C
"that's why Clinton was a great president. he kept the total psycho yahoos
from swallowing this country whole after the election of 1994."
"Say it aint so Joe" These political debates are akin to treadmill races and
in my opinion are best left to the hardiest of souls but Clinton a great
president! He isn't even a mediocre human being, he reminds me of chuck or
does chuck remind me of him?
How shall we have Bill represented on Rushmore, cigar jutting from a phony
grin, pockets full of cash? Maybe something more sedate, somber looking a
tear hanging on a phony frown? Clinton was the "psycho"
Just my opinion guys.
Michael
Dale Houstman
> In article <9ogav...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "Dale says...
> >
> >
> >"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:9og87...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <9odkt...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Dale says...
> >>
> >> >I don't have much respect for "the left" per se myself,
> >>
> >> come on, dale, didn't you call yourself and avowed Leninist, or
something
> >like
> >> that? i'm not saying that's bad (for the most part. funny, sure,
> >sometimes).
> >
> >An hallucination on your part
>
> what isn't?
>
> >I fear (no matter how much amusement this
> >delusion brings you). If I MUST (and I DON'T) describe myself, I would
use
> >the term William Kunstler once bandied about: "an intuitive anarchist."
>
> oh, anarchist, right, now i remember.
>
> that's even more funny. don't take it personally, dale. i just find
anarchy the
> Joey Bishop of political philosophy.
That's because you seem to be ignorant of what it is. If you were forced to
describe your "non-comical" politcal/social position in one or two words,
what would it be? Please tell me: I need a good laugh also.
>
> >As
> >for Lenin, I have nothing agin him in particular, as far as murdering
heads
> >of state go, but I certainly do not call myself a Leninist, even as I
find
> >it not particularly insulting considering the usual sources of this
supposed
> >barb. You - as I remember - like to refer to me as espousing a "comical
> >Marxism,"
>
> Marxism, anarchy, it's the same thing. one's slightly funnier than the
other.
The anarchists who were killed by the Marxists would tend to disagree with
this comment, which is little better than the junior high confusion between
"Nazis" and "Commies" ("they're both bad people, aren't they?" Although you
admit to being in an hallucinatory state, I expect a little sharper
cognition on your part. After all, you're the genius who always won when you
talked with Chuckles.
>
>
> >but I am much more akin to the sort of people Lenin had killed by
> >the scores after they had helped him organize small farflung Russian
towns
> >and villages. He knew - as America has learned - that old "friends" grow
new
> >teeth and then bite you in the ass.
>
> but they say Lenin was a laugh-riot at parties.
This sort of stuff worked better with that moron Chuckles. With me, if you
keep this self-important giggling up, you will just end up sounding like -
well - a moron. It's all relative.
>
> actually, they don't. he was a whining-ass bore. even John Reed said as
much on
> occasion.
Since I am not defending Lenin, I don't particularly care if he was a bore,
but even if he was, how is this relevant to a discussion on Marxism, which I
am not even having, since yhou brought it up mistakenly?
>
> >> >or "the right." I
> >> >find both ends of that tired dichotomy to be without much relevance.
But
> >the
> >> >Democrats (reputedly our "left wing" of the much-plucked chicken)
> >>
> >> not really. one of Bill Clinton's greatest achievements was
marginalizing
> >the
> >> left wing of the democratic party. those clowns were keeping the demos
> >from the
> >> white house. this was not a good thing.
> >
> >For me: it's like securing the hen house by killing all the good layers.
>
> i don't find the left of the Democratic party between 1970 and 1992 the
most
> productive producers in the henhouse. they were completely out of touch
with the
> average american
I always find this idea totally ridiculous. Do you konw that if you were an
anti-lynching "nut" in certain parts of the South at a certain time, you
would be considered "out of touch"? So fucking what? New ideas always seem
"out of touch." The comment - although common as dirt on the usual run of
mediocre political chat shows - is merely window-dressing for those who wish
to maintain control and resist any change.
., and could in now way communicate with the common citizen. they
> highjacked the Democratic party to force and agenda that not even all of
them
> could agree on.
So an "agenda" is only good is "everyone" agrees on it? And I thought you
were the great champion of American ideals. This is lenaing towards
autocracy of course.
>
> >Undoubtedly, those "leftists" were keeping the "Good Democrats" from
> >achieving the storefront,
>
> and allowed the Repo party during the Hitler years(Reagan/Bush I)to
piecemeal
> destroy Roosevelt's New Deal. bad for the country. bad for people. so i
don't
> see them as being a positive influence on the Democratic Party.
>
Of course you don't. People who espouse ideas that cause turmoil in the
status quo always get blamed for political fallout, but at best it's a
dumbass idea. And you seem to have confused "the Democratic Party" with some
essential American commodity, like Spam or Chevrolet. Parties can come and
go, they do change. Ideas - unpopular at this time, popular at that - change
political processes. If everyone just gave up and said (as you are) that
their notions weren't "good for the Party" so they'd forget them, we'd soon
be in a pretty pickle. By the way: we're in a pretty pickle. To your way of
thinking, these "leftists" ruined the Democrats chances. To me, the
Democrats ruined the "leftists" chances. Six of one...
> >but I am not overly concerned with such small
> >feats, and less than enamored of what the Democrats are without those who
> >kept them from grabbing the gold ring. If one is eventually forced to
trash
> >all principles to put an empty suit in the White House, it doesn't strike
me
> >as a very interesting accomplishment.
>
> depends on the battle. half a loaf of bread is still something to a
starving
> person, don't you think?
Not if that "half a loaf" keeps getting smaller and smaller due to your
"Xeno's paradox" way of political movement. Eventually, that half-a-loaf is
a crmub, and so we look at other ways of achieving "bread-dom." And why are
those people "starving" in the first place?
>
> >But - at any rate - I was being
> >sarcastic (indicated by the quote marks) and really referring to how the
> >press and little monkeys like Limbaugh and other male-hysterics keep
> >referring to Democrats and the media as being "extreme leftists." A silly
> >idea of course, but good P.R.
>
> that's why Clinton was a great president. he kept the total psycho yahoos
from
> swallowing this country whole after the election of 1994.
Yawn. Really - that's boring and without much evidence. I've seen CNN too.
>
> >>
> >> so we go to Nazi Germany as an example. come on, Dale. let's go to
> >Stalinist
> >> Russia at the same time if we're gonna do that.
> >
> >Irrelevant. Really... I would be glad to use Stalinist Russia as an
example.
> >Stalin also had many of the progressives "marginalized" (in a rather more
> >brutal and final manner of course), and your repeated attempts to paint
me
> >as a Marxist/Leninist ("comical" or otherwise) are futile. It simply an
> >untruth.
>
> okay, so you're an anarchist, an innocent mistake i my part.
It isn't really: you insist above that Marxist and anarchists are
essentially the same, so it isn't an "innocent mistake" but a by-product of
the manner in which you think. Unless you disavow (with your usual empty
flippancy) that you think at all.
>
>
> >> politics is the art of compromise. compromise is something all of us
do.
> >and you
> >> don't compromise with someone who's trying to kill you.
> >>
> >> so why should we compromise with Bin-Laden?
> >
> >Who asked you to? As I have stated repeatedly (and obviously in vain), IF
> >Bin Laden is proven guilty of the recent events (and that hasn't happened
> >yet), I support bringing him to justice. I never spoke of "compromise"
but
> >only of an complete re-investigation of the WHY of our involvement in the
> >Middle East, and how our actions in part led to this point. This is
hardly a
> >"compromise with Bin Laden" and I don't know where you picked up this
pale
> >piece of lint.
>
> chill out, dale. i also was being sarcastic. here's a non-sarcastic
question,
> what if we find out that the Iraqi government helped out in this?
Our government has already said he had nothing to do with it, so it's - at
this point - hypothetical. But it's all a matter of controlling the world's
perception> What if we found out that the Amercian government was involved
in assassinating elected leaders? What if we found out that the American
government was involved in running guns and drugs? What if we found out the
American government was involved in carpet bombing an innocent country, thus
destabilizing its leadership and leading to a war of terror and genocide
that killed millions of people? Oh sorry: we ALREADY know those things? What
are we going to do about them? Why do we think - at this point - we have the
ethical integrity to demand anytning of anyone? Well it's because we have
the bloodiest military power of all time. Without it, we'd all be in court,
explaining where we were on the night they bombed civilians in Libya. Start
keeping records.
