if wishes were fishes....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/time-for-president-obama_b_224865.html


If President Obama is truly serious about changing the way Washington operates, he'd begin to aggressively hector the entourage of lawmakers that I've not-so-affectionately nicknamed the "Coalition of the Corrupt and Spineless" (COCS) -- the Democratic Senators who have very obviously been bought off by the healthcare lobby, along with other almost-as-awful Democrats whose cowardice is only matched by their weakness of will.

Throw down, Mr. President.

Maybe even do one of those big Hollywood movie style presidential speeches, like the one at the end of The Contender in which President Jeff Bridges calls out that slippery douche Congressman Gary Oldman in front of a joint session:

"I am not free of blame. Right from the start, I should have come down here, pointed a finger your way -- pointed a finger your way and asked you, "Have you no decency, sir?" Yesterday, I met -- Mr. Runyon, you may walk out on me, you may walk out on this body, but you cannot walk out on the will of the American people."

There can be no denying that the COCS are flagrantly and unapologetically legislating against -- what's the word? -- overwhelming super-majority popular support for the public health insurance option. And why is that? I can't recall another example in recent memory when the collusion of lobbyists, corporate PACs and members of the United States Senate has been this obvious. We can only conclude that the COCS are entirely ignoring the will of the American people because they're hiking the Appalachian Trail with the healthcare industrial complex.

What other excuse might they have? To date, not a single senator in the COCS has explained this disparity, chiefly because it's such an awkward and transparent illustration of the very worst side of Washington -- the side that President Obama pledged to help mitigate.

Nate Silver analyzed the president's polling and noted that the popularity of healthcare reform and the popularity of the president should mean that the president's healthcare approval numbers should be Herculean. Yet they're weaker than expected. This leads Silver to conclude: "That's not to suggest that Obama should throw caution to the wind and push for single payer. But he needs to begin pushing for something, and something fairly specific."

That something has to be the public option.

It's seriously the right time for the president to make the hard sell on the public option -- to knock some heads and to push it through. Hard. This means perhaps calling out healthcare lobby errand boys like Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus, or at least using some of his considerable popularity to privately smack them around a little. Threaten to pull back the curtain on their healthcare mob ties.

Meanwhile, the 120 member TriCaucus (the House Black Caucus, the House Hispanic Caucus and the House Progressive Caucus) have pledged to vote against any healthcare reform bill that doesn't include a robust public option. Without these 120 votes, there are only 131 Democratic votes left. They need 218 votes to pass the House and, if their voting record this year is any indication, you can count on zero Republican votes for anything authored by Democrats.

In other words, the president's healthcare reform agenda depends entirely upon the inclusion of an acceptable government-run option for affordable health insurance.

So why not own it? Why not make it a central front in his campaign for healthcare reform?

Plus, there's a real opportunity here to achieve more that just healthcare reform. In addition to giving us a public health insurance option, the president can do some serious damage to the healthcare lobby, as well as to the members of Congress who so brazenly suck down the lobby's collective diarrheic filth.

It's an easy case to make since the distinction couldn't be clearer. Upwards of 76 percent of Americans support the public option. Sixty-nine percent the new Quinnipiac poll. And, this week, the AMA expressed its support for the public option. Furthermore, the CBO scored the Kennedy version of the healthcare reform bill and determined that with the public option included the price tag is hundreds of billions of dollars less than previously reported.

Knowing all of this, does the COCS support the will of its voters (and now the TriCaucus, the CBO and the AMA)?

Of course not. Because they're being paid to oppose the public option. Again, there aren't any other explanations. And so calling bullshit on this corporate-congressional exercise in mutual masturbation ought to be a cakewalk.

Regarding the pitch for the public option, by the way, there's a stronger argument to be made beyond simply insuring people like me and my friend Lee Stranahan who have lost our health insurance for whatever reason. It's about everyone else -- the other 250 million Americans who have health insurance and who, one day soon, will be screwed by their provider. The mafia never wants to pay, and it's only a matter of time, as costs skyrocket, before even those with Cadillac plans will be dropped, investigated, gouged, or denied. Think of the public option as Screwing Insurance.

As much as I'd love to hear President Obama use the phrase "Screwing Insurance," he's much more, you know, mature than I am. And that's definitely a good thing. So he can probably come up with something less offensive. But in addition to forcing the private insurance mafia to play on the level, the public option will provide a safety net for 250 million Americans who have insurance, but would prefer to not be left in the lurch when and if they're screwed out of the benefits they paid for. One of the best aspects of Michael Moore's SiCKO was how he focused mainly on people who owned health insurance policies but who were crapped out the ass end of the deal. The lesson was simple: if you have insurance -- even a policy that you like -- history and many horror stories indicate that it's only a matter of time before you are summarily screwed and left for dead.

This is probably why up to three-fourths of Americans want a public option -- far greater numbers than those who are uninsured.

If there's one thing I know for sure, it's that Americans of all parties would applaud the president if he were to call out the corrupt and spineless. The only thing we'd enjoy more, considering the corporate bilking of taxpayer cash for too many years, is the president castrating the seemingly enormous financial balls of the healthcare lobby.

Enough prevaricating. The storm is perfect. Kick some ass, Mr. President.

I'm happy to report that I have no illusions left about this system and I owe it all to Barack Obama.

made me less interested in what he had to say

The blatant sale of our Government's policies to the highest bidding corporate entity has become so transparent that any who may have been willing to give the Dems the benefit of the doubt should by now be exhausted of any remaining Hope for Change or redemption.

The Democratic party that once existed is now dead, It suffered the beginnings of a virulent staff infection variant named DLC in 1985. This corporate infection was strongly resistant to common sense and began causing systemic damage to vital government organs as early as the Clinton administration, Masked for a time by a cancer of the brain called neo-conservatism, the infection mutated to take advantage of the immune system of progressive thought and thus was able to survive beyond the cancer's remission hidden as an organic antibody seeking to repair the system.

The final strain of the infection (Staphylococcus Obamus) killed the the Democratic party after attacking the progressive immune system directly - actually replacing healthy vital tissue with "Rahm Cells" effectively destroying it from within. The curious new strain shows characteristics of cancer cells (similar to the neo-con cancer) combined with the typical DLC corporate staff cells commonly seen in the early Clinton disease. This new hybrid, having killed the Democratic party system is expected to cause the death of the public body unless a new party transplant can be found and a cure for the disease can be administered.

The prognosis of the body public (weakened greatly by the original cancer and suffering the loss of it's entire immune system) is not good.

The suggested treatment is to combine unformed party stem cells with any remaining healthy progressive cells in the hopes of re-creating a functioning immune system.

Even if the transplant is successful, robust socialism therapy will be required to repair the devastating damage and hopefully build up the body to a healthy overall state.

It's almost over folks, unless we can build a new party and get it into power, our nation will die. The loss of rule of law alone is devastating add to that the entrenched system of corporate rule via purchased politicians and it is easy to foresee a nation in the very near future that will be loathed the world over as one of the worst fascisms in history.

Other than that little thing, how's everyone been? I haven't stopped by in a dogs age, don't know what's been going on here lately, I hope all are well.

I am honored to see you still use the logo header Tinoire commissioned me to do, I was afraid you would have discarded it a long time age (I have always been secretly quite proud of it).

he has been very successful and I think he's far from done yet.

I think he's gonna be the greatest boon to the left in I don't know how long, but not the way the conservatives depict.

These politicians go on the campaign trail and spout all sorts of populist rhetoric, but they have no intention of following through with it. Isn't it past time to acknowledge this? And I keep hearing that if others had been in high office in a position to dictate policy, be it Gore or Kerry or Kucinich or Sanders or whoever, that they would be different. I used to believe it, but not anymore, they'd cash in their beliefs just like all the rest have who have made the same promises, if not sooner then later. Even a new party would succomb to the pressures. The system is corrupt, but until the whole thing collapses it's what we're stuck with.

What does that mean?

Should we try something different or just 'put up with it'? Should we meditate and self-actualize and wait for the rest of the rabble to catch up or should we approach politics on a basis that does not see the electoral system as the sole method for political action?

when the sparkley glaze in the hypnotised's eyes turns to flashes of rage as they wake up, and I do think many will, the surge to the left will be great...

Better Believe It

So why isn't the Republican written "stimulus" bill creating many jobs?

That's pretty easy to figure out.

Just read what Senate Republicans did to gut the House version of the stimulus bill.

But, we had a bi-partisan bill!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8512431

----------

US House has 256 Democrats, the US Senate has 58 Democrats plus 2 independents that caucus with the Democrats, the President is a Democrat, and this individual wants to blame passage of legislation on Republicans. Classic Obamabot. Classic Democraticpartybot. Meet the sheeple that will continually leave us stuck where we are because they'll foolishly make up whatever they need in order to pat themselves on the back and say "We good-guys, they bad-guys." Divide and conquer.

So "stuck with it" means until leaders that want to use their subjects, and in many cases the subjects who are more than willing to fall into their traps, can be rounded up and herded off a cliff, we'll continue to have exactly what we currently have.

I say just maybe -- this drama play you have going on in your head of 'leaders' and 'subjects' doesn't map to reality the way you think it does and that maybe -- again, just maybe -- you are letting your unbounded cynicism completely overtake your faculties?

It seems to work like this: you identify "the problem" which is too many sheeple and unscrupulous leaders that take advantage of them. You affirm that the problem can't be solved, we're all screwed etc etc. Then you hang around on the fringe of political discussion bitching about everything. People are stupid, leaders are corrupt, its all a racket, life sucks.

So maybe all you're doing is indulging your own superiority complex by providing your "expert" (but strangely go-nowhere) diagnosis and then righteously throwing up your hands at the insoluble mess.

So the end result you get to sit in your cocoon and remind yourself that you're a winner.

Which I guess gets us back to a previous discussion: you win again!

>> You affirm that the problem can't be solved, we're all screwed etc etc.<<

False. Try again.

'Sheeple' is usually meant to refer to the stupid, ignorant folks who don't see the liberals as the answer to all. Legislators are not 'sheeple' they're perps.

The electoral system is not broken, it was never meant to work in the way advertised. All that is happening now is that the crisis of capitalism has reached a stage where they can't hide it any more. Modern communications got something to do with that, and maybe some over confidence in the effectiveness of the long term propaganda job they've done on us.

If ya wanna herd some folks over a cliff I'd suggest you look for the folks who are telling the pols what to do.

I read the OP post as someone telling it the way it is. I'd be willing to bet a few thousand dollars that they take all kinds of steps in their personal life to change things, just like I do. These are positive steps which I won't bother listing because you'll just bash the living hell out of anything anyone says.

So, stop harassing people and screwing up the place and go get some mental health advice.

and an :asshole:

More often than not, I hear liberals call conservatives sheeple and vice versa. In this case, I'm making reference to those individuals who view themselves as being progressives, but they're nothing more than cheerleaders for virtually anyone with a "D" behind their name. Most recently, these sheeple have hitched their wagon to Obama, and they will go to great lengths to defend him and make excuses for him. Point this out, and they refuse to acknowledge it. Ask some of the members here who have recently been TS'd at DU, they'll tell you.

could you give me a heads up first?

I do, after all, have only one lifetime, and I'd hate miss the event...

Seriously, you add nothing with your insipid holier-than-thou proclamations, and you are hopelessly bereft of ideas when it comes to offering solutions.

A world of difference exist between the hoped for and the right now, and it appears that you can't figure out how to get from one to the other.

P.S. Good luck on the whole law school corporate tax attorney career path. I think you'll do well - the next Jerry Rubin... :)

:adore:

with all sincerity what common ground do we have to come together around and talk about things?

If you're another one who wants to talk about "personal choices" and how you're contributing your tiny individaul part to saving the world, the pickin's are pretty slim..