> >> >There really ARE times when one has to "stand on principle" and state
> >your
> >> >positions without regard to how they come off "poll-wise" or - even -
if
> >> >they are sure losers at the moment. This is how ideas eventually grow
> >into
> >> >movements, rather than just more nests of political hackdom.
> >>
> >> for the most part i agree with you, unless the lives of thousands,
perhaps
> >> millions, are at stake. and if helping those people the best way you
can,
> >> involves compromise, principle is only a pleasant, feel good luxury.
> >
> >A vastly too vague and undefined stance to comment upon.
>
> how come you always say this when you can't come up with a good response.
i give
> you en example of principle over politics.
Well - what you said isn't true. I don't "always" say this, and I think you
know that. You're just using (badly) a rhetorical device. Why do you insist
on only evoking "principle" at a time on a continuum which benefits power?
Where should we begin investigating "principle"? Should we go back as far as
our befriending of Bin Laden (befriending - of course - meaning giving
weapons and money to), or further back to our "befriending" of Saddam
Hussein? Where precisely? It is a nice thing to help produce the cause of a
disaster and then "stand on principle" to slaughter those whom we once
"befriended." Personally, I can do without such "principles." It's the code
of the gangster.
dmh
>
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> "Chuckk Hubbard" <chu...@paonline.com> wrote in message
> news:3BAAF2EC...@paonline.com...
> > I like the "friend" thing. England is a "friend".
>
> England is a wonderful place; I was born there and love to visit, but it has
> become (politically) a colony of the US; it does this lockstep that is
> frankly just embarassing to one who prefers independent actions. It would be
> an Uncle Tom if it were only blacker.
Well we learned all the nasty shit from them, most recently monarchy.
But I forgot the most important friends, our good little peace-loving
Moslem friends and peace-loving Arab friends. As distinguished from the
cowardly evil bastard Moslem and Arab friends.
> > Someone on ABC compared Bush's address to Shakespeare. "Friends,
> > Romans, countrymen!" I guess.
> >
> I saw it: the responses are bound to be the result of
> mass-hypnosis/hysteria. It was pretty mediocre performance and - all in
> all - not exactly one to remember - even a day from now. Of course, I don't
> expect - or even prefer - the roses of rhetoric, but lacking any flourishes
> "for the books" the speech was empty of information also. A bad show I must
> say. The only thing that would have saved that bad drama would have been a
> plane running into the building, and don't think I wasn't hoping. Besides
You could lose your computer for saying that! Seriously, I'd rather
Bush played everything right and even got reelected and was a hero than
to have him be a martyr.
I missed the Trade Center Tragedy Celebration last night. Not much
though.
> the congenital idiots, and the "liberals without portfolio," there were
> several actual war criminals in the building, and maybe a small handful of
> those geniuses who lost the Vietnam War and defeated the farmers in Grenada.
>
> The main point (and several senior military figures have expressed concenr
> over this point) is that Bush has now several times set the bar for
> "success" so high (the elimination of terrorism no less) that - for the time
> being - I can see no possible way we can end the conflict once it gets
> started. We bomb 55 countries for 55 months, we send 58,000 men down 58,000
> rabbit holes, we destabilize Pakistan (which has The Bomb), and so on. We
> quit declaring victory. Whatever "small" (and it won't be small) group is
> left only has to set off a few strategic car bombs or assassinate one "high
> profile" official, and our failure stares us in the face. Then what do we
> do? Pretendit didn't happen?
I wouldn't be surprised. Manhattan will probably become less newsworthy
over the months, and the clean-up will be left to Manhattan. Though NYC
probably has as many people as Afghanistan. Funerals are for the
living, and when the living have forgotten, there's no crime in dropping
the dead like so many fast-food bags.
But remember, as far as the people who believe what he says are
concerned, once a few Arabs are dead, we've won the war on terrorism and
it's time to get F-U-C-K-E-D U-P. Hey, Bush is like that guy from The
Stranger. Maybe the sun is in his eyes.
> Depending on how the war goes (and if terror
> takes a solid hold here in the US, it won't go well) Bush might get that
> re-election that he didn't have a cat's chance in a bloodhound hotel of
> getting before, but who'll end up paying the price for all this? Well, us
> for one thing. I've been trying to keep score of all the money that is going
> to be bleeding out of the country soon. It's heady.
>
> Also - on another subject - the airline bailout! Do you know why it only
> took three days for major airlines to start collapsing? It's because they
> have been operating a long time now on 50% debt load. With the bailout,
> we'll be helping them out of their debts made previous to any war, and -
> once the smaller carriers are gone - paying them again in increased fares.
> More piracy. What did happen to free enterprise? The thing to do of course,
> let them take the tumble.
Save the planet, for God's sake.
> Do you really think that all those then cut-rate
> airplanes won't be picked up by a few intrepid souls, or that no one will
> need to fly anymore, so airplanes as we know them will cease to exist, and
> we'll all end up taking the train to the moon? And so what if this did
> happen? Business Darwinism; they don't mind applying poor Charles to the
> eradication of the poor, but screw "natural selection" for the rich: they
> are fish that all want to be saved.
It's interesting. All the human traits I can identify are derivatives
of the need to survive and reproduce, but in a culture or, more
appropriately, cultures, where these needs are more than provided for,
these traits and urges are fetishized to the extent that survival and
reproduction are subordinated. One thing I came across in a yoga book
is that sex is the only human urge that is entirely for the benefit of
another life; that may sound silly, but it does use a lot of energy-
"protein" as they call it- and yet millions of people invest large
amounts of money and time ensuring that it doesn't produce anything.
And of course unimaginable amounts of money and time ensuring that other
people don't get hold of the stuff we have. Or, in the case of Bush,
ensuring that our centers for managers of managers of managers of
managers are able to continue spewing tons of poison into the world so
those managers can keep their positions and not have to deal with "undue
psychological strain due to unexpected career changes". I'm not saying
I'm above it all, but it is bassackwards.
So where DO I find reliable news reporting, anyway?
-Chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> That censorship was in error, I think; it is needed to convey the full
> reality here; it is supposed to protect children and keep up morale,
I'm surprised they haven't shown the worst. There must be fear of riot
or something. They've certainly succeeded in getting people worked up
without showing the bad stuff; perhaps the plan is to bring it out if
the general public starts to cool down.
And as everyone keeps saying, it is still necessary for people to keep
doing what people do; unfortunately this means most will save learning
about and understanding these things for the evening news.
-Chuckk
j r sherman
>
>"j r sherman" wrote in message:
>
>"that's why Clinton was a great president. he kept the total psycho yahoos
>from swallowing this country whole after the election of 1994."
>
>"Say it aint so Joe" These political debates are akin to treadmill races
they always are.
>and
>in my opinion are best left to the hardiest of souls but Clinton a great
>president!
he certainly was.
>He isn't even a mediocre human being, he reminds me of chuck or
>does chuck remind me of him?
then you don't know what you're talking about, mike.
>How shall we have Bill represented on Rushmore, cigar jutting from a phony
>grin, pockets full of cash? Maybe something more sedate, somber looking a
>tear hanging on a phony frown? Clinton was the "psycho"
a rather strong reaction. well, uncle billy will be remembered for his keeping
the nation in line after the 94' election. he was the only one doing it.
see, to fill ya in on some recent ancient history, after the 1994 election, when
Newt Gingrich and his collection of REAL psychos were swept into control of the
both the House and Senate, about the only person keeping our nation's affairs on
any type of an even keel was Clinton.
i do need to remind you that some of issues the Repo-Psychos of 94' wanted to
tackle once they were in power was to do stuff like repeal the 14th amendment,
ya know, the one about who's a citizen here in the US, and demand that congress
dictate who's a citizen and who's not.
other stuff like end all funding to planned parenthood, public television, any
kind of affirmative action, federal money to schools, amending the constitution
to make it offical that Jesus Christ IS the personal lord and savior of the
United States, banning flag burning, etc. etc.
and the only person who stood in the way of their plans was Clinton. and for
that i consider him to be a great president. his legacy will be what he stopped
from happening. sometimes that's as important as starting up something.
>Just my opinion guys.
i thought you said this was just a worthless treadmill?
Mohamed Ayash
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:9oecm...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Basil" <bafa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:531c56f8.0109...@posting.google.com...
> > Why did Dale respond to the Manhattan tragedy in what seems to be a
> > callous manner? If I read the man correctly, his reaction is not
> > uncaring but objective. The overlay, of what appears to be
> > callousness, is secondary, and a product of frustration.
> >
> > Dale's response is that of a man who is not emotionally attached to a
> > nation, a religion or to wealth.