..

You're right - it's populist rhetoric and the system is corrupt.

Only half the eligible voters in the US vote, and way less than half at midterm elections. I don't vote, and I'd say (ballpark) 60-75% of people I know don't vote.

You don't have to wait for us to learn, to get it.

Maybe we were waiting for you?

;)

speaking of caricatures.

:rofl:

Honestly, what do either of you hope to accomplish with your own name calling? Does it make you feel superior?

n/t

As you've also pointed out, there's way too many who don't.

There has to be a mix. Individuals and individual organizations have to be considered, not just systems. But history shows that change usually comes in blood, that those in power do not step aside willingly. As it stands, way too many progressives who currently view themselves as being in opposition of power only oppose it when "their side" isn't occupying the seats of government. A Republican is in office, they'll oppose it. A Democratic member is in office doing the same thing, suddenly it's OK, they'll defend it. I don't know how to state it more plainly. Ask around, I noticed others on this site have observed this same thing.

does that make you feel superior?

:dontfeed:

Where does it advance us in conversation? I would think you as a (former?) mod would understand that. And I believe you do. What you and a few "friends" are now doing is "disrupting" because you don't like the turn in the conversation. You liked talking about all the "choices" you are making to better society. Obama is a "fraud" but you are enlightened. Now that we've opened up that conversation a little, and questioned whether those "choices" mean squat you are angry.

Maybe take the anger and try to do something productive with it. We're all angry - we all see what's happening in the White House. Maybe we can do something about it rather than sit around and call each other names all day.

I certainly do not feel the need to explain myself to you. Now bugger off.

It is, of course, correct to point out the folly of the "concerned liberal", as this is indeed the majority of folks who think it all stops at recycling plastic and writing "I'm upset" letters to Obama.

On the other side, however, it is equally ludicrous to cut and paste whatever chapter of Das Kapital one is currently reading in order to make a theoretical point that has no chance of ever being enacted (ah, the pragmatist in me).

What we are evidencing here is the fact that both sides are goring the others ox while not realizing the damn thing is big enough for everyone to ride on.

Perceived moral superiority is just that.

I posted the very FIRST part of the first chapter of Capital (and the Manifesto) so its not correct to suggest that I just "discovered" them now. While you are quick to dismiss those work as "theoretical", I wonder if you've ever read either (in whole or in part).

If not, maybe you need to re-postulate

Marx is always the first step for those looking to find the economic holy grail.

It never takes into account the component of human greed (in implementation), nor does it take into account things such as time factors or the like, save for saying that there should be no such thing as "remuneration" for the investment of hours (research, R&D, call it what you may). I'm paraphrasing greatly here, but for the sake of boring most of the known world I'll leave it as such.

Now, in one of the rooms of my house sits an audio system that costs more than most new cars. It gives me enormous pleasure when listening to it, as I was involved in high-end audio for a good many years and over time have "learned" to tell the difference between quality of sound (realistic reproduction, as the audiophiles call it). MAny others have as well (even though they may be unaware of it), as most opera houses and classical music venues are designed so as not to impart any coloration on the music being presented.

What what Karl say about THAT? Have I and others been co-opted, am I just the fool who has been hoodwinked by marketing, or can I really tell the difference, and does that difference matter? If it does, and there is a cost associated with providing same, then how does one rationalize this away in a Marxian world? What would be the incentive to produce this level of musical nirvana? Should it be the norm, and should this level of quality (again, defining quality in a capitalist economy as being associated directly with increased cost) cut across all forms of entertainment, transportation, medical care, etc.

If not, what level of "quality' should we accept, or should "quality" become a mute point?

Give it what'cha got - as long as my abscessed wisdom tooth doesn't act up I'll be around off and on.

because I am not sure what question you're asking but its nothing do with Marx or Marxist theory as far as I can tell. Not an insult, just to say that its important to start at the beginning rather than take some half-read passages and second-hand innuendo and pass them off as gospel on the matter -- and thats hard earned personal experience speaking ;)

As far as I can tell, you're back-handedly but very deftly repeating the claim that, in a Marxist/socialist/communist world, everything is bright grey, vibrant maybe but without color. Everyone will have the basics but miss out on all the super-neato crap that capitalism produces and no one will have any incentive to do anything but the bare minimum yadda yadda

I wish Two Americas was around because he is a much better hand at delivering the lecture that not everything is a "cause", that not everyone is chasing "ideas" or a "holy grail" and that it is not a belief system being discussed. Regardless, I think you've heard it before although there is value in just being a pest and repeating stuff over and over until it makes people actually read it and think it over in earnest.

I think that there is one other misapprehension. Marxism isn't really about egalitarianism (ie everyone has the exact same stuff). But, it a double misapprehension because you are really asking "how can I keep MY high end stuff?" You have no true intention of spreading the wealth around (figuratively speaking) regardless of if it was feasible.

It seems to me that speaking from the height of privilege you are asking "why are you trying to take my toys away?"

Thats not the basis I write from, so I don't know what answer I can give

EDIT: wisdom teeth are a bitch. I just had all 4 of mine taken out and it turns out that two were infected although I wasn't aware of it. It set me back like $1700 and then I got an infection several weeks after the operation. Supposedly thats not uncommon but it really sucks -- the left side of my face was swelled up like Popeye the Sailorman for a week.

I was nervous about the operation because this dude I know woke up in the middle of the surgery when they were pulling his. Apparently he was choking on his own blood. He said it was the most terrifying moment of his life. But mine was pretty uneventful other than the Surgeon had an especially difficult time (I was asleep for that part) and it bothered me for a week or more afterwards.

Anyway, I know how bad it sucks and I feel for you

just wondered how you came down on it overall. Thanks.

At least we know where we stand.

but I can tell you wihtout doubt that Karl would say it is ENTIRELY a social construction

What what Karl say about THAT? Have I and others been co-opted, am I just the fool who has been hoodwinked by marketing, or can I really tell the difference, and does that difference matter?

As you say it took an enormous amount of social labor to build, test, perfect the stereo and then to distribute it. But I can think of a surefire way you would never be able to make any such distinction:

try being an audiophile if you're one of the two billion people living on <$2/day. Hell try finding a stereo.

You think its moralizing, but its not that, its merely a reminder that social circumstances and conditions determine EVERYTHING. And you are maybe not so keen on asking what those conditions and relations are, how they work, or who they benefit.

and the opportunity to clarify. Like the majority here, I still consider everyday a new opportunity to learn and am more than happy to exchange ideas with others who conduct themselves like adults.

... sits a rather large house. Perhaps it is too large a house, sumptuously decorated, but it was important to the owner (Louis XIV). If the difference between today's house and Louis' house was important to someone, I suppose a line of Versailles Pro5 houses would be built by capitalism... but, since they are not built, it appears there is a matter of degree to contend with. There simply does not seem to be enough market for them. Under socialism? Well, it is probably even less likely.

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/versailles2.jpg

Now Versailles ain't a stereo system so the rule of degree probably applies, and you ain't Louis for wanting a super-duper stereo system for which there is obviously a (small) market under capitalism. Under socialism, it is unlikely that the same degree of concentration on super-stereos could be justified until most people had, say... shoes. So it might take a while. Perhaps you could lead an after-market restoration of old exotic stereo systems until such time as... you know.

But, of course, you could insist that it was more important for you to have a super-stereo-system than for other people (or you) to have shoes. It's possible. But it gets tragic as what you "gotta" have grows.

The issue isn't one of "quality" but one of necessity, subject to the "rule of degree". I'm not making it up. I'm guessing...



There once was a guy who needed a really big tombstone. Perhaps it was too large a tombstone, but it was important to the owner.

http://www.2travel2egypt.com/sightseeing/images/cheops.jpg

dose of capitalistic guilt.

You are, of course, leading the "no child left behind without shoes" army, are you not?

I mean, I wouldn't want to think that you are merely pontificating on a message board without putting your heart and sole (pun intended) into the effort.

How does one go about leading this charge? I myself thought it might be finding a comfort level well below what my/our previous incomes dictate and then using the extra to do things like, I dunno, buy shoes for those in need, but it seems as if I may be off base in my calculations. You seem to think the problem lies with a "greed" factor that I carry around in my DNA, and that I "own" things because they are "important" to me. I build furniture for a living. I have tools that allow me to do it without the recurrence of physical ailments that crop up when I do large amounts of hand work. Are these tools "important?" I left an upper management job in RF communications to work with my hands, as I could no longer in good conscious continue to do what I was doing. Does that get me socialism points, or am I still fucked due to that whole stereo thing?


If I am indeed a self-important drain on society can you help rid me of this onerous millstone? We can start with shoes. Under socialism, what type of shoes would people have? Would folks have their choice of color? Style? Heel size? Certainly one would not argue for a collective sameness of shoe, would one? That would have a lemming-like quality that go against something or other, doesn't it? Once everyone gets shoes, then what about socks?

There is another school of thought, however. This one holds that maybe, just maybe, people are doing what they think is right. They don't need phony guilt trips, they don't need Marxism Redux to point out their perceived shortcomings, and for the most part they don't need to be talked down to under some bullshit premise that Karl Knows Best.

I try and do my part. I try and make sure they one-person guy whose business is falling off has work, even if I don't need it. I budget money to give things to folks who need them. I am as guilty of hypocrisy as everyone else in the line, but I'll own up to it. I'm not even close to where I need to be, but I think I'm walking in the right direction.

Sometimes a bunch of folks come over and we just sit and listen to music for hours.

I'm pretty sure they were my friends before the stereo, but one never knows what's "important" these days, does one?

..

No cutting and pasting, though.

I need specifics.

I also need Advil, but THAT I can take of.

The rest is up to you.

P.S. You get points for no cracks about "wisdom" teeth. :)

I could give a shit about your guilt.... or your lifestyle. And, I could give a shit about talkin' you down from anything. So take your fuckin' Valium and listen.

You missed the point of the story. I'm answering your question. To Louis, (and to Cheops), capitalism lacks the ability to produce what they find desirable, and more importantly, find the ability to produce "for themselves" in a previous form of society. Capitalism turns everything into a commodity but a market is required. Even under capitalism, though, it is unlikely that a private market can be sustained for houses and tombs that represent one quarter to one half of the GDP of an entire country or region. What's possible? Who the fuck knows. Read Billionaire Palaces Weekly and find out.

What capitalism does produce are some super specialized commodities for the wealthy. It is unlikely that those would be produced under socialized production as long as the basic needs for necessities were not met. Perhaps they would not be produced even then because every kind of production is the same and the side-effects for it may seem detrimental or,. perhaps, reducing working time is considered more important. No one can really know because socialism has never really existed without conditions of absolute and relative scarcity.

If it so happens that socialism doesn't produce your super-duper stereo in a timely fashion, what can you do? Well, you can go down to the local Comrade's Radio Shack and buy the components and build it yourself (after taking a course at the local University). All components tend to be common because of capitalist (not socialist) integration and this is how Eastern Europeans, as one example, pursued quite complicated photographic hobbies... OR, you go into the left-over-from-capitalism market and roll your own.

Or, you could give up on the ultra fancy stereos.

In any case, though, you could not act like production was not production and that the issues of socialist production have something to do with "quality" or "choices" because high-end specialized products are not readily available. In truth you would simply be stating the tautology that under capitalism, money commands production while under socialism, production is... socialized. No shit.

Now, this is where the "rule of degree" comes in. IF you have LOTS of money and you NEED lots of high end stuff, which is saying exactly the same as you have the social power to command other people's labor on a vast scale - too large a scale to be made up for by "rolling your own"... a scale on par with Louis - then you will be frustrated by socialism. You probably don't want to support it.

Again, no shit.

no one is calling you a hypocrite. OK, Chlamor, but thats a matter of perspective

The point is, you "need" things based entirely on your station and position in life. How is it that you won those excesses that you call "needs"?

If it is on the backs of others, how can you square that with the idea of workers controlling the product of their own labor. I ain't guilting OR shitting you when I tell you that, all things equal, no group of workers is going to vote down distributing the basics to appease your need to be an audiophile or impress your friends with your big, um, stereo

I'm pretty sure they WILL vote to make sure that everybody has quality dental care though..

And if you think different, well, ha..enjoy your time in the sun while you can..

What do you "need"?

Will you "need" more if you have a family? This will of course necessitate a changing of your station and position in life. What will you do?

Is "need" OK after workers are in control of their own labor?

And what is this bizarre either/or thing re: basics?

See, you tried to pretend there's no guilt, but then there is the "appease your need" comment. And of course I've done it to impress my friends.

You just csn't help it, KId.

You gotta get a mirror and check yourself.

You're shooting your own foot.

Constantly.

but that's an argument for another day


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/gifts/tut.gif


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/gods/egypt.jpg


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/gods/ely3-thumb.jpg

I'll try and respond if I'm not too wasted, man....

Thanks for the crash course in socialism, which I had years ago but is always nice to hear yet again.

Could you please elaborate on what constitutes basic necessities? That's always quite the buzzword, but of course you've neglected to say what these necessities are, and if they vary re: family size, marital status, etc. For example, would a child with diabetes require the "A" version, while a healthy child the "B" version?

Also, please explain how "commanding" other's peoples labor to build a SuperGizmo is any different than commanding it to build shoes. Unless, of course, one makes value judgments on certain things.

All I'm asking is for hard and fast definitions, but what I get from you is "gee, you probably don't want to support it." You've prejudged, which is your option, but perhaps the devil's advocate position may be more the road I'm walking down. Perhaps you should look around - world of difference between understanding and supporting.

You have been rather vague, don't you think? You've not answered anything, save for the question on Boilerplate 101, which you aced.

Oh, and lay off the "take your Valium" horseshit. Doesn't do much for your position, but I'll bet it makes that high horse you're on a bitch to get off, huh?

Then again, all the tough talk really gets the ladies - or so I'm told.

:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYQfWJNWe3I


As around the sun the earth knows she's revolving
And the rosebuds know to bloom in early may
Just as hate knows love's the cure
You can rest your mind assure
That I'll be loving you always

As now can't reveal the mystery of tomorrow
But in passing will grow older every day
Just as all that's born is new
You know what I say is true
That I'll be loving you always

(Until the rainbow burns the stars out in the sky)
Always
(Until the ocean covers every mountain high)
Always
(Until the dolphin flies and parrots live at sea)
Always
(Until we dream of life and life becomes a dream)

Did you know that true love asks for nothing
No no her acceptance is the way we pay
Did you know that life has given love a guarantee
To last through forever and another day

Just as time knew to move on since the beginning
And the seasons know exactly when to change
Just as kindness knows no shame
Know through all your joy and pain
That I'll be loving you always

As today I know I'm living
But tomorrow could make me the past
But that I mustn't fear
For I'll know deep in my mind
The love of me I've left behind
'Cause I'll be loving you always

(Until the day is night and night becomes the day)
Always
(Until the trees and seas just up and fly away)
Always
(Until the day that eight times eight times eight is four)
Always
(Until the day that is the day that are no more)
Did you know you're loved by somebody
(Until the day the earth starts turnin' right to left)
Always
(Until the earth just for the sun denies itself)
I'll be lovin you forever
(Until dear mother nature says her work is through)
Always
(Until the day that you are me and I am you)
Always
(Until the rainbow burns the stars out in the sky
Until the ocean severs every mountain high)
Always mm mm

We all know sometimes life hates and troubles
Can make you wish you were born in another time and space
But you can bet your lifetimes that and twice it's double
That God knew exactly where he wanted you to be placed
So make sure when you say you're in it, but not of it
You're not helpin' to make this earth
A place sometimes called hell
Change your words into truths
And then change that truth into love
And maybe our children's grandchildren
And their great grandchildren will tell
I'll be loving you until the rainbow burns the stars out in the sky

Like electricity wasn't really a "need" for Victorian England..because, y'know..

As for the other

See, you tried to pretend there's no guilt, but then there is the "appease your need" comment. And of course I've done it to impress my friends.

Who are you, Prickly Pete? I thought I was being gentle all things considered..to be honest I prefer a little conversational sarcasm anyway but obviously of the two of us, thats just me..

you use to come on and say nasty things about me

Now you wait for someone else to do it and then chase it with "ditto!" or "well played"

Yeah,
I think you really missed the point. In a good society, there would be institutions that address production, allocation and consumption in a socially acceptable way. People decide what is socially productive, how it is distributed and how to prioritize their needs.

Personally, I think that live music in good acoustical venues would be viewed as socially productive. In fact, working people would have more access to enjoyable musical experiences. I also would be surprised if public spaces that give people access to heightened experiences of recorded music would be summarily rejected by those institutions.

The point is that whatever else socialism is, it places production, allocation and consumption in the hands of people who provide products and services. We decide together based on need and desire. It's not a question of guilt, it's a question of solidarity.

..

...unless you think that old Khufu walked down that steep passageway, all the way to the bottom chamber, hit his head, conveniently fell into the sarcophagus built into the rock floor, and nobody noticed him missing. They certainly are tombs.

Whether they are something else as well is subject to a lot of conjecture. Maybe you think they are a calender or maybe even space beacons. You wouldn't be the first, and I will be happy to discuss or argue it when you like. But saying they aren't tombs is misleading. They had dead people in them. What do you call that?

http://www.belovedegypt.com/34_-_Great_Pyramid_sarcophagus.jpg

good time to return (nice to meet you).

... but, you haven't even hit first base yet.

You ask a question. I answer it. You go off on some side trip about guilt. I answer the question again. You tell me you already knew the answer, but then you brush it off in asking another one. The whole time, you are taking a more and more combative and entitled tone. I'm not sure who you think your "other" conversation is with, but it is not with me.

We will attribute it to the painkillers. Last try.

We are talking about socialist production. There is no "A" or "B" package. You buys what you buys. Some things probably won't get produced. Fifty different kinds of toothpaste? Hummers? One hundred foot yachts? Probably not. Other things like 5 kinds of toothpaste? Probably so. It depends on demand and competing priorities.

What are "necessities"? That is simple. Food, shelter, clothing, health, education, culture, books... after that, variety... after that, who knows? It is a matter of priorities. Of course, even the poorest socialist countries produced all kinds of stuff because people were used to it.

If you are talking about some kinda propaganda or some movie version of this shit, I can't help you. You can look around at what people really built. They were poor people so they tended to focus on robust simple stuff - quantity over complexity. As scarcity eases up... well it was different strokes for different folks.

If you are talking about some sort of post scarcity age, "communism" and the rest, who the fuck knows? The Czechs had it in their heads that they were going to eliminate "commodities" one by one and make basic stuff free. So free public transportation this year, and free sporting events next year, and free bread the year after. I'm not sure if it was practical or not.

It is a lofty position from which one scoffs at this kind of thing... Pshaw, "who after all can decide?" Who decides now? I like it the other way.

Who commands labor is the final question. You know who commands it today. The owner of capital does. Perhaps you identify with him? Perhaps you don't trust "the masses" to meet your specific needs the way that the "free market" meets your individual, personal, very important, highly sophisticated, extremely advanced needs today. And, you have cash. Fine. We'll talk again next year.

probably some bleed over from one to the other

Lots of newer posters for me to get to know, many old friends here as well.
I like what I have read of your posts so far.

It's good to come home after wrestling with DLC whores for too long, I need a break from the battles and BS.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/OrionBelt.jpg

Fingerprints of the Gods

Chapter 35 - Tombs and Tombs Only?


Climbing down the Great Pyramid was more nerve wracking than climbing up. We were no longer struggling against the force of gravity, so the physical effort was less. But the possibilities of a fatal fall seemed greatly magnified now that our attention was directed exclusively towards the ground rather than the heavens. We picked our way with exaggerated care towards the base of the enormous mountain of stone, sliding and slithering among the treacherous masonry blocks, feeling as though we had been reduced to ants.

By the time we had completed the descent the night was over and the first wash of pale sunlight was filtering into the sky. We paid the 50 Egyptian pounds promised to the guard of the pyramid’s western face and then, with a tremendous sense of release and exultation, we walked jauntily away from the monument in the direction of the Pyramid of Khafre, a few hundred meters to the south-west.

Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure ... Cheops, Chephren, Mycerinus.



Whether they were referred to by their Egyptian or their Greek names, the fact remained that these three pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty (2575-2467 BC) were universally acclaimed as the builders of the Giza pyramids. This had been the case at least since Ancient Egyptian tour guides had told the Greek historian Herodotus that the Great Pyramid had been built by Khufu.



Herodotus had incorporated this information into the oldest surviving written description of the monuments, which continued:

Cheops, they said, reigned for fifty years, and on his death the kingship was taken over by his brother Chephren. He also made a pyramid ... it is forty feet lower than his brother’s pyramid, but otherwise of the same greatness ... Chephren reigned for fifty-six years ... then there succeeded Mycerinus, the son of Cheops ... This man left a pyramid much smaller than his father’s.1

1 Herodotus, The History (translated by David Grene), University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 187-9.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/finger41.gif

Site plan of the Giza necropolis


Herodotus saw the monuments in the fifth century BC, more than 2000 years after they had been built. Nevertheless it was largely on the foundation of his testimony that the entire subsequent judgment of history was based. All other commentators, up to the present, continued uncritically to follow in the Greek historian’s footsteps.



And down the ages—although it had originally been little more than hearsay—the attribution of the Great Pyramid to Khufu, the Second Pyramid to Khafre and the Third Pyramid to Menkaure had assumed the stature of unassailable fact.



Trivializing the mystery
Having parted company with Ali, Santha and I continued our walk into the desert. Skirting the immense south-western corner of the Second Pyramid, our eyes were drawn towards its summit. There we noted again the intact facing stones that still covered its top 22 courses.



We also noticed that the first few courses above its base, each of which had a ‘footprint’ of about a dozen acres, were composed of truly massive blocks of limestone, almost too high to clamber over, which were about 20 feet long and 6 feet thick. These extraordinary monoliths, as I was later to discover, weighed 200 tons apiece and belonged to a distinct style of masonry to be found at several different and widely scattered locations within the Giza necropolis.

On its north and west sides the Second Pyramid sat on a level platform cut down out of the surrounding bedrock and was thus enclosed within a wide trench more than 15 feet deep in places. Walking due south, parallel to the monument’s scarred western flank, we picked our way along the edge of this trench towards the much smaller Third Pyramid, which lay some 400 metres ahead of us in the desert.

Khufu ... Khafre ... Menkaure ... According to all orthodox Egyptologists the pyramids had been built as tombs—and only as tombs—for these three pharaohs.



Yet there were some obvious difficulties with such assertions. For example, the spacious burial chamber of the Khafre Pyramid was empty when it was opened in 1818 by the European explorer Giovanni Belzoni. Indeed, more than empty, the chamber was starkly, austerely bare.



The polished granite sarcophagus which lay embedded in its floor had also been found empty, with its lid broken into two pieces nearby.2 How was this to be explained?

To Egyptologists the answer seemed obvious. At some early date, probably not many hundreds of years after Khafre’s death, tomb robbers must have penetrated the chamber and cleared all its contents including the mummified body of the pharaoh.

Much the same thing seemed to have happened at the smaller Third Pyramid, towards which Santha and I were now walking—that attributed to Menkaure. Here the first European to break in had been a British colonel, Howard Vyse, who had entered the burial chamber in 1837. He found an empty basalt sarcophagus, an anthropoid coffin lid made of wood, and some bones. The natural assumption was that these were the remains of Menkaure.