>
> Damn right, and this really gets up people's noses.
I think what gets to people is his desire to blame the victims and his
endless rationalizations for the irrational.
>
> > If Dale did not respond emotionally to the disaster, it is probably
> > because he recognises that emotion is a two-edged sword, directing us
> > equally to acts of good and evil.
>
> The point is that I DID respond to the disaster emotionally, but that - as
> in poetry - I realized a long time ago that emotions - to mean anything -
> have to be expressed in a complex manner that both critiques that emotion
> (discovers what lies beneath it) and allows for a discussion of the subject
> at hand.
OK! What lies beneath your response? Is it that you have bitter feelings and
jealousy for the "have's" and feel somehow vindicated when anything
bad happens to them? Does this tragedy strangely fill a hole in your psyche
that needs to be filled?
I have felt that way before and also the inevitable guilt that follows when
realizing
you've taken pleasure from the pain of others. The inability to come to grips with
this leads to the following symptoms....
> Thus, I could have (honestly) told you that I have been sleeping
> badly, and that I feel very stressed out, like I'm sleep-walking, that my
> job and most of the daily activities I indulged in have lost their vividness
> for me. That I run across people every day whom I want to punch in the
> mouth. And so on. But I don't happen - like too many here and there - to
> think the world revolves about my feelings, or that a detailed description
> of those feelings will mean anything but newspaper fodder..
But you are so wrong. I found that expressing those feeling publicly
encourages others to share similar feelings and you no longer
think you are the only one that has such guilt. This reduces the
confusion and preoccupation with those feeling and that there's nothing
wrong with having them, or with you. Why do you think the nation
comes together in a time like this?
It's the repression of those feelings that leads to problems. That
leads to the internal conflicts turning outward.
> >
> > I find it interesting that some members of this ng, who are so
> > repulsed by the cliche, have not recognised that aspects of all
> > emotive reactions can be viewed in a similar light. I do not think
> > Dale rejects an individual's valid reaction to personal tragedy, but
> > he is repulsed by cultural cliches that merely serve to reinforce the
> > barriers against change.
>
> Yup...This is sharp. It is depressing to me that so many reputed poets so
> quickly abandon the principles of the imagination when called to "a time for
> killing" and that they don't see through the obsessive patterns of politic
> blood rallying, and that they find it so difficult to forge some sense of
> why we - of all the easier targets in the world - were chosen.
Such extreme events are the result of the obsessions of those
that need something to hate. I have plenty of experience with
those that have such a need and I can tell you with absolute
belief that those types will not rest until they have chosen
"something". A marker for such personalities is picking
the one rallying cry that all would agree deserves hate
And the fervor of the 'cause' is matched by the level
of their own personal desperation. This is true on many
levels and I find the extremism displayed reflects
accurately the level of emotional imbalance. Your views
have become rather extreme Dale.
The US is embarking on it's own obsessive cause, but
the weight of our democracy, the endless discussion
and thought, will eventually temper it and restore some
balance.
> If they truly
> believe - as that damn moron Bush would have us believe - that it is because
> they are all "mad," or "evil," and that they are jealous of what they have
> no desire for, or that the just wanted to exitinguish that (oddly dim of
> late) "beacon of freedom" then they simply haven't understood in the least
> America's role in the world since WWII, and the blood on our hands, and our
> support of the very men we end up fighting again and again and again.
> Noriega: a paid "friend." Saddam Hussein, another paid "friend" whom we used
> to fight Iran. Bushels of murders in central and south America, corrupt
> police/military in the same arena. And - ta da, no surprise - Osama Bin
> Laden, himself to whom we provided arms and money and logistical support.
> Seems he feels like he got a raw deal: even if we can prove he had anything
> to do with this. And our "intelligence"? Those same incompetents who had
> satellites which could supposedly film a dime on the desert from space, but
> somehow failed to catch Pakistan building an atomic bomb, and to whom now -
> by the sweet by - we are planning to send money, and to remove sanctions
> brought on them because of that "stealth A-Bomb" to win their grand support.
> And Russia - our great "friend" - whom we helped to bankrupt (with the help
> of Cargill) and now promise both money and help against the rebels in
> Chechnya in exchange for their "full-hearted" aid. We make a few lights in
> the sky, create new terrorists organizations, leave a few weapons and a
> fistful of cash and hard feelings about the sands, and - what? - that's for
> our children, and our children's children to deal with: right now we have to
> put on our white hats and ride to glory.
You sympathize with
the frustration and hate of those responsible for extreme acts, not out
of the disgust for the crimes of history, but because you have such feelings
yourself. You try to rationalize those acts of terror to legitimize your own
emotions. The deep-seated knowledge that one has gained pleasure
from evil is difficult to come to terms with. You should stop trying to defend
and justify those feelings and try figuring them out instead as continuing as you
are leads only to self-hate and bitterness.
>
> There is plenty of emotion behind what I say. The same "tender feelings"
> elicited in me by the Vietnam war and the Persian Gulf war: fatigue and
> disgust. It is not my fault if too many are satisfied with little spurts of
> mindless patriotism and wan weeping over the dead.
>
> Bloody hell!
> >
> > The scornful stance Dale takes has its dangers. The primate within all
> > of us demands expression, and this involves, on occasions at least,
> > swinging and emoting with our fellows. Isolating ourselves from the
> > main branches of the tree can leave us clinging precariously to twigs
> > that in the end refuse to bear the weight.
>
> I emote plenty with those who are able to appreciate the complexities of the
> situation and not just the "gut reaction" that seems almost learned from TV.
> People are dead, and I am aware that son many more people will be dead. And
> don't think that many of them won't be "ours" if you are into nationalism,
> and the dogma of "us versus them." We could all cry forever.
>
> >
> > By the time one comes to realise that despising human beings, but
> > loving humanity, is a contradiction, and that levering the comfort
> > blanket of culture from the majority's grasp is an impossible task,
> > the intellectually excavated moat is so wide that access to any form
> > of comforting compromise is no longer possible or, indeed, acceptable.
> >
> > Dale, I can only salute your courage and wish you well.
>
> Thanks. But though I enjoy flattery and solace as much as the next egoist, I
> reiterate: it is NOT about me,
All of your writings on this event has been about you, not the event. The
event was just the catalyst for the emotional trauma it set in motion.
or about that woman crying on the
> streetcorner. There is serious work afoot which will soon kill as many
> people as anyone would wish for. This time, very much due to Bush's
> too-much-too-soon speeches, the nation cannot settle for a few night lights
> and repeated pictures of the same "smart" bomb going down the same chimney.
> The country will demand blood sacrifice on BOTH sides, as proof we are
> seriously dedicated to war.
And you will recoil at the unity of America as long as you are confused
by your reaction to the tragedy.
> And how can it end? Since the (ridiculous)
> avowed goal is to "eliminate" all terrorism anywhere, once we stop bombing
> all anyone anywhere has to do is blow up a building, or hijack a plane to
> make a liar of the President. Then we must be back to the dirty duty. There
> is no end to it that I can see.
A process never has an end. You talk of change, yet fail to see the change
occurring
within you now. You exalt imagination because you know there is something
wrong you can't settle and are looking for any alternative. Courage? No, that
comes with the next necessary step, taking a good long look in the mirror. It's
the only way, one first must understand the workings of any system before
being able to comprehend it's effects and behavior.
Jonathan
s
>
> dmh
>
>
Jonathan
"Mohamed Ayash" <UN...@Amman.net> wrote in message
news:9oiij4$66f$0...@pita.alt.net...
>
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:9oecm...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Basil" <bafa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:531c56f8.0109...@posting.google.com...
> > > Why did Dale respond to the Manhattan tragedy in what seems to be a
>
>
>
> s
>
>
Oops! I meant Mohammed!
g
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > dmh
> >
> >
>
>
Michael C
You make a valid point on his first term, he was a needed 'balance'
"i thought you said this was just a worthless treadmill? "
No, just a treadmill, a more fitting analogy would be a football game that
never ends.
A friend of mine, Mack McKinstry authored several books about his
experiences during the second world war he was also a friend and advisor to
Spiro Agnew when I told him I was running for the office of state
representative his advice to me was: tell them what they want to hear, take
no hard stand and run as a democrat. Sounds easy.
Did you know you could buy 'election packages' venders put it all together
for you, web site to bumper stickers? Election laws in my state make it
easy for Democrats and Republicans not so for third party candidates. The
game rigged from the start it is exclusive not inclusive.
It is going to be a lovely game that I play.
mdc
I'm going back to studying meter, less disquieting.