Modern science had subsequently proved, however, that the bones and coffin lid dated from the early Christian era, that is, from 2500 years after the Pyramid Age, and thus represented the ‘intrusive burial’ of a much later individual (quite a common practice throughout Ancient Egyptian history).



As to the basalt sarcophagus—well, it could have belonged to Menkaure. Unfortunately, however, nobody had the opportunity to examine it because it had been lost at sea when the ship on which Vyse sent it to England had sunk off the coast of Spain.3 Since it was a matter of record that the sarcophagus had been found empty by Vyse, it was once again assumed that the body of the pharaoh must have been removed by tomb robbers.

A similar assumption had been made about the body of Khufu, which was also missing. Here the scholarly consensus, expressed as well as anyone by George Hart of the British Museum, was that ‘no later than 500 years after Khufu’s funeral’ robbers had forced their way into the Great Pyramid ‘to steal the burial treasure’.4


2 The Riddle of the Pyramids, p. 54.

3 Ibid., p. 55.
4 George Hart, Pharaohs and Pyramids, Guild Publishing, London, 1991, p. 91.

The implication is that this incursion must have occurred by or before 2000 BC—since Khufu is believed to have died in 2528 BC.5 Moreover it was assumed by Professor I.E.S Edwards, a leading authority on these matters, that the burial treasure had been removed from the famous inner sanctum now known as the King’s Chamber and that the empty ‘granite sarcophagus’ which stood at the western end of that sanctum had ‘once contained the King’s body, probably enclosed within an inner coffin made of wood’.6

All this is orthodox, mainstream, modern scholarship, which is unquestioningly accepted as historical fact and taught as such at universities everywhere.7



But suppose it isn’t fact.


5 Atlas of Ancient Egypt, p. 36.

6 The Pyramids of Egypt, pp. 94-5.
7 The Pyramids of Egypt by Professor I. E. S. Edwards is the standard text on the pyramids.


The cupboard was bare
The mystery of the missing mummy of Khufu begins with the records of Caliph Al-Ma’mun, a Muslim governor of Cairo in the ninth century AD. He had engaged a team of quarriers to tunnel their way into the pyramid’s northern face, urging them on with promises that they would discover treasure.



Through a series of lucky accidents ‘Ma’mun’s Hole’, as archaeologists now refer to it, had joined up with one of the monument’s several internal passageways, the ‘descending corridor’ leading downwards from the original concealed doorway in the northern face (the location of which, though known in classical times, had been forgotten by Ma’mun’s day).



By a further lucky accident the vibrations that the Arabs had caused with their battering rams and drills dislodged a block of limestone from the ceiling of the descending corridor. When the socket from which it had fallen was examined it was found to conceal the opening to another corridor, this time ascending into the heart of the pyramid.

There was a problem, however. The opening was blocked by a series of enormous plugs of solid granite, clearly contemporaneous with the construction of the monument, which were held in place by a narrowing of the lower end of the corridor.8



8 W. M. Flinders Petrie, The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (New and Revised Edition), Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd., London, 1990, p. 21.


The quarriers were unable either to break or to cut through the plugs. They therefore tunnelled into the slightly softer limestone surrounding them and, after several weeks of backbreaking toil, rejoined the ascending corridor higher up—having bypassed a formidable obstacle never before breached.

The implications were obvious. Since no previous treasure-seekers had penetrated this far, the interior of the pyramid must still be virgin territory. The diggers must have licked their lips with anticipation at the immense quantities of gold and jewels they could now expect to find. Similarly—though perhaps for different reasons, Ma’mun must have been impatient to be the first into any chambers that lay ahead.



It was reported that his primary motive in initiating this investigation had not been an ambition to increase his vast personal wealth but a desire to gain access to a storehouse of ancient wisdom and technology which he believed to lie buried within the monument. In this repository, according to age-old tradition, the pyramid builders had placed,

‘instruments of iron and arms which rust not, and glasse which might be bended and yet not broken, and strange spells ...’9

9 John Greaves, Pyramidographia, cited in Serpent in the Sky, p. 230.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/finger42.gif

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/finger43.gif

The Great Pyramid: entrance and plugging blocks in the ascending corridor.


The Great Pyramid: detail of corridors, shafts and chambers.


But Ma’mun and his men found nothing, not even any down-to-earth treasure—and certainly not any high-tech, anachronistic plastic or instruments of iron or rustproof weapons ... or strange spells either.

The erroneously named ‘Queen’s Chamber’ (which lay at the end a long horizontal passageway that branched off from the ascending corridor) turned out to be completely empty—just a severe, geometrical room.10

More disappointing still, the King’s Chamber (which the Arabs reached after climbing the imposing Grand Gallery) also offered little of interest. Its only furniture was a granite coffer just big enough to contain the body of a man. Later identified, on no very good grounds, as a ‘sarcophagus’, this undecorated stone box was approached with trepidation by Ma’mun and his team, who found it to be lidless and as empty as everything else in the pyramid.11


10 Secrets of the Great Pyramid, p. 11.

11 The Traveller’s Key to Ancient Egypt, p. 120.

Why, how and when exactly had the Great Pyramid been emptied of its contents?

Had it been 500 years after Khufu’s death, as the Egyptologists suggested?

Or was it not more likely, as the evidence was beginning to suggest, that the inner chambers of the pyramid had been empty all along, from the very beginning, that is, from the day that the monument had originally been sealed?

Nobody, after all, had reached the upper part of the ascending corridor before Ma’mun and his men. And it was certain, too, that nobody had cut through the granite plugs blocking the entrance to that corridor.

Commonsense ruled out the possibility of any earlier incursion—unless there was another way in.

because I'm not getting it

... by every person who ever wrote a book, which always, always, ALWAYS goes against the "conventional wisdom" of hundreds of people who spend a lifetime studying the same issue with completely different conclusions. Pretty soon, it is all so crazy, that it requires a major conspiracy to keep everything quiet and you are off to the races.

There are not three pyramids but many... they were built from the 3rd through the 13th Dynasty, with several revivals afterwards. They are a part of a gradual evolution, from underground tombs to small structures to pyramid mounds to step pyramids to the pyramids themselves to smaller pyramids and then back to underground tombs which are all over the Valley of the Kings and the Valley of the Queens. The structures of the entire period are consistent with tombs, each of the structures sharing many elements in common.

Among these are the prayers and incantations which decorate the burial chambers and appear nowhere else. These evolve from the Pyramid Texts, to the Coffin Texts and finally to the Book of the Dead, and are of use only to those who are passing from life to death. There are body parts and much additional evidence found in many pyramids. There are records documenting the universality of tomb robbery going all the way back to Ramesses IX, detailing exactly how pyramid tombs were robbed.

You can believe what you like but after a point, this becomes impossible to debate. Your "belief" itself becomes the issue.

goes against the "conventional wisdom" of hundreds of people who spend a lifetime studying the same issue with completely different conclusions





hum........... it seems to me I might give you the same advice


and remember the Catholic church just changed it's mind about Galileo not long ago.

Did they teach Continental Drift when you were in college?

you're limping home on this one SLADsy

"oh I didn't know you meant those hundreds of OTHER pyramids but that one is definitely not a tomb..according to some crackpot"

Sounds like a pat reply he would always give to me. And the reason this place is not what it used to be. But thanks for playing, it has reminded me of why I left DU and why I.............

but there've been stranger bedfellows..

Hey, when a dudes right, hes right

you would have seen what pyramids I was specifically speaking of

asshole

What did you get tired of the DU dungeon without me there to fuck with?

Yea he's a dick and so are you

I wouldn't cite them in a research paper, or even a casual conversation on the bus, but those were pretty awesome.

Of course, I think he also did a few on Santa Claus Is Real (or was that Riker from Star Trek?)

n/t

because I can feel that lather you've worked up from here. You're frothing at the mouth..

But at least you will avoid as much duplicity, I think!

here:

http://www.ancientsacredsitestours.com/Egyptian%20itinerary.htm

You kinda have to sift through it, but there is real gold there

the electoral system as the sole method for political action?" I'm reiterating this part of blindpig's post as I think its gold...do we have to wait for the lemming leaders or can we be politically active despite them?

n/t

saving the reputation of the dogmatic Egpytologists isn't going to bring anyone closer to the truth.

But what should I expect from someone that espouses dogma?

the first part of your response was just fine...the second part, why? seriously, why? Sincere question...

never heard of him

He was like an institution on that show, but he died of cancer several years ago

and you'll see its not about what Seems thinks at all

not too interested in the TV

:rofl:

The rest of the day we have a chance to relax just assimilate all the experiences of your once in a life time visit to the Egypt. Or personal shopping,

looked like in 10,500bc? And how did they build Giza so precisely as the heavens were at that time? How old do you think the Sphinx is?


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/2406059450_d0702f64a8.jpg


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/OrionBelt.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/fig-7.gif

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

What's next, Lemuria?

till....oh you are only 25 or so? I don't know what or who Lemuria is, so spare me your "lump it all" mentality. And you do know everthing there is to know about this earth so I won't bother you anymore and you needed bother reading anything I have to post.


Fritz Zwicky (Dark Matter)
Known in the astro research community as "Crazy Fritz," Zwicky investigated orbit statistics of galactic clusters in 1933 and concluded that the majority of mass had an invisible unknown source. He was ignored, dismissed as an eccentric.

just a retorical question




Virginia Steen-McIntyre (found that ancient indian villiages date to 300,000BC)
Steen-McIntyre innocently stumbled into heresy when she found wide-ranging evidence that native settlements in the USA southwest were 300,000 years old. This damaged her career, since the dates acceptable to the archeologist community are more like 50,000BC.





R. Goddard (rocket-powered space ships)
Goddard was relatively obscure until late 1944, when those disgusting Jules-Verne fantasies, the rocket-powered space ships, started raining down on London during WWII. (By analogy, imagine the consternation of the scientific community if Iraq responded to Desert Storm with fleets of glowing UFOs w/deathrays!)

"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]...presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished."
-Sir Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator's "Rockets in Space", NATURE, March 14, 1936


"This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd lengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists." -A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926

Is there anything that you are not an expert on?

At least now I understand you, stopped learning at the age of 18. :rofl:

So, ya lump a few visionaries in with a bunch of goofiness and that gives the goofiness validity?

Tell ya what, when the scientific community lends credence to whatever outlandishness you're peddling I will submit an abject apology to you in person, if necessary, if I haven't died of old age. Times a tickin'.

As per my age here's a clue: I copped out of 10th grade classes to attend the first Earth Day festivities.

n/t

and btw if you can do it to me I thought the practice would be just fine with you, good for the goose, ya know?

That was big, welcomed news. Previous explanations were woefully inadequate, particularly in the field of zoogeography.

The difference between that and the New Age stuff is that the consensus on what went down in Egypt is quite tight.

people like yourself don't always manage to trample forever free and independent thought........... oh did I say independent thought? I forgot, when is the name of this place going to change to reflect the new management? Oasis my ass! It might take awhile like continental drift 75 years or so but things do become clearer with age, sometimes when there is free and independent thought. If you want to wait around for another hundred years fine with me

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/images/pi_hdr_logo-1.jpg


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/gods/tecall350.gif



http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

While at Marburg, in the autumn of 1911, Wegener was browsing in the university library when he came across a scientific paper that listed fossils of identical plants and animals found on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Intrigued by this information, Wegener began to look for, and find, more cases of similar organisms separated by great oceans. Orthodox science at the time explained such cases by postulating that land bridges, now sunken, had once connected far-flung continents. But Wegener noticed the close fit between the coastlines of Africa and South America. Might the similarities among organisms be due, not to land bridges, but to the continents having been joined together at one time? As he later wrote: "A conviction of the fundamental soundness of the idea took root in my mind."

Such an insight, to be accepted, would require large amounts of supporting evidence. Wegener found that large-scale geological features on separated continents often matched very closely when the continents were brought together. For example, the Appalachian mountains of eastern North America matched with the Scottish Highlands, and the distinctive rock strata of the Karroo system of South Africa were identical to those of the Santa Catarina system in Brazil. Wegener also found that the fossils found in a certain place often indicated a climate utterly different from the climate of today: for example, fossils of tropical plants, such as ferns and cycads, are found today on the Arctic island of Spitsbergen. All of these facts supported Wegener's theory of "continental drift." In 1915 the first edition of The Origin of Continents and Oceans, a book outlining Wegener's theory, was published; expanded editions were published in 1920, 1922, and 1929. About 300 million years ago, claimed Wegener, the continents had formed a single mass, called Pangaea (from the Greek for "all the Earth"). Pangaea had rifted, or split, and its pieces had been moving away from each other ever since. Wegener was not the first to suggest that the continents had once been connected, but he was the first to present extensive evidence from several fields.



Modern reconstruction of Pangaea, ca. 255 million years ago -- click to view a much larger version of this map!

Reaction to Wegener's theory was almost uniformly hostile, and often exceptionally harsh and scathing; Dr. Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago said, "Wegener's hypothesis in general is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe, and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts than most of its rival theories." Part of the problem was that Wegener had no convincing mechanism for how the continents might move. Wegener thought that the continents were moving through the earth's crust, like icebreakers plowing through ice sheets, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were responsible for moving the continents. Opponents of continental drift noted that plowing through oceanic crust would distort continents beyond recognition, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were far too weak to move continents -- one scientist calculated that a tidal force strong enough to move continents would cause the Earth to stop rotating in less than one year. Another problem was that flaws in Wegener's original data caused him to make some incorrect and outlandish predictions: he suggested that North America and Europe were moving apart at over 250 cm per year (about ten times the fastest rates seen today, and about a hundred times faster than the measured rate for North America and Europe). There were scientists who supported Wegener: the South African geologist Alexander Du Toit supported it as an explanation for the close similarity of strata and fossils between Africa and South America, and the Swiss geologist Émile Argand saw continental collisions as the best explanation for the folded and buckled strata that he observed in the Swiss Alps. Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents and land bridges.

What prompted the revival of continental drift? In large part it was increased exploration of the Earth's crust, notably the ocean floor, beginning in the 1950s and continuing on to the present day. By the late 1960s, plate tectonics was well supported and accepted by almost all geologists. We now know that Wegener's theory was wrong in one major point: continents do not plow through the ocean floor. Instead, both continents and ocean floor form solid plates, which "float" on the asthenosphere, the underlying rock that is under such tremendous heat and pressure that it behaves as an extremely viscous liquid. (Incidentally, this is why the older term "continental drift" is not quite accurate -- both continents and oceanic crust move.)

no it is not, sorry but you really shouldn't be so closed minded. There is new science out there but as with the likes of you it is wasted

Well, it's my free speech to call something nonsense when I see it. As it stands consensus has got my back. However, my conditional offer of apology stands.

Give me a succinct account of what you're getting at.

or thought they had seen it. It may have taken awhile but a whole lot of those folks were proven to be quite wrong in their (consensus) ridicule of the free thinkers.

Things are not always what they appear to be?


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/gods/egypt.jpg


And you really do need to dig deep sometimes to find the truth


In 1991, Dr. Robert Schoch, a prominent geologist and professor from Boston University examined the unique weathering patterns on the Sphinx and its enclosure. His conclusions, which came after several months of analysis, were to convulse the world of archaeology. The vertical weathering patterns on the Sphinx and its enclosure, Schoch argued, were not caused by wind effect, as had previously been thought, but by water -- water from torrential rains pouring down in sheets over these ancient structures. But how could this be? Was Schoch saying that such heavy rains only fell on the Sphinx area but nowhere else at Giza?

That was impossible, retorted the Egyptologists. Not impossible, said Schoch if it is conceded that the Sphinx was built at an epoch when such rains were common in this region and that the other monuments at Giza were built long after these rains had stopped. Again impossible, replied the ruffled Egyptologists. Schoch politely shrugged his shoulders


http://www.robertschoch.com/bioandintro.html

Biography:
Dr. Robert M. Schoch, a full-time faculty member at the College of General Studies at Boston University since 1984, earned his Ph.D. (1983) in Geology and Geophysics at Yale University. He also holds an M.S. and M.Phil. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale, as well as degrees in Anthropology (B.A) and Geology (B.S.) from George Washington University.

Dr. Schoch has been quoted extensively in the media for his pioneering research recasting the date of the Great Sphinx of Egypt using geological analyses, as well as for his work on ancient cultures and monuments in such diverse countries as Peru, Bosnia, and Japan. Dr. Schoch’s research has been instrumental in spurring renewed attention to the interrelationships between geological and astronomical phenomena, natural catastrophes, and the early history of civilization. Dr. Schoch has appeared on many radio and television shows and is featured in the Emmy-winning documentary The Mystery of the Sphinx which first aired on NBC. He has been a featured speaker at many national and international conferences.

Dr. Schoch is the author or coauthor of both technical and popular books, including the trilogy with R. A. McNally: Voices of the Rocks: A Scientist Looks at Catastrophes and Ancient Civilizations (1999), Voyages of the Pyramid Builders: The True Origins of the Pyramids from Lost Egypt to Ancient America (2003), and Pyramid Quest: Secrets of the Great Pyramid and the Dawn of Civilization (2005). A recent book publication by Dr. Schoch is The Parapsychology Revolution: A Concise Anthology of Paranormal and Psychical Research (compilation, and a hundred pages of commentary, by Robert M. Schoch and Logan Yonavjak; 2008). Dr Schoch's works have been translated into numerous languages and distributed around the world. He is also the coauthor of an environmental science textbook used in universities across the United States. He has contributed to numerous magazines, journals, and reviews on geology, parapsychology, and ancient civilizations



Not quite New Age :shrug:

Where are you going with this?

As per the above, so this guys says the Sphinx is from 3-5ooo bce. Conflicting evidence exists in that tombs from said period show no similar aging. Whatever, what's the point?

perhaps more than 12,000 years ago

Is there anything that you think you've accomplished with this thread besides the myriad insults? I think I liked you better when you were pasting large font everywhere, at least that was somewhat entertaining.

and for sure I do not waste my time trying, if it bothers you so much don't read it

what a laugh

on this board. How is that working for you so far?

I had hoped the feuding would be behind us.

It seems to me that much of the wrangling is over two things: labels, for which there is no consensus as to what they mean; and people defending their personal lives and choices.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to start a new thread and talk about this, since the arguments are getting pretty stale and unproductive. If the board is going to be about "how to live your personal life as a progressive" that should be agreed upon and made clear, for example. Or of the board is going to be about "the correct doctrine for those calling themselves (progressives, liberals, socialists whatever)" that could also be made clear, and than going further we could say "this board is for Progressives, and here is how that is defined." Sating "to the Left of (some other arbitrary and undefined label)" says nothing.

Or, we could identify and agree upon some common ground and develop a purpose for the group from that. I suspect that there is some, and that the labels and lifestyle choices are not of any serious import.

As it is now, there is a lot of rancor about relatively peripheral and inconsequential stuff. It is hard to even read through because really who cares who wins a snarkfest?

On a couple other boards there is an effort underway to address this problem - who are we? Where are we going? - and define terms, and there is a private discussion going on among admins and mods past and present from many boards talking about the problems and about where to now with the Left, and how to support that on the Internet.

until now


Is it a Progressive Independent, an Oasis of Independent Thought, a New Day Dawning?
Just what you were looking for right?


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/avatar1573_3.jpg

:hi:

A new thread would be great.

I lose interest quickly in any of the online forums when they veer too far off economic issues.

This type of feuding does not fit this place, from the perspective of '05 - '07 when I was active, it is the kind of thing that once was extremely rare to the point of not being a part of the character of discussions. I hope it is not an enduring fad.

Get back to balance brothers and sisters - to our mutual benefit.

http://dragonflihost.net/trigrams_sml.gif

I've been asking for term definitions for a while with little result. Democrat, Republican, "moderate", Libertarian, libertarian, progressive, etc. I don't know if there are any hard definitions for these terms or if it's a good idea to find them.

What we need to do is decide what we believe in overall and come up with a manifesto or declaration, etc. Come up with ideas about different issues, and maybe develop a movement around that. But, so far in my understanding, bringing the left "together" in any way is like herding cats. The last unified movement was the anti-war movement, which has just as quickly vanished.

Last winter ('08) when I was working on the Obama campaign locally I started looking to talk about politics on the internet. In my quest I found out quite a lot about Obama. Then I started looking for people who didn't necessarily agree with Obama. Finally I found those folks too.

I was invited to this site, not searching for new-agey slogans. Apparently the owner decided to change the scope of conversation a bit is what I've gathered. Instead of wildly running around attacking all the "new" members, maybe you should address said owner by PM and explain your beef. We were just invited here to talk and that's what we've been doing. We can see that you're upset.

This is news to me

So who built this thing?

you're just pissed that I am still here and have not been put out of my misery yet.

As your stated goal for this board. But keep up the good work you've accomplished much of your goal and only have a few more to go.


Please excuse me for not welcoming with open loving arms our executioner.


And don't try and deny it, 2 mods is proof in the pudding to me. Just finish it off by changing the name of the board so not to be continually accused of false advertising.

oh and have you guys deleted your ominous post about doing us all in in your little gabfest group, like the thread here that was deleted explaining to everyone just what the fuck was going on here?

but that has been explained to you endlessly and you refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not "pissed" as you put it. Obviously you can post wherever you like, and if you'd actually read threads rather than just spit out over-sized letters in retaliation for some imagined wrong, you might find that I even spoke out in favor of people not being suspended. But I know facts go (intentionally) over your head, so feel free to carry on with your little crusade.

Nobody is "doing you in" as you like to mindlessly repeat? Oh yea?

You've run off a number of excellent posters and good friends of mine. I won't go away I cut my teeth in the DU dungeon, you are just a pesky fly like the ones I left behind there


I know that you are so full of yourself to realize how many old PIers now do not posted here any longer since your highness has come aboard but it is the ugly truth and you really need to come to terms with your posting at PI and not fain ignorance of your effect here.

aren't they? Then people can 'align' with like-minded people without ever figuring out what their minds are like.

You can't even hardly say that being a Democrat means agreeing with the Dem platform because almost no one actually reads it. They listen to the flowery rhetoric filled with undefined words and concepts and get to translate it to whatever they want to hear. It's simply charming, isn't it? Until of course, they realize that nothing's changing.

Cognitive dissonance hurts my brain. (Spoken in my best Ralph Wiggum voice)

recently couldn't or didn't post here for TWO AND A HALF YEARS right?

"You buys what you buys. Some things probably won't get produced. Fifty different kinds of toothpaste? Hummers? One hundred foot yachts? Probably not. Other things like 5 kinds of toothpaste? Probably so. It depends on demand and competing priorities."

Why only 5 kinds? Will there be no advertising? Who'll make the decision? The Oficial Socialist Board Of Toothpaste? What about cars? Three models? Six? Colors?? Stick or automatic? Four wheel drive for those of us in the country? Trucks so I can haul firewood and bring in furniture material??

Honestly, I was hoping you could do better than "some yes, some no" but then again when you're spinning tales out of whole cloth it's kind of hard to get specific.

"What are "necessities"? That is simple. Food, shelter, clothing, health, education, culture, books... after that, variety... after that, who knows? It is a matter of priorities."