Basil
> news:9oecm...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Let us put aside the psychology underlying Dale's attack on the
mentality of the citizens of the US and examine the possible
religo-economic basis of his assertion that America is asleep(unaware
of how it is affecting the world).
I was trained in natural science and do not draw a line under the
emergence of man, but see our evolution as a continuation of the
universal process and our actions in the light of biology. However,
with the advent of intelligence and self consciousness, a lack of a
universal dedication to self-preservation, as the hijackers so
dramatically demonstrated, was added to the world's repertoire of
reactions to existence.
The animal imperative of survival through the acquisition of
substance, elevated to the level of a religion, is a Jewish invention.
(Forced on them by the rest of humanity) In other religions there is a
whisper (in Jainism a full blown admission) that life isn't really
worth living - Buddha wasn't a happy camper, and even good old J.C.,
in essence, committed suicide when he refused to leave the arena of
his crucifixion.
The Western Christian (read Jew in Christian clothing) completely
ignores the admonitions of the New Testament.
Timothy 6:
8. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and
into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction
and perdition.
10. For the love of money is the root of all evil.
The Western world, and Christian Americans in particular, are worthy
heirs to the early Christian entrepreneurs, who sanctimoniously
declared that their wealth (obtained by screwing the poor) was proof
that God was pleased with what they were doing.
There is an irony in the fact that many countries ban pyramid games,
as the practise of modern economics is a pyramid game on a universal
scale. Not only do people at the top become rich and those at the
bottom remain poor, but modern economics, like all pyramid games, is
based on the ridiculous assumption that the system is sustainable to
infinity.
Modern economics, almost like formal logic, completely ignores
morality, and at times, even the existence of those it purports to
serve.
In the West, the application of modern economic theory is usurping the
territory once occupied by religion and social philosophy. Hence the
fear it strikes into the hearts of many Muslim clerics.
There is little doubt that philosophies (with or without a religious
foundation) have acted as brakes on economic development in various
parts of the world, but it is naive of Westerners to assume that
anyone could have a lifestyle equal to their own.
The money men do not wish to acknowledge we are building up an
enormous and ultimately unrepayable debt. This debt is owed to the
life-sustaining natural economy, which shrinks as the human economy
expands.
Americans are intoxicated by their success, and blindly invite the
rest of humanity to join them in their orgy of consumerism. If just
China and India were to industrialise to the level of the US, the
world might well be depleted and polluted beyond the point where
meaningful life could continue to exist.
The juggernaut of the West is not just a threat to Islam, but a threat
to life itself.
Basil
Jonathan
Or as Dickinson said, "power is only pain, stranded through discipline".
I couldn't disagree more.
Before trying to place any civilization in context with nature one must first
clearly define the difference between the two. Only by doing this can we
decide which 'system' is more compatible or damaging to nature or our future.
There is one fact that first needs to be addressed. The fact that evolution
is not limited to living systems, that the principles of Darwinian evolution,
generalized, apply equally well to any complex dynamic system, living ~ or not.
This recent and stunning discovery seems to have been missed by most
outside the non-linear sciences, and in particular the general public.
http://www.calresco.org/intro.htm
A 'natural' system is one where a large number of variables are set
in motion following simple and universal rules of interaction. Such a system
tends to self-organize, evolve and has countless feedback
mechanisms. It tends to coevolve with it's environment,
is creative and often produces stability for the successful creations
to flourish. Such a system allows the final state to emerge as it 'naturally'
will.
A 'man-made' system is one where the final state is conceived in advance
and the variables and rules are manipulated as needed to produce the
desired result.
In the ideal, democracy and capitalism (and nature) are described by the former.
Socialism, dictatorships and 'man-made' objects are described by the latter.
Western democracies are natural systems. As a result they will
tend to coevolve with it's environment, as in Darwinian evolution,
and often produce ever higher forms of creations and stability.
They will evolve.
More constrained societies, in comparison, are damaged parts of
our ecosystem that are in the process of being supplanted
by the spread of democracy, by this new form of nature.
> The juggernaut of the West is not just a threat to Islam, but a threat
> to life
It is a threat to the 'nature' we all know and love only in the sense
that western civilization is simply a higher form of nature different
only in substance, not character.
When I look at the spread of democracy and freedom, of western
civilization, I simply see a more highly evolved ecosystem steadily
replacing a less competitive one.
The primary difference between the evolution of man and of nature is
our intelligence, which has greatly accelerated the rate of evolution.
We see this as destructive when in fact it's quite the opposite. No more
destructive or unnatural then one species evolving to a new one, except at
a much higher rate.
A world of plants and animals is evolving into one of cities
and humans. Intelligence is an evolutionary step easily as large as life
evolving from the primordial earth. And along with it comes another
great increase in the rate of evolution which means the future must hold
unimaginable wonders.
Now that the fences between so many separate and wounded
human ecosystems are being lifted the earth can return to the
continuous and spectacular garden it has been since life first took
hold, but with orders of magnitude more creativity, intelligence and
splendor.
And we get to live in the midst of this transition and watch it
happen! Life, with a cherry on top.
Our future couldn't be brighter.
Jonathan
s
>
> Basil
>
>
>
>
> > >
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01092...@posting.google.com...
> Hi again. :)
>
> I didn't see this on news2web.com, which I usually read.
>
> I would love to read your poetry. If you ever want to send me some
> and/or write, (warning: I write back :), here is my email address:
> cyt...@my-deja.com.
>
> You know, between this group of "poets" and the equally creepy alt.
> surrealism, I would have thought I'd read everything by now, but that
> ICQ stuff takes the biscuit.
>
> I'll look for more of your posts on Google, and maybe hear from you --
The narcissist is in full bloom amidst the anemic hysteria blossoms.
You're such a steaming pile of sugared shit, cythera. The Mommy everyone
would like to strangle with a jump rope.
You're a blush of genital mold.
dmh
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2001-09-30 dm...@citilink.com said:
>The narcissist is in full bloom amidst the anemic hysteria blossoms.
>
>You're such a steaming pile of sugared shit, cythera. The Mommy
>everyone would like to strangle with a jump rope.
>
>You're a blush of genital mold.
>
>dmh
This kind of mindless and unnecessary ad hominem attack
totally destroys your credibility.
It's unfortunate that you feel so bad about yourself;
you obviously have 'issues.' But that's YOUR problem.
The rest of us don't particularly care to tote your
personal baggage.
Your needlessly vituperative words -- even when wrapped
in that thin veneer of pseudo-intellectualism you're so
fond of -- are, frankly, jejune and boring.
At 50 years of age, you should have gained sufficient
perspective to be well beyond the 'petulant adolescent'
stage.
As our older dusky brethren might say, "Hey, man, dig
yo'se'f."
Jean-Phillippe
Mercury in a bottletop
spilt onto his thumbnail.
He licked it off
and smiled.
Jean-Phillippe
> "Jean-Phillippe" <den...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<eeeu7.9820$cp1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> live fully and freely) has been falsified (into a thirst for revenge)...."
> - Dale Housman, September 15, 2001.
>
> > > dmh
> > >
> >
> > Mercury in a bottletop
> > spilt onto his thumbnail.
> > He licked it off
> > and smiled.
>
> sugar
> and poopies
> in his playground mouth.
>
Just then a VW Rabbit
(with the license plate "IML8 IML8")
screeched to a screechy halt
and out jumped a girl in a powdered wig.
Jean-Phillippe
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01100...@posting.google.com...
> "Jean-Phillippe" <den...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:fadef76.01100...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Jean-Phillippe" <den...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<eeeu7.9820$cp1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > > Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:9p699...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:fadef76.01092...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > Hi again. :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't see this on news2web.com, which I usually read.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would love to read your poetry. If you ever want to send me
some
> > > > > > and/or write, (warning: I write back :), here is my email
address:
> > > > > > cyt...@my-deja.com.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You know, between this group of "poets" and the equally creepy
alt.
> > > > > > surrealism, I would have thought I'd read everything by now, but
> > that
> > > > > > ICQ stuff takes the biscuit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll look for more of your posts on Google, and maybe hear from
> > you --
>
> > >
> > > "We must work to... help[...] people recognize when their desire (to
> > > live fully and freely) has been falsified (into a thirst for
revenge)...."
> > > - Dale Housman, September 15, 2001.
> > >
> > > > > dmh
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mercury in a bottletop
> > > > spilt onto his thumbnail.
> > > > He licked it off
> > > > and smiled.