In other words - we'll make shit up as we go along. Culture - I love jazz. Can I get that? Ah, and computers. They'll have to be made, right? Even though many countries are so poor as to not even have viable communication infrastructure - do they get them too? Well, who knows!! It is, after all, a matter of.... priorities! Good grief, I expected lameness, but you've outdone yourself.

"Who commands labor is the final question. You know who commands it today. The owner of capital does. Perhaps you identify with him? Perhaps you don't trust "the masses" to meet your specific needs the way that the "free market" meets your individual, personal, very important, highly sophisticated, extremely advanced needs today. And, you have cash. Fine. We'll talk again next year."

Oh yes, the obligatory cheap shot. What time exactly is the purity meeting, and can everyone attend? Does it involve special clothing? Are there handshakes involved? Do you have to live in either Baltimore or St. Louis, and, more importantly, do you have to "get it?"

This was a little test to see how concrete a plan you could put forth when given the opportunity. It was all done as a devil's advocate, and was done to see if your stated intentions of bringing the message to the masses was doable.

You flunked. You brought forth snide condescension and abstract conclusions that did nothing to advance your cause. In place of ideas you gave us cut and paste lectures and derisive comments that drove some very creative and knowledgeable people off this board. What, didn't they measure up??

The "people" my ass. You are so far removed from "the people" it will take two train rides and a Geiger counter before you even get close.


When we talk next year, I'll bring the empty wine bottle coated in dripped wax - for "atmosphere."

Off to the (pretend) barricades!!

I'm only allowed so many keyboard entries before the men in suits take my computer away and make me recite those damn loyalty oaths again.

So why the fuck are you pissed at me?


A year and a half right?

It sounds to me like you need marketing departments from corporations to tell you what you want because you can't figure it out yourself. I don't think its true but it sure sounds like it based on this post of yours.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have options based on what people want and need, on what they prioritize when given an honest choice, than have those options determined by executives at huge corporations whose main (only?) motivation is profit margin with no regard to consequences? Where has that gotten us, exactly? Oh yeah, here. A charming, lovely place.

I think what Anax said above is pretty simple and straightforward. When talking about the potential of a whole different economic and political reality on this planet one can't draw a detailed picture. Well one could, but it would be meaningless.

What you are asking for here is absurd and irrelevant.

Who is the arbiter of what people want and need? You? Me?

Of course it shouldn't/can't be corporations, but you show me the path to help break them up and I'll bring along a pick-axe.

Right now mm all you've got is just theoretical talk.

Nice "movement" talk, but nothing more.

There is no "there" there, but if imagination is all we need then that certainly explains how Dorothy got back to Kansas, but not much more.

You state that when I ask for a simple thing like "show me a plan" that it's absurd? But then you expect me to sign up for maybe tomorrow wishes and free beer?

Is that the spin I'm supposed to buy into?

Haven't we been down the "just believe" road enough already, with disastrous results?

Thats the point dumbass. Not only are they so poor they don't have comm infrastructure, they tend to lack reliable electricity and running water.

Your take is "hey they're used to it, whereas I NEED to be able to buy a 5 (10?) grand stereo system and if we start trying to provide the basics for all then I might have my inviolate right to choose as a consumer trampled upon"

Who makes the decisions? Obviously not the majority, because no way in hell would they decide that the best way was stratification -- those with high tastes and sensibilities get the good stuff, the peasant types get to shovel all the shit. And you can spot a peasant from a mile away right? They probably even *sound* different to an ear as trained as yours..

I'm saying your high and righteous act isn't even self-consistent.

And, no, its 2 1/2 years -- all of 2007, all of 2008, half of 2009

Ya got no clothes on Kid - everyone knows it.

So, what do when you're exposed - ah yes, the personal attack is always good, yes?

You haven't a fucking clue what I am like - the many people I've met personally here do, but you're just another pretend radical who is all hyped up on the newest (oldest?) meme.

Go out in the small towns and the neighborhoods for real Kid - not the pretend world or some "working class" neighborhood where all the white boys go to get their "creds" in.

Hey, you can go to L.A. and meet a friend of mine - he did 17 years in Quentin for federal bank robbery in the 70's. He's gained few points since his glory days but he had a LOT of time to read in prison - and he'll hang you out to dry.

Even more than I do.

Say, is that a peasant in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

"Let's pretend...."

that sums it up dude..one "but" after another with you

Who is the arbiter of what people want and need? You? Me?

You think you're NOT setting yourself up as the arbiter? Yeah, your "hey, can't fight it" rhetoric and "what do you expect, for me to put up ALL the worlds poor people?!" indignation isn't EXACTLY you shutting the door on the wants and needs of billions of people.

I mean seriously what the fuck

you're killing me man!

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/2yzj7nq.gif

I just got here man.

Okay, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you are so determined to be contrary that you;ve lost all logic.

You demand to know who is going to make all these plans while you make mocking remarks about the Socialist Toothpaste Committee, it's like you THINK Anax (or I) have some secret answer that we are hiding from you, you've already made up your mind that what he is talking about is a huge controlling big brother-esque bureaucracy...

You WANT us to show you a plan so you can tell us how undemocratic it is. It ain't gonna happen, because that's not what we're talking about. I'm not trying to speak for Anax (lord knows he can do it quite well himself) but I have plenty to say of my own.

First things first, DB. I assume you have a place to live, food to eat, potable water to drink, possibly even a decent job with benefits. There are BILLIONS of people in the world without some or all of those things. Those basic needs are priority number one.

Next, things are being manufactured all over the world right now. All sorts of regular, everyday working people know how to make stuff, how to grow stuff, how to drive trucks to deliver stuff, how to build stuff...will that cease when the executives on high lose their offices? Those executives don't do shit when it comes to actually getting the work done. The world won't come to a standstill without them. In fact, people will likely be MORE productive when they have 'ownership' (if you will) over the decisions about what to make, how much to make, and so forth. And if shit is being made that no one wants (once hundreds of billions of dollars aren't being spent on market research and advertising to convince people they need the cheapest crappiest shit possible) then that crappy shit probably won't get made. And maybe some other crappy shit will continue to get made because people may genuinely like crappy shit.

I don't know, that's not up to me. Or Anax. Or some imaginary toothpaste board. It's up to the people making and using the shit and I can't speak for all of them. There are a lot of different kind of people in the world and I sure as hell won't try to tell you what they will want, despite your irrational insistence that I do so.

Can you imagine something as simple as health-care-for-all and the difference it could make for people who are tied to shitty jobs making shitty products for profits that they will never see, who only keep their jobs so they can take their kids to the hospital when they break their arm without having to go bankrupt? I trust you can see that, DB. Apply that image liberally to just about everything else. Meeting basic needs provides freedom. Do you see this?


Do you seriously need to know the number of toothpaste brands? Seriously, what is it that you are trying to ask?

No one's saying 'just believe'. Well, except Obama and even you don't fall for that shit.

eta: I said 'shit' 10 times in that post. I'm baaaa-aaack. LOLOLOLOLOL.

and I'll gladly be hung out to dry

Do you really think this is about jockeying? That "cred" is the issue, or who has read the most (quantity/quality) radical shit or even, as a last resort, whos done the most time?

I guess it has nothing to do with the 200 million globally pushed into poverty from this depression alone, te 50 million that are projected to die due to food shortages as a result of the "crisis". Or the 25 million Americas without jobs, homes, or futures.

Where is your head at man? The least important thing in the entire equation is ME. Do you really think if I had any brains I would be spending my nights beating my head against the wall talking with you on the internet? Or maybe you think burying my head in Marx and writing about the proletariat is a great way to bag chicks?

I do "know" you btw -- your every "self-made" guy who secretly or not-so-secretly wants to be the boss and fancies himself quite high on the totem poll. If you get any more enamored with yourself you're going have to get a room.

My Dad bought an RV from this guy named Rick Greenberg -- Rick went from a 20k RV all the way up to a 750k rolling castle after he started his own tech company or some shit. Very grounded sounding guy, can hold court on just about any subject and win the day against virtually anybody with his casual blend of know-how and bullshit

Now everytime I see a guy high-ballin' it down the road in a big coach I call him a Greenberg. Even my Dad gets the label (maybe affection is clouding my judgement on that one), and hes pennyante in comparison.

You, you're definitely a Greenberg

Its nothing personal, but I sure as shit ain't taking political advice from any Greenbergs

n/t

and am trembling in anticipation.

If you were any more clueless you'd be dead.

Heaven forbid you should take any advice - I mean, you already know everything! Why. you've even read books!!

Funny how I left that management gig to build furniture by myself in a small town in New England. Funny how I left a circle of "acquaintances" that wanted nothing more than to outdo the guy next to him while simultaneously sharing a meal and stabbing him in the back. Funny how there isn't a building or scholarship named after me, because after all isn't that what enamored do??

I"ll say it again - you're clueless. Oh, you got the recitation part down cold, but riddle me this: how ya gonna fix the town next door, as the businesses dry up and the most recent heroin bust had names in it that I recognize? What'cha gonna do - read 'em a polemic on redistribution of wealth?

They need work, they need food, they need social services, and they need it YESTERDAY. If I or anyone else in this town can see to it that their kids are fed for the next week or their rent is paid then THAT is of paramount importance.

When you show me how YOU can keep those kids healthy then I'll walk right besides you. I WILL NOT, however, be bamboozled by third rate means of production bullshit and fantasy-land ideas. Here's an idea Kid - go find out why your neighbors are lining up at the food pantry and try and make sure it never happens again. Build something. Tear something down. Find the bastard who is living large while his employees take second jobs as Wal-Mart greeters and put it out for the community to see. Help to try and get workers to be able to unionize.

But fer crissakes do SOMETHING.

P.S. Do you read Marx while riding in the RV to see the Grand Canyon? I'll bet you do, because, after all, even though the revolution will not be televised it sometimes travels on I-95 with a bike rack.

Regards,

Greenberg (Hank, that is)

Anax's mentor reads Hegel in the bathroom if I remember aright.

Its like you think that if you even take Marx seriously enough to think about what he wrote that you are inducted into some devil cult and held under sway of occult conjurations. Shit, I'm a loud and proud Luciferian then. Wanna slit wrists together and drain a pint or two out into a bucket? Great for Satanic rituals and contracting with Daemons.

On "doing something" what do you want me to do, spit in the wind? If I did, you'd remind me what a poser or what a joke I was for that too. I don't possess nearly enough hubris to think that the world turns on what I do or don't do, and not for lack of trying either.

Underneath it all I don't really think you are a bleeding heart, but maybe I am wrong about that. And if you're really Hank Greenberg, what year did you hit 58 home runs? You must be a zombie. (before you say it, I saw him on Charlie Rose shilling for the AIG bailout last September..they're both zombies though)

Regardless, in spite of what you say, I am doing something -- I'm giving progressives who are really raging rightwingers (Two Americas words, take it up with him) holy hell, and writing about the shit that is really going down in the world. In the process we're picking up others who are doing the same. In another time and place, that won't count for jack maybe. But right now, look around. You bring the firebombs, I'll steal a couple pitchforks from some unsuspecting farmer and we can have a Revolution of two.

duh!

Care to mention the culture or civilization, or how neolithic people, having neither the tools, technique's, nor able to support the kind of population density required to erect such a pile, pulled it off?

I think it is very easy to bring the Left together - it is a far easier task than the right wing has in trying to get the people to support them. If we think we are herding cats, there is something else wrong. It is easy to herd cats anyway - put food out, and they will all be attracted by the same food. The problem with the political Left - such as it is in this country - is that political "food" is never put out. The right wing herds cats by terrorizing them. That works with cats, too.