> > >
> > > He talked about Mommies and wombs and pussies
> > > sugar
> > > and poopies
> > > in his playground mouth.
> > >
> >
> > Just then a VW Rabbit
> > (with the license plate "IML8 IML8")
> > screeched to a screechy halt
> > and out jumped a girl in a powdered wig.
>
> the one with lacy scaffolds
> where the worked men move like birds?
>
No, I believe it was in St. Cloud
Or it might have been Mankato
Where a dirty poet
once drowned six kittens in a lake
shun itchy
> I realized a long time ago that emotions - to mean anything -
> have to be expressed in a complex manner that both critiques that emotion
> (discovers what lies beneath it) and allows for a discussion of the subject
> at hand.
> But I don't happen - like too many here and there - to
> think that a detailed description of those feelings will mean anything but > newspaper fodder..
even if this isn't a flat-out contradiction, i think the dilettantism
contained in a statement such as "emotions - to mean anything - have
to be expressed in a complex manner" adequately shows dale's somewhat
prattish subscription to oprah's carnival of holding hands and
"talking about it" - but never in an honest, straightforward way. no,
dale needs "issues" to hide behind, needs the complex weaving of
undergarments to hide the fact that his penis has crawled way back
into his abdomen in disgust at its owner's unwillingness to let the
blood flow freely. you see, dale doesn't live - he *thinks* he lives.
dales lives via the proxy of his "intelligence". which, i guess, is
good enough for some puppets of the western midnight b-movie dream.
good-night dale, and do yourself a favour - punch someone in the head
tomorrow. preferably oprah. then mr bush. then punch the head of your
cock until it surrenders your subjectivity.
regards from the arse-end
shun itch y
Jean-Phillippe
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01100...@posting.google.com...
> "Jean-Phillippe" <den...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> It's always a new time, and new war.
>
> A pompadour-girl ran by the broken poet
> Who was beating up some mirrors
>
A new dime, a new store
with a monkey in the window
flinging parsimonious verse
like so much simian doodoo
My reflection is a turtle
turned inside out
Bandage me, he cried
in the patriotic gauze of a wiser man
Jean-Phillippe
>
> Dale's talking about feelings in terms of mediated human experience
> reminds me of the title of that tres melodramatic Lana Turner movie
> "Imitation of Life."
>
Yes, and there will be a black gospel choir singing at the end. Please roll
the credits.
Basil
> uncle...@hotmail.com (shun itchy) wrote in message news:<29069155.01100...@posting.google.com>...
> > good one, dale.
> >
> > > I realized a long time ago that emotions - to mean anything -
> > > have to be expressed in a complex manner that both critiques that
> > > emotion (discovers what lies beneath it) and allows for a discussion
> > > of the subject at hand.
>
> Emotions are what they are. That this Dale person has rules for
> "meaningful" (proper, correct) emotions is funny. It is quite anti-surrealist.
> >
> > > But I don't happen - like too many here and there - to think that
> > > a detailed description of those feelings will mean anything
> > > but newspaper fodder..
>
> "A description of feelings."
>
> Dale's talking about feelings in terms of mediated human experience
> reminds me of the title of that tres melodramatic Lana Turner movie
> "Imitation of Life."
>
> Do you know what it is about? A person who tries to "pass" for something
> they are not.
> >
> >
> > even if this isn't a flat-out contradiction,
>
> > i think the dilettantism
> > contained in a statement such as "emotions - to mean anything - have
> > to be expressed in a complex manner" adequately shows dale's somewhat
> > prattish subscription to oprah's carnival of holding hands and
> > "talking about it" - but never in an honest, straightforward way.
>
> It's such a lack of honesty -- that is, failure to embrace the totality
> of his life -- that makes most of his poems read as if they were written
> by some spectator.
> Long-term chronic pot-smoking will really screw with a person.
>
> > no,
> > dale needs "issues" to hide behind, needs the complex weaving of
> > undergarments to hide the fact that his penis has crawled way back
> > into his abdomen in disgust at its owner's unwillingness to let the
> > blood flow freely. you see, dale doesn't live - he *thinks* he lives.
> > dales lives via the proxy of his "intelligence". which, i guess, is
> > good enough for some puppets of the western midnight b-movie dream.
>
> That way he and his lot can remain "innocent" of, and non-complicit in,
> his country's mistakes, while simultaneously reaping its benefits full-
> tilt.
> If there's a little nagging "feeling" that that's wrong, no problem:
> he can always take it out on Candice or whatever hapless person wanders
> through his little space, and even things up for a minute or two, to
> the cheers of "How humane!" by a few intelligent people who have
> stopped paying attention.
> >
> > good-night dale, and do yourself a favour - punch someone in the head
> > tomorrow. preferably oprah. then mr bush. then punch the head of your
> > cock until it surrenders your subjectivity.
> >
> > regards from the arse-end
> > shun itch y
Cythera and shun itchy have difficulty grasping whence Dale is
coming because they seem unable to appreciate his philosophical
stance. This is mainly Dale's fault - his backstreet brawler's
approach to debate hardly exhibits the demeanour of the cool headed
sage.
The ancient Greeks called their philosophers "dead men" because they
were unwilling to join in the socially prescribed expressions of
emotion. It is in this unwillingness to join in the collective wail
that Dale exhibits a philosophical position. Comparing this to
"Oprah's carnival of holding hands and talking about it," only
demonstrates shun itchy's inability to rise above what she/he
professes to despise.
Dale does not "hide behind issues", he thrusts issues forward to be
considered before individuals impulsively act on their emotive
cultural cliches.
Empathy and emotion evolved as group survival mechanisms. All Dale is
asking for is that as human beings, and not just sophisticated
animals, we universalise these attributes and utilise them as the
basis of international policy, rather than tools of personal survival.
If Dale's poems appear to be "written by some spectator", it is
because that is what a philosopher is. The world needs individuals who
can stand back and see the wider picture. His stance makes people like
shun itchy, Cythera and Jonathan defensive because they realisation
they can no longer portray as commendable emotionally driven acts and
pronouncements that are in fact self-serving.
I repeat, the reactions of some members of this ng to Dale are mainly
of his own making, and there appears to be some personal
considerations that cloud and distort what I see as a well grounded
philosophical approach. His occasional retreat into the mist of
surrealism, which I consider to be a symbol of revolt rather than a
true vehicle of change, further alienates him from those who already
doubt his sincerity.
I was interested to see that Dai Crowther killfiled Jonathan. Jonathan
is a one-eyed, inane optimist who would shout, "Goody, they are
taking us for a swim!", as his American ocean liner slowly sank
beneath the waves.
Basil
Bindi
--
Bindi.
==
Whose laser thru yonder saucer section cuts? 'Tis the Borg!
==
"Basil" <bafa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:531c56f8.01100...@posting.google.com...
shun itchy
> coming because they seem unable to appreciate his philosophical
> stance. This is mainly Dale's fault - his backstreet brawler's
> approach to debate hardly exhibits the demeanour of the cool headed
> sage.
oh - dale is a philosopher?! that is funny.
'backstreet brawler'? that is funny, too.
> The ancient Greeks called their philosophers "dead men" because they
> were unwilling to join in the socially prescribed expressions of
> emotion. It is in this unwillingness to join in the collective wail
> that Dale exhibits a philosophical position. Comparing this to
> "Oprah's carnival of holding hands and talking about it," only
> demonstrates shun itchy's inability to rise above what she/he
> professes to despise.
i call the ancient greek philosphers dead because they are dead. their
example isn't what i'd call 'applicable', especially not in regards to
dale, who apparently lost some sleep, or got the shits at work, or
broke a cold sweat. i don't know - he apparently reacted in an
emotionally acceptable way (ie - on his own, and in his own, peculiar
way).
i did not, and do not, profess to despise anything. contrary to what
you say, and you yourself seem to strive for, i neither have no
interest in "rising above" whatever you may have thought i despised.
> Dale does not "hide behind issues", he thrusts issues forward to be
> considered before individuals impulsively act on their emotive
> cultural cliches.
yeah, and he does this using intellectual cultural cliches. you really
think that those who disagree with dale's incisive myopia don't
understand what he's saying or where he's coming from. i know exactly
what he's saying and where he's coming from, but it is his seeming
belief that he is unique in his political/social perceptions that bars
me from seeing him as anything but the pretentious dilletante he
appears to be. one who writes pretty amazing poetry. big deal. it's
not really a ticket to I-See-Clearly-and-Ubiquitously.