The terms Democrat, Republican, "moderate", Libertarian, libertarian, progressive, etc. are thought of and used by people as though they were either brand names, or else names for religious denominations. The way people define those terms has little or nothing to do with politics, but rather are associated with personal identity and personal beliefs. They would be easy to define were we to look at the phenomena they were originally coined to describe, rather than to cobble together belief systems and personal identities to attach to them - "positions on issues" and "personal belief systems" and such - selling features for the brand name, or doctrinal principles for the religion. People then project this onto the term "Socialist" - "they" - those Reds - must be selling something, or must be trying to convert people to a new "belief system" is what people assume, because that is the only way they know how to look at politics. It is all tent revival preachers, or snake oil salesmen: the two pervasive models for all social interaction in the United States. Socialism makes for a bad product, and it makes for a bad religion, so people reject it - rejecting the term is all they really are doing - on that basis.

Here is what I wrote about this at SocIndy last night:

Ananxarchos had posted this, in response to the question "what is Socialism?" -

[div class="excerpt"]
The term was defined in the 19th century... i.e. someone advocating the extension of Democratic principles into the social (as as opposed to the strictly "political") realm. This is not just "democratization of the workplace" but goes much further into the extension of "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" into the the disposition of social property. Certainly this included the ownership of land, banks, and large enterprises, as well as dams, roads and the like, in "common". On the other hand, it also included the extension of "The Rights of Man" into the Economic sphere (the Right to Education, a Job, Social Security, etc.).

The very Left-Wing of the Jacobins (such as St. Just) were considered Socialists, as were the later Utopians (such as Owen). The term "communist” was basically indistinguishable from "Socialist", being applied first to Babeuf. It was used to also describe the views of the pre-revolutionary egalitarian priest, Jacques Roux.

"Social Democracy" was also an identical term, once again derived from the extension of democracy into the remainder of society. The first Social Democratic Party was the German SDs, the party of Marx.

Finally, Anarchism was also a form of socialism originally, although by the end of the century it was identified specifically with agrarian socialism. Unlike the other terms, anarchism did insist on the “immediate” elimination of the state, at least as a theoretical proposition.

There has never been a uniform doctrine but there has always been a uniform set of objectives with a wide ranging disagreement on how that was to be achieved. To be entirely honest, the Social Dems never gave up a formal loyalty to those common aims... they simply stopped talking about them (except within the bowels of arcane policy documents of the Second International), as the Social Democratic Parties became more and more corrupt and compromised.

The wiki entry reflects the modern bullshit theory of the “evolution” of socialism. It is true that anyone can appropriate any word they like (witness the German National Socialist Workers Party – the Nazis), but there is no way that “Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism)”, "council communism" and a bunch of other “modern” variants belong under the label at all. It goes without saying that Obama doesn't belong to the club, either.[/quote]

My response:

[div class="excerpt"]There is something really useful about this. People are arguing against the term "Socialism" without having a clue what it means. They are also arguing to defend their personal whatever. The personal whatever is rigidly attached to a term, so that the term becomes defined by the personal whatever. "Progressive" means a smart well-balanced successful and stylish person, who cares and makes the right personal choices and takes the enlightened positions on issues. "Socialist" means maladjusted individual, probably a loser who can't hold down a job and who is fanatically devoted to some arcane doctrine because they have nothing else in their life and can't get laid. Politics never gets discussed, the political sounding talk is just camouflage to disguise the fact that the actual content of the conversation is little more than that of the the clique of cool kids at the high school taunting the losers and commiserating with one another about how yucky the poor and slow kids are.

However, if we start with "extending the Rights of Man - extending the principles of democracy - into the economic sphere" and ask for a consensus on that, the people who want to chatter ad infinitum about their personal lifestyle choices, personal spirituality, and about which term is better to label oneself with have to fish or cut bait. This "what the word has come to mean" bullshit argument - cue the scary music and the scratchy b&w film of Stalin on the rostrum in Red Square as tanks and missiles roll by - is undermined, as well.

For those who are deathly afraid of the words "Socialist" and "Communist" anaxarchos even gave them a safe place to hide from those scary words - they can call themselves "Social Democrats." At least we would know what we are talking about, which we do not with "Progressive" and "Liberal" and "Democrat."

We could quickly find out who is a Socialist and merely confused, and who is a raging right winger hiding in "Progressive" clothing. I would bet there are some of both. As it is now, so long as we are arguing about personal choices and personal labels and personal beliefs, it is impossible to tell who is who.

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me this could break the logjam, put an end to the mind-numbing debates about green choices and the like - we can smash the crap out of that stuff, but it gets old to do it again and again and again - drive the conservatives out into the open, and draw more people into the good discussion. What am I missing?[/quote]

I am involved in a private round robin listserv discussion among mods and admins from several boards, and here is something I posted there about this -

Notice how much people struggle to define and identify themselves politically, and how that leads to everyone having a highly individualized position which makes it difficult to generate a shared compelling narrative.

The definition I posted for "Socialist" is clear, and it is broad, expansive, visionary and flexible, as well as being historically accurate -

"Someone advocating the extension of Democratic principles into the social (as as opposed to the strictly "political") realm. This is not just 'democratization of the workplace' but goes much further into the extension of 'Liberty, Equality and Fraternity' into the the disposition of social property. Certainly this included the ownership of land, banks, and large enterprises, as well as dams, roads and the like, in 'common.' On the other hand, it also included the extension of "The Rights of Man" into the Economic sphere (the Right to Education, a Job, Social Security, etc.)."

From that, we can place, for example, an issue such as GLBTQ equal rights (or public education, or organized Labor, or environmentalism, or universal public health care) into a powerful political context and a coherent and comprehensive political narrative. In that context it is utterly impossible to see "gay rights," or the struggles of the UAW workers, or that of the public school teachers as someone's "pet causes." Liberty, Equality and Fraternity means that none of our brothers and sisters are left out or denied rights on any pretext, and that then is a cause that all would share. "An injury to one is an injury to all" and "rights denied anywhere are rights threatened everywhere." Those two statements are objective observations of reality as much as they are ideals or beliefs.

"Progressive and "liberal" just do not have any definition that is so coherent and powerful. Most people who call themselves Democrats, Progressives and Liberals actually do share a loyalty to those common aims stated in the definition of "Socialist." So why not state those aims, and promote them unambiguously and coherently, and use that as the rallying point? It is almost as if identifying as Democrats, Progressives and Liberals serves the purpose of weakening us, mitigating the cause, and confusing us about our political stance, and little else. Those political "philosophies" become a grab bag of "positions" on "issues" with no common thread, each one isolated and disconnected from the others. Rather than seeing each issue as a front in the battle, one part of a comprehensive struggle, each cause must stand on its own. This then reinforces isolation and marginalization of the people directly under assault on that particular front. I do not think that it is possible, so long as we identify as Democrats, Progressives and Liberals to ever win against the bigots and the privileged. How much more evidence do we need before we admit that? Why are we more loyal to those fuzzy terms, and the rambling disconnected wish list associated with those terms that passes for a political stance than we are to the principles and ideals that should be, and actually are the foundation for our political involvement in the first place?

Why might GLBTQ equality, to use that example again, be an important political issue? Because that is one of the current hot fronts in the battle, that is where the forces of conservatism and the ruling class have focused their energy, where they have chosen to launch an assault against all of us, to tear down the Rights of Man and to intimidate, distract and terrorize all of us. They are attacking us at what they perceive to be a weak point, and have opened up a fight against social democracy there. They are going after one group of our brothers and sisters on the "gay" pretext. We did not choose that battle, it was forced upon us, and should we lose there, those assaulting us will not stop with having successfully "defended the sanctity of marriage" and then be satisfied, but will move on to another weak point and attack there. That is already happening. At DU the same people who are attacking GLBTQ people are also attacking union advocates, public education advocates, civil rights advocates, environmentalists, gender equality advocates, animal rights supporters.

The various Liberal and Progressive positions are not causes, they are fronts in the battle, and part of the same struggle against the same forces.

If people are afraid of the words "Socialist" or "Communist," or worry that the fear the general public has of those terms is a handicap, then the term "Social Democrat" will do. The word "social" does need to be included, and "democrat" is insufficient.

The principles of democracy must be extended into the economic and social realms if there is to be any democracy at all.

The conservatives are always trying to limit democracy to a very narrow arena, to reduce the scope and impact of politics as much as possible. Socialists - or if people prefer Social Democrats - are fighting for the Rights of Man and for democracy to be extended beyond the carefully circumscribed, corruptible, manipulated and severely limited realm of electoral politics.

The forces arrayed against democracy, against the people, have selected what they perceive to be weak, exposed and vulnerable flanks, and are waging a relentless attack at those points - organized Labor, public education and teachers, the GLBTQ community for example. That means that this is where the battle for democracy is, this is where we must fight back, this where we must rally the pro-democracy forces. That makes the causes all equally important priorities, not the "pet causes" of the few.

As Socialists - or Social Democrats - we can say that and mean it. As Democrats, Progressives and Liberals we cannot: we are forced to choose, we are forced into being seen as part of isolated and marginalized groups promoting a "pet causes," we are put on the defensive against our own supposed allies, the "back of the bus" is the default position, and the burden of changing that is left to the few to wage the battle alone, in the most unfavorable context imaginable. That is unacceptable, and there are no weapons in the world of Liberal and Progressive politics that can ever overcome those handicaps.

Identifying as Democrats, Progressives and Liberals means a willingness to keep others in the "back of the bus," or a willingness to throw them under the bus if they get too annoying. It means that your practical politics must be seen as contradictory and oppositional to your ideals and principles.

hidden down here at the bottom of this disastrous thread.

including you. Every single time Tinoire put someone on "time-out" the past few weeks, it was Soc Indy members who asked her to please reconsider. We believe in people being able to speak, no matter how inane some of their comments may be at times.

As for other people choosing not to post, that is their prerogative. Unlike some folks I understand that I can't control what other people do or say.

SLAD keeps drawin' pictures but you keep missin' it.

Orion's Belt = Orion Correlation Theory = Atlantis

Of course, it doesn't correlate:

Fairall, Anthony (June 1999). "Precession and the layout of the Ancient Egyptian pyramids", Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society

And the guys who claimed it did, inverted the map in order to force it.

And then, there is the "Atlantis" thing...

But, while we are at it, what did this have to do with "politics", AGAIN?

On Edit: (Well, there is one kinda "politics" that goes with Atlantis but I don't even want to think about that one...)

OR Fairall, Anthony

but that's your MO isn't it, Shitin and Stirin?

So gather your good friends together, hammer out between you what it is you want to see happen, and then we will negotiate an end to this idiocy. If you want to control PI and have it back the way it was, then put together a plan and make it happen. I can't say that I will necessarily agree with you, but I will do everything I can to reach an understanding and to help you get exactly what you want.

I'm an opened minded guy, always willing to give a listen.
Just would like to see some pertinant data presented that I might understand just wtf this Egyptian thing is, I like the Ed Sanders version.

"There's no escaping,
the puking Sphinx"

I am being completely sincere. How do you think I insulted you?

It's too bad you don't know who Anthony Fairall is. He is one of two astronomers who independently debunked Hancock and Bauval ("Orion Correlation"). The other original debunker is Ed Krupp of Griffith Observatory. My citation was to Fairall's paper on the subject.

And, don't be coy about who those guys are. Your graphics are meant to support correlation.

As far as Atlantis goes, where do YOU think that comes in? Let's see now: an advanced civilization, existing thousands of years before Dynastic Egypt, with an "advanced technology" and science, yadda, yadda... Nine out of ten times Orion Correlation is the beginning of the modern Atlantis fable. Maybe your "advanced civilization" isn't Atlantis... maybe it is Sitnalta.

SLAD, who are you kidding? How many of these do you "believe" in, anyhow?