> Empathy and emotion evolved as group survival mechanisms. All Dale is
> asking for is that as human beings, and not just sophisticated
> animals, we universalise these attributes and utilise them as the
> basis of international policy, rather than tools of personal survival.
oh, he is altruistically exhorting us - we of 'the collective wail' -
to realise our true potential. as dale houstman sees it. can't wait
for *that*. utopia.
> If Dale's poems appear to be "written by some spectator", it is
> because that is what a philosopher is. The world needs individuals who
> can stand back and see the wider picture. His stance makes people like
> shun itchy, Cythera and Jonathan defensive because they realisation
> they can no longer portray as commendable emotionally driven acts and
> pronouncements that are in fact self-serving.
i don't understand why you keep portraying dale as a philosopher. if
he has students now, i can see that you are one of them.
aren't these 'self-serving' tendencies the very motives that are
supposed to legitmise and perpetuate the social contract? hobbes, i
believe - undoubtedly a houstman favourite.
i do not see them as 'commendable emotional acts'. i see them as
emotional acts.
> I repeat, the reactions of some members of this ng to Dale are mainly
> of his own making, and there appears to be some personal
> considerations that cloud and distort what I see as a well grounded
> philosophical approach. His occasional retreat into the mist of
> surrealism, which I consider to be a symbol of revolt rather than a
> true vehicle of change, further alienates him from those who already
> doubt his sincerity.
the 'mist of surrealism' is his only credible political voice. he
should keep it.
on the same subject, i read an interview with laurie anderson in the
wire magazine. here is what she had to say of philosophical analysis
as she used to, and sometimes still, apply it:
"We had a lot of theories and as soon as we started, boom! Our
theories go out of the window as soon as we hear something and say,
'Oh, isn't that beautiful', and just go for that. We no longer cared
about theory because beauty is a thing that makes you go crazy, knocks
you out. There is no yes or no, you just go, 'Ooh, that's beautiful',
and there's no explaining it. Often I can use language for some other
reasons, like self-defense, to prove that I'm clever or something. Or
just to keep my mouth moving, or hold up my end of the conversation
instead of just not saying anything."
Jonathan
> coming because they seem unable to appreciate his philosophical
> stance.
I understand quite well he is taking a philosophical stance, it is
the absurdity of taking such a stance when the situation calls
for something else. The situation is far too unstable and
dynamic to stop and reflect on the historical reasons for the
event. That is for later when enough time and information
is available to form a coherent philosophical viewpoint.
>This is mainly Dale's fault - his backstreet brawler's
> approach to debate hardly exhibits the demeanour of the cool headed
> sage.
>
> The ancient Greeks called their philosophers "dead men" because they
> were unwilling to join in the socially prescribed expressions of
> emotion. It is in this unwillingness to join in the collective wail
> that Dale exhibits a philosophical position.
It is his inability to see the natural reasons for this phenomena and
the benefit it has that I find disappointing. What he is arguing
against is a reflex mechanism to a system that has been
pertubed. The uniformity of opinion and action moves
the system towards a static state that is more difficult to
distrurb. Less uniformity moves the system towards chaos
and increases it's sensitivity to outside forces. The balance will be
restored soon enough.
You find this troubling, I don't and I have sound scientific reasons
for being comforted by them while you are the ones
displaying an emotional and irrational reaction.
This is the big picture that he, and you, miss completely.
> Comparing this to
> "Oprah's carnival of holding hands and talking about it," only
> demonstrates shun itchy's inability to rise above what she/he
> professes to despise.
Rise above that which is good for you? What would a philosopher
have to say on this?
>
> Dale does not "hide behind issues", he thrusts issues forward to be
> considered before individuals impulsively act on their emotive
> cultural cliches.
It is he and you that are acting this way, in reality. You belittle
natural tendencies and instincts just to be different and create
an air of supremacy for youself. This is a self-serving and
emotional response to what you observe, not a rational
analysis.
>
> Empathy and emotion evolved as group survival mechanisms. All Dale is
> asking for is that as human beings, and not just sophisticated
> animals, we universalise these attributes and utilise them as the
> basis of international policy, rather than tools of personal survival.
The two are one in the same. Acting to prevent future damage to us is
acting as a human, not an animal.
>
> If Dale's poems appear to be "written by some spectator", it is
> because that is what a philosopher is. The world needs individuals who
> can stand back and see the wider picture.
But he is not doing this at all. A mediator woud take neither side
and simply try to encourage communication between the two
viewpoints so they can be reconciled and a more intelligent
view can be found.
> His stance makes people like
> shun itchy, Cythera and Jonathan defensive because they realisation
> they can no longer portray as commendable emotionally driven acts and
> pronouncements that are in fact self-serving.
When emotion. self-interest and the greater good all overlap there
is nothing to be defensive about, there is something to be excited about
instead. All three are served by helping to create a more stable and
civil government in Afghanistan. If you are confused as to our goal, this
is what it is. Why would you think the world would be better off if we
did nothing?
>
> I repeat, the reactions of some members of this ng to Dale are mainly
> of his own making, and there appears to be some personal
> considerations that cloud and distort what I see as a well grounded
> philosophical approach. His occasional retreat into the mist of
> surrealism, which I consider to be a symbol of revolt rather than a
> true vehicle of change, further alienates him from those who already
> doubt his sincerity.
It's his judgement that is in error, so his methods for reaching that opinion
must also be. It is illogical to think that the Taliban and bin Laden is
not a threat to the world and the lives of people all over the world.
It is illogical to think the world, the region or the people of
Afghanistan will be worse off if the Taliban are overthrown. It is illogical
to denounce that which is needed to accomplish this goal. Uniformity of
opinion, patriotism, is a very important ingredient in succeeding in a goal
that is justified on grounds of law, humanity, self-preservation, and
morality.
I'm all for the idea of questioning, but not just for the sake of it and not
when the answers are obvious.
>
> I was interested to see that Dai Crowther killfiled Jonathan. Jonathan
> is a one-eyed, inane optimist who would shout, "Goody, they are
> taking us for a swim!", as his American ocean liner slowly sank
> beneath the waves.
Which kind of system can absorb damage better and is more resilent, an
ecosystem that is diverse, dynamic and large, or one that is isolated, damaged
and diseased? You say America is sinking when in reality we are just
expanding into a new environment left vulnerable to it's surroundings.
Like a large and thriving forest America can absorb just about anything thrown
it's way and turn that into an opportunity. My optimism is justified for reasons
quite rational.
Jonathan
s
>
> Basil
Jonathan
"shun itchy" <uncle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:29069155.01100...@posting.google.com...
>
> oh, he is altruistically exhorting us - we of 'the collective wail' -
> to realise our true potential. as dale houstman sees it. can't wait
> for *that*. utopia.
>
>
I see his desire for a more utopian future in his opinions. But the
concept of a utopian society is a pipe dream that has no basis in reality.
The future is highly unpredictable so it's impossible to make decisions
now that will lead to that pre-conceived utopia. If you tried to impose
utopia, say with socialism, you would be creating a static society that
would be unable to change to maintain that state in such a dynamic
evolving world.
The best you can do is create a system that balances excessive order
against excessive change, or a naturally evolving system. Such a system
provides the best possible environment for any given point in time.
Jonathan
s
Basil
trio. Shun itchy appears to be blinded by rage and takes a swing at
anybody or anything that is remotely connected with Dale, Cythera
appears to be perfectly level headed and obviously open to frank
debate, and Jonathon?, well, Jonathan is either from another planet or
is indulging in a mammoth display of irony.
Certain people seem to have trouble with philosophers and philosophy,
especially when someone like Dale delivers philosophical ideas in a
subjective and invective manner.
We are all philosophers in our own ways - philosophy separates us from
the rest of the animal kingdom - the last P in the four states of
being - the physical, physiological, psychological and philosophical.
Philosophy at its most extreme takes the widest view of existence. It
strains to be released from psychology, the mental strategies for the
continuance of existence. In this it tends to be viewed by some as
anti-existence.
Those who are not of a philosophical bent see philosophy as useless
theorizing (posturing), and so it is, to those who are interested in
survival (however sophisticated or complex) as a physical possibility,
rather than existence as a state to be contemplated.
I willingly accept that philosophy may be the last refuge of the
wounded individual, but this does not bar it from being the purest
view of existence available to us. A philosophy need not be a warped
view of life conjured up by an individual to justify his stance
against some perceived injury life has dealt him.
I do not agree with Dale's insistence that surrealism is the way to
revelation and change. I may be doing Dale an injustice, but it
appears to me he embraced surrealism as someone might religion.
Surrealism demands that we question the norm (apparent reality), but
this questioning does not have to arise by embracing an extant system
of thought. Buddha, it is said, began his philosophical quest after
witnessing disease, old age and death; a particular turn of mind and
similar experiences induced me at an early age to consider the wider
implications of my life and existence in general. (Otto Rank, while
analysing the mentality of artists, pointed out that they were not
necessarily troubled by the problems in life but the problem of life.)
I find it annoying when small minded people look on individuals who
take philosophical stances as smart-arses who boost their egos by
looking down on those they consider to be lesser mortals. Philosophy
is not a stick to be wielded when one feels like it - many people
think consistently in a philosophical way because a certain brain
chemistry and/or life experiences demand they do so.
Dale's ideas do not represent something new to me - aspects of what
Dale is saying just happen to intersect many of the conclusions I have
arrived at over the years.
My plea, and I believe Dale's plea, is that we universalise the
feelings which in the past have served to preserve small units of
humanity - in other words, translate aspects of our psychology into
philosophy. Only when empathy, sympathy, compassion and all the other
fellow feelings are universalised do they become truly laudable.
Dale's message was lost because he had alienated many people by his
aggressive approach. I believe he was of the opinion that expressing
his emotions was of no value, but pointing out the true cause of the
tragedy, which was being and pushed further away from acknowledgement
by emotional responses, however natural, was of value. I do not
believe he is the big unfeeling bastard many consider him to be.
This thinking and acting on a universal scale does not only apply to
our relationships with our fellow human beings, but to the collective
good husbandry of all the systems that make up the biosphere.
It really is a matter of waking up.
"If man is the more normal, healthy and happy the more he can...
successfully... repress, displace, deny, rationalise, dramatise
himself and deceive others, then it follows that the suffering of the
neurotic comes....from painful truth."
"........the essence of normality is the refusal of reality." (Otto
Rank)
Quotes from Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death.
Basil.
cyt...@my-deja.com (cythera) wrote in message news:<fadef76.01100...@posting.google.com>...
> bafa...@xtra.co.nz (Basil) wrote in message news:<531c56f8.01100...@posting.google.com>...
> > cyt...@my-deja.com (cythera) wrote in message news:<fadef76.01100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > uncle...@hotmail.com (shun itchy) wrote in message news:<29069155.01100...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Cythera and shun itchy have difficulty grasping whence Dale is
> > coming
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > because they seem unable to appreciate his philosophical
> > stance.
>
> It's easy to feel kindly toward people on the other side of the world,
> even when we are told they're our enemy. But if you talk about the
> importance of understanding them, and of looking at the root cause of
> hate, yet won't do the same for the people around you, then yes that
> is a philosophical stance I can have no appreciation for.
>
> > This is mainly Dale's fault - his backstreet brawler's
> > approach to debate hardly exhibits the demeanour of the cool headed
> > sage.
>
> > The ancient Greeks called their philosophers "dead men" because they
> > were unwilling to join in the socially prescribed expressions of
> > emotion.
>
> Basil, I think if you read the group more extensively, you will be able
> to tell who is popular here and see that that group all pretty much
> exhibits the same set of "socially prescribed expressions of emotion."
> In this particular group, (and I am a person who loves to watch people
> and groups, by-the-way), the expression of emotion is largely _withheld_,
> both in the chats and in the poetry. The one exception to this is
> anger.
>
> Then there are the people who are more open and fully expressive, and
> since they don't conform to this group's standards (set sometime in the
> mid-90's), they either get pushed to the margins, or choose to be there.
> Most people in the latter group post occasionally and won't make waves.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Empathy and emotion evolved as group survival mechanisms.
>
> There are examples from Neaderthal culture which would indicate that
> empathy (love) was experienced and expressed much as it is today.
>
> > All Dale is asking for is that as human beings, and not just
> > sophisticated animals, we universalise these attributes and utilise
> > them as the basis of international policy, rather than tools of
> > personal survival.
>
> "Show, not tell." (a guideline for writers and other living humans.)
>
> > If Dale's poems appear to be "written by some spectator", it is
> > because that is what a philosopher is.
>
> Philosophy is not poetry.
>
> > The world needs individuals who can stand back and see the wider
> > picture.
>
> Yes.
>
> If the world need poets (or philosophers), it must be time that more
> of them embrace the full spectrum of human emotion.
>
> > His stance makes people like shun itchy, Cythera and Jonathan defensive
> > because they realisation they can no longer portray as commendable
> > emotionally driven acts and pronouncements that are in fact
> > self-serving.
>
> I thought you said above that emotions _are_ self-serving.
>
> Again, I courage you to read the group. I have objected to emotionally
> driven (I suppose) and downright cruel posts on this group for months.
> It used to be jammed with people who rarely/never posted a poem or
> critique but were here to hang out and take their little piss-takes at
> the group scapegoats. Almost _no one_ objected -- why? Trying to solve
> that mystery, with its accompanying philosophical questions, is a large
> part of what keeps drawing me here.
>
> > I repeat, the reactions of some members of this ng to Dale are mainly
> > of his own making,
>
> > and there appears to be some personal considerations that cloud and
> > distort what I see as a well grounded philosophical approach.
>
> The approach is untenable in the real world, as are those personal
> considerations.
>
> > His occasional retreat into the mist of surrealism, which I consider to
> > be a symbol of revolt
>
> If you perceive a mist, it isn't surrealism. Also, surrealism isn't a
> symbol.
>
> > rather than a true vehicle of change,
>
> The true vehicle of change is a human being.
>
> > further alienates him from those who already doubt his sincerity.
> >
> > I was interested to see that Dai Crowther killfiled Jonathan.
>
> Jonathan occasionally writes "troll" posts in order to get and observe
> reactions.
>
> cythera.
>
> > Basil
Dale Houstman
>
> I do not agree with Dale's insistence that surrealism is the way to
> revelation and change.
Where did I insist on such a thing? I am not a recruiter, and despise the
activity in all realms.
>I may be doing Dale an injustice, but it
> appears to me he embraced surrealism as someone might religion.
And you would be incorrect. Surrealism is NOT a system of set rules but a
philosophy of the individual imagination, and in no way constitutes a
religion, and I certainly haven't "embraced it" like one. Fact is I argue
with many of its oldest claims (as did the original surrealists themselves),
and do not hold its "luminaries" up as saints, if only because this is an
insult to myself and to the core essence of surrealism itself. My
questioning stance vis a vis the world and its ensalvement of the
imagination pre-existed my discovery of surrealism, and so only found a
language of explication in the existence of the movement.
> Surrealism demands that we question the norm (apparent reality), but
> this questioning does not have to arise by embracing an extant system
> of thought.
Again - where have I insisted on such a thing? And one must recall that it
was Breton who was most concerned that surrealism NOT become a system after
his death, that it always be a flexible instrumentation. Thus, surrealists -
as a group - make it a habit to reinvestigate (sometimes to the point of
aggravation) all the old conceptions, and to be on the look-out for new
avenues. I have spent a lot of time in the last year or so writing texts
which attempt to put surrealism "in the hotseat" and to demand of it a
clearer sight. Mainly, I am an intuitive rather than a theoretical
"adherent" of the movement, and only "joined up" with others because of the
potential for further experiments that would lie outside mere literature and
aesthetics, which have a tendency (arm in arm with academia) to become a
sort of cozy cage.
>
> My plea, and I believe Dale's plea, is that we universalise the
> feelings which in the past have served to preserve small units of
> humanity - in other words, translate aspects of our psychology into
> philosophy. Only when empathy, sympathy, compassion and all the other
> fellow feelings are universalised do they become truly laudable.
I think you are thinking too hard.
>
> Dale's message was lost because he had alienated many people by his
> aggressive approach. I believe he was of the opinion that expressing
> his emotions was of no value, but pointing out the true cause of the
> tragedy, which was being and pushed further away from acknowledgement
> by emotional responses, however natural, was of value. I do not
> believe he is the big unfeeling bastard many consider him to be.
I wouldn't go that far. But I will say that aspects of the recent "debates"
(and most of them - including cythera's which you excuse for no apparent
reason- hardly rise to the demands of that word, but seem more like the
stuff of talking dogs with a tracheotomy) remind me of an old concern: one
would attend a movie and later analyze it in as many ways as they could:
cinematography, acting, script, lighting, editing, etc. Many would say "why
can't you just feel the experience" and I can not understand this: I never
saw a contradication between a deeper understanding of anything and an
emotional response to that thing. Quite the contrary. So it is here: cythera
is acting like a burnt loveseat because she perceived that her feelings were
not the model we all took on without thought, and so she became impossible,
telling lies about myself and others, and claiming she was the one being put
upon. All in a day's work for a narcissist of course. She is the aggressive
and dictatorial figure in all this, on a raging pout because she misread
something and now unable to admit her mistake, mad because she is not the
paradigm for everyone's responses. So she lies and screams and - above all
else - cries like a baby deprived of milk. Pride-narcissism, etc. Truth is,
if she had read what was written with a clear mind (instead of using that
turgid stump) and had then clearly and calmly expressed hesitations and
disagreements which we found to be pertinent, the entire document
("xenoerotic response") might have benfited from an intelligent person's
input, and she would now be part creator of that document, having put her
imaginative stamp upon it. Instead, she chose to feel as if she were the
victim of the recent events, as if it were her emotions that were topmost in
the world's considerations. Pure drivel of course.
All the rest of the droolers are expected distractions from human life, but
cythera is the ugly nut in the bag, because she once claimed to be a
surrealist. Instead she is a sort of emotional nazi, demanding that we all
emote in step with her or face the consquences. She is narcissistic enough
to think (and I use the verb loosely) that I am actually "afraid" of her
presence, but people are not frightened by rabid beetles, and a lily with a
headache.
dmh
Texas Max King
"Basil" in defense of philosophy indulged:
>and Jonathon?, well, Jonathan is either from another planet or
> is indulging in a mammoth display of irony.
. . . there's a little more to it, but I'll keep my cono quiet for now .
. .
be it said that willfull misinformation and
'crisis instigation for media sensationalism'
has been the 'modus operandi' for marxist
guerillas (Fidel and his Central & South American buddies),
commie or socialist operatives (Israel & Palestine,
India & Pakistan, The Balkans, Ireland, The Mid-East,
certain parts of southeast Asia, and certain
areas of Africa),
. . . as well as for our new breed of
'religious terrorists'. Why we should we believe that
our own little piece of reality here should be any
different?
> Certain people seem to have trouble with philosophers and philosophy,
> especially when someone like Dale delivers philosophical ideas in a
> subjective and invective manner.
You actually believe this Basil? Dale is not a philosopher,
he is a reactionary. And a reactionary follower . . .
the worst kind. Your statement here is a joke.
Please don't ever insult philosophy or philosophers
ever, ever, ever again.
> We are all philosophers in our own ways - philosophy separates us from
> the rest of the animal kingdom - the last P in the four states of
> being - the physical, physiological, psychological and philosophical.
Philosophy seperates 'some' from the animal
kingdom. Others are much lower on the scale than
animals when it comes to their philosophies.
Believe me on this one. It is a fact.
> Philosophy at its most extreme takes the widest view of existence. It
> strains to be released from psychology, the mental strategies for the
> continuance of existence. In this it tends to be viewed by some as
> anti-existence.
>
> Those who are not of a philosophical bent see philosophy as useless
> theorizing (posturing), and so it is, to those who are interested in
> survival (however sophisticated or complex) as a physical possibility,
> rather than existence as a state to be contemplated.
'to be contemplated' is the key phrase here.
You can use that to define philosophy.
Philosophy is a mental process that is
realized through actions (based on the mental conclusions).
So yes, anyone who ever thinks about why they will
do what they do is a philosopher. But not everyone
thinks or 'acts' this way. Most people in fact act
out of neccesity, habit or mimickery. Mimicry being those
that just follow everyone else and do things only because
'that's what everybody else did.' So philosophers are few Basil,
and new ideas in philosophy are relatively non-existent.
Most of it has all been thunk before. That is not to say
there isn't any hope for new ideas in philosophy . . .
but it's not generaaly the case.
And Dale doesn't even apply, qualify, or come close.
> I willingly accept that philosophy may be the last refuge of the
> wounded individual, but this does not bar it from being the purest
> view of existence available to us. A philosophy need not be a warped
> view of life conjured up by an individual to justify his stance
> against some perceived injury life has dealt him.
I wouldn't go so far as the 'purest form of existence available.'
That's a little strong don't you think? You're disregarding
spiritual enlightenment and mystical achievements.
Big leap of faith there Basil.
> I do not agree with Dale's insistence that surrealism is the way to
> revelation and change. I may be doing Dale an injustice, but it
> appears to me he embraced surrealism as someone might religion.
> Surrealism demands that we question the norm (apparent reality), but
> this questioning does not have to arise by embracing an extant system
> of thought. Buddha, it is said, began his philosophical quest after
> witnessing disease, old age and death; a particular turn of mind and
> similar experiences induced me at an early age to consider the wider
> implications of my life and existence in general. (Otto Rank, while
> analysing the mentality of artists, pointed out that they were not
> necessarily troubled by the problems in life but the problem of life.)
Great quote by Otto Rank by the way. So very true. Some
trouble themselves to free their own existence, others trouble
themselves to free the existence of everyone else. Surrealism
in and of itself is not the ultimate cure-all. It is a tool like any
other
philosophy, religion or crutch. I've always found that the answers
are integrated along a wide spectrum. Rarely are they
so easy to capture within a nutshell, even if that nutshell is
as vague as surrealism, religion or philosophy.
> I find it annoying when small minded people look on individuals who
> take philosophical stances as smart-arses who boost their egos by
> looking down on those they consider to be lesser mortals. Philosophy
> is not a stick to be wielded when one feels like it - many people
> think consistently in a philosophical way because a certain brain
> chemistry and/or life experiences demand they do so.
>
> Dale's ideas do not represent something new to me - aspects of what
> Dale is saying just happen to intersect many of the conclusions I have
> arrived at over the years.
We've all had policy concerns. Timing and vocalization,
I think is the accusation here. Not the ideas or even the
philosophy behind them, actually. Oh by the way,
'looking down at mere mortals' was also an iss.
> My plea, and I believe Dale's plea, is that we universalise the
> feelings which in the past have served to preserve small units of
> humanity - in other words, translate aspects of our psychology into
> philosophy. Only when empathy, sympathy, compassion and all the other
> fellow feelings are universalised do they become truly laudable.
Bullshit, your 'universalization' concept is the problem.
People are *individuals*, we are not all the same,
we should never be expected to believe the same as
everyone else. This is how our problems started, remember?
Hey I'm all for empathy, sympathy and compassion,
as a matter of fact, I consider it a creed by which to live my life.
But I'm not going to force everyone else in the entire world to
believe the same thing I do. I get real suspicious when people
get too 'agreeable' as it is. Psychology does not translate to
philosophy, you have that backwards. Psychology is merely
behavioural. Philosphy emcompasses spiritual ideas, values,
and other questions that psychology doesn't even touch upon.
> Dale's message was lost because he had alienated many people by his
> aggressive approach. I believe he was of the opinion that expressing
> his emotions was of no value, but pointing out the true cause of the
> tragedy, which was being and pushed further away from acknowledgement
> by emotional responses, however natural, was of value. I do not
> believe he is the big unfeeling bastard many consider him to be.
Which makes you a true believer I guess.
> This thinking and acting on a universal scale does not only apply to
> our relationships with our fellow human beings, but to the collective
> good husbandry of all the systems that make up the biosphere.
I'll go for the'good husbandry', but that 'collective' word
has always made me a bit jumpy, especially when it is used
in the same sentence with 'universal'.
> It really is a matter of waking up.
or napping into the dream state to figure it out, right?
-Max (surrealistic pillow)
shun itchy
> The individuals who replied to my last posting make up an interesting
> trio. Shun itchy appears to be blinded by rage and takes a swing at
> anybody or anything that is remotely connected with Dale, Cythera
> appears to be perfectly level headed and obviously open to frank
> debate, and Jonathon?, well, Jonathan is either from another planet or
> is indulging in a mammoth display of irony.
no, i am blinded by the relentless bullshit and pointless posturing of
some people. i'm sure i have nothing against dale personally, but i am
quite astonished that his original, and innappropriate, cynicism - -
was eventually presented as a 'philosophical stance' (the refuge of
the gods) that others either obviously did not share, or did not
understand. he, and obviously you, are still piping on with
'philosophies' of a third-rate, blind, and salivating dog.
hell, i love philosophy/metaphysics/epistemology/dialectics/deconstruction/
and all the rest as much as the next guy. i don't pretend to give a
shit to th e point where i'd let abstraction lead me through this
brutal, short, and nasty life, though.
you value philosophy a wee bit mucho.
do i need to wonder why?
put some yay in your day, baz. and some rage on your guage.
tra-la.