Aquinas solved the riddle of metaphysics. If there is a world other than the physical one, if it exists as an extension of it, then the rules are the same. If it can not be made visible from those rules, then it is something different, subject to entirely different rules. There is the world of Man and the world of God, with the first conforming to logic and the second conforming to "faith".

But through this riddle, Aquinas introduced a new dilemma, much bigger than the first:

Where does "faith" stop?

It is not possible to use logic or rationality or emotion or inner-seeking to decide what not to believe. Those are all worldly tools.

If one believes one thing through "faith", how is it possible to not believe everything?

It is a rhetorical question... not a directive to actually try to believe everything (most such elements are mutually exclusive).

There ain't even a smidgen of science here...

edited cause I guess I shouldn't say shit, I'll try being more polite

I never said I did not know who Anthony Fairall was I said I did not mention him. I do try and keep my posts short so to not confuse you but it seems if I used any less words I wouldn't make it out of the subject line. If you ever decide to reply to me again without 'makin shit up' I'll consider having some sort of conversation with you.

Okay so someone said something bad and it wasn't even directed at you personally.

We already know how you feel about it. If you keep beating someone up is that going to change their heart?

Why do you want all of the new people to leave? I can't believe how hostile you and some of the other folks like Montag and marshwren were as soon as the people started to come here again.

Maybe there's something I'm missing here? Maybe I've had my head stuck in 9/11 crap for so long I don't know what the hell is going on in the rest of the world?

Sorry, SLAD, but I'm happy that there's some new life coming back to PI. I'd much rather read a thread that challenges my POV, then a bunch of crap where we pat each other on the back.

Didn't even warrant a response. Silence is consent though, right DB? ;)

she was responding to me. Although at this point she has just fielded a new team and is still in attack mode. Nothing we say matters at all, and she certainly doesn't want to talk about political issues. It's just some misguided crusade now, which is too bad.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c395/chlamor/39.jpg

I got a reply to one of my posts and can't figure out what it was! I thought 99 was for me for a minute, but didn't make sense for what I wrote either...

n/t

Pffft


Yeah
She's so sexy every man's fantasy
a refugee like me back with the Fugees
from a 3rd world country
I go back like when 'pac carried crates for
Humpty Humpty
I need a whole club dizzy
Why the CIA wanna watch us?
Colombians and Haitians
I ain't guilty, it's a musical transaction
No more we do snatch ropes
Refugees run the seas 'cause we own our
own boats


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/gifts/funny-2.jpg

So be wise and keep on
Reading the signs of my body


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygctbqBijFk

I just get off on group-speak. :)

Socialism fails to address the fundamental urge that exist within all humans, that being 'better-ment" (for lack of a better word).

To think that human beings do not have an inherent belief that they can do things "better" than the next guy is absurd. Even been around four carpenters building a house? There's a reason there is a lead carpenter - if their wasn't everyone would think their way is the best and nothing would fit. This is why Marxism/socialist falls - it operates on the faulty premise that a group of individuals will share ownership in something completely and evenly without the inherent human foible of "my dog's better than your dog."

Then, in a socialist world everything will be made in some la-la land of consensus, where "the people" decide what they want and don't want. How does this happen? Seriously - give me the nuts and bolts about how one goes about deciding what are basis human needs, what products get made, what constitutes "marketing', and the like. I'm guessing these decisions are going to have to be made by a select group of individuals, lest the thing die of its own weight. If this is indeed the case, explain how this "vote" will not become as bastardized as the farce we currently have.

Health care should be right, not an option. If it is to be so (and I agree wholeheartedly that it should), then how would socialism deal with research? WHat makes you feel that those who undertake the research will do so under the belief that this is for "the common good." Would they not not want to inherently be "paid" in some fashion if their research lead to breakthrough cures? Surely you're not going to push this very important question away with something as inane as "in the new world all people will pull together and no one will care who gets credit for what, are you." Soma, anybody?

Nd what becomes of those who refuse to play? In this society they are jailed (I am taking the incredibly skewed racial component out for now, and just looking at it in a neutral sense, or as best a neutral sense as I can imagine) - what becomes of them in a worker controlled environment? Who makes the call on their "worthiness", because it can not be argued that some folks pop out of the womb with a "does not play well with others" stamp in big bold letters on their foreheads. Environment plays a part, to be sure, but not enough to solely send them down the path they choose to travel.

What of those who can not make the decisions you think everyone will partake in? My dad was a machinist with an 8th grade education, damn good one but as far as playing a part in the future of the company he worked for forget it. 40 hours, a beer (or 12) on the porch after work -that's it. Suppose the folks who "own" the means of production just don't want to be bothered running it? And what if they can't (intellectually) play a part in the decisions?

If these questions can not be answered, then you are asking me to take the same leap of faith as a born-again Christian who feels that "God will show the way." Well, that belief system is predicated of the belief in God, and should one question same the damn thing has no legs. You're banking the house money on the fact that all people will behave in the ways you wish them to. They won't.

I studied Marx for years, first as a sociology major in college and then for almost a decade after. What I finally realized was that as lovely as it all sounds when viewed in a vaccum it has no answers in dealing with the unpredictbility of the human condition, can not and will not get behind the fact that humans have an inherent need to better themselves (remember, the cave man found shelter after he realized that rain was wet), and can not come to grasp with the simple fact that there exists within all of us an emotion that says " let me try."

Marxism is great to theorize over - it's quite interesting to discuss it, think of ways to implement it, and get angry beyond belief (rightfully so) and the current state of robber baron capitalism that we currently live it. Having a circle-jerk with like minded friends is always fun, especially if someone tries to crash the party and you got the numbers. But alas, in the end it all comes down to show me how it works, and Marx, Engels et al. can't do that anywhere save on a whole lot of dead trees.

Real life humans beings and their myriad of social responses and belief systems can't be place inside a giant one size fits all plan. If they can, show me an example or two. Heck, how about just a mid-size worker owned company that doesn't have a board of directors pretending to be the will of the people. I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, at least for now I'm not too impressed with poster A telling poster B how right he is as they nod their heads in unison to the same music.

Thanks for listening - potty mouth. :)

Are you sure you're not channeling Grover Norquist?

Sorry to say you just recited chapter and verse the lingua franca the Libertarian hooligans.

"Show me how it works" and "I studied Marx" whew friends that is simply a steamin' pile.

You now the foreman at the cliche' packing factory?

The irony of course that the crap you just blew out is the programmed retort from those who use Groupspeak to quell any serious consideration of the very thing that has allowed humans to even survive. Socialism.

Now please present us with your beautifully individualized version of a kindler-gentler capitalism. Certain to be a hit with the defenders of the status quo.

You just gave me another example in your never ending stream of nothingness wrapped in a snark bow.

Sorry, but it's your turn to defend your great notion. Cut and paste is not allowed, but specific examples are encouraged. Points are awarded if you can actually refute statements and extra cool bonus points are given if you can explain why the next great thing seems to be championed primarily by single folks. Holy shit, I'm hoping parents aren't too concerned with trying to make sure their children have an easier time of it than they did.

Bonus point are deducted if the words "tool","Libertarian" or "defender of the status quo" are used in response. We're on your dime now, so make it good.


Oh, and with regards to the cliche factory if I'm the foreman, sonny, you OWN the place.

It's what you do, dig??

P.S. I actually met Norquist once - years ago. He's out of his fucking mind, but don't let that stand in the way of the pictures you need to paint.

that really should stall this entire discussion in its tracks

By your own admission, you're a rabid anti-socialist. You have your "reasons" yadda yadda. As you know, you're "free" to "believe" whatever you like.

But you say you've read your Marx and Engels. And I would presume in 10 years of studying sociology that you've read your history, right? So you know that the history of leftist action, agitation, left thought and all the rest is exactly synonymous with socialism since the 1850s at least.

Without animus, I suggest that you can extrapolate from there. You are "political" yes, but on an exclusively anti-left basis. As it stands, there is no ground on which the twains can meet (to mix metaphors)

DancingBear,
A society that continues to be organized through the exercising of power by a ruling minority doesn't come about as an expression of human nature. It arrives from an explicit desire of those few who have, historically, benefitted the most from it, to continue to dominate its economic and political institutions. At this moment, capitalism is a choice.

Even if your assessment of human nature is right (and it isn't), why do we chose to organize society in a way that would magnify inequality?

As far as the nuts and bolts of economic and political decision making, the view from here in la-la land is that just as people decide now, people will decide then. Only a different class of people, in much greater numbers and more democratically.

we shall continue this line of conversation. For now I am consciously avoiding "doctrine" despite assertions to the contrary.

Capitalism is most certainly perceived and entertained by Dancing Bear as a "choice" which is odd because he keeps insisting the opposite.

As there is so much certitude by certain folks that socialism is indeed the answer then DB (who from this point forward shall refuse to refer to himself in the third person) is just wanting to see some things flushed out.

The minutia is what is missing, and the minutia is what makes the whole thing rise and/or fall. The outline is all well and good, but when you get to stuff like 2.5.b is where the thing runs out of steam.

Just give me at least the beginnings of an answer as to how one deals with the variety of the human condition and I"m good.

Arguing the validity of economic systems without adding this component in is pointless - it's like arguing the merits of ice hockey in the Sahara.

A priest, a rabbi and a minister walk into a bar.

The bartender says "is this a joke?"

Ba-da-bing.

I am saying that Dancing Bear is writing and agitating from an anti-left stance. Either Dancing Bear needs to stop doing that or Dancing Bear needs to get the fuck out. Like, right now.

PI is not a social club, let alone an exclusive one dedicated to decorum and propriety, or at least it didn't used to be.

There is an important disagreement here, hidden under the feuding.

If people want PI to be a pleasant social club for the like-minded, a relaxing hobby activity, I think they should be able to have that and those of us who are not interested in that can move on. All I am asking is that we know what it is we are doing.

Anyone here who wants PI to go back to the way it was the last couple of years need only express that and take responsibility for it - organize it and take over the expenses and chore of managing it. I won't stand in their way, and I don't think Tinoire will either. But these passive-aggressive games, and hints and insinuations and resistance to the truth and avoidance of responsibility will always lead to exactly the trouble we are seeing here.

I am perfectly willing to take on those responsibilities, and Tinoire wants to turn them over to me. I could, if I wanted to, take over the board and simply ban the regulars who are so terribly unhappy with the arrival of the old PI veterans. I am not going to do that until the regulars either can find common ground with the newly arriving veterans, or else get first crack at taking on PI themselves. I should not be subjected to abuse because I am considering the regulars here first and foremost, and that is what is happening.

Those who are complaining and sniping, and who want their old PI back need to state their goals clearly, come up with a plan, and do it and stop blaming others. Tinoire has been carrying the burden here by herself for along time. She wants to move on, She has a right to do that.

Tinoire went to the leftists who had been run off over the years, apologized, admitted she had been wrong and asked for help. That takes a tremendous amount of guts. whether or nit people agree with her, she deserves respect. She has been completely straightforward and honest about this, as have I, as havethe4 returning members. People may not like this, may not like what people have to say, but that is their responsibility and not the fault of Tinoire or the returning members.

What I AM doing, however, is exposing folks who have no answers, but who excel at screaming in an echo chamber.

if that is what you want, then go for it. You can quote each other paragraphs, you can bobble-head back and forth with each other, and at the end of the day you can have an intimate gathering of true believers in the corner of an empty room.

A long time ago David Brinkley said that "bias is merely an opinion you don't agree with." If you only could look at it that way you might be able to get past yourselves and make concrete suggestions that will help move us all along. But you can't - you're so hung up on reading straight from the script that you fail to realize that the author forget the stage directions. 'Emote!", he says! ""Rebel! Speak out! Castigate!" But how, the actors want to know. Where are are cues, our stage placements? "That matters little!", the author cries, "For it is the belief that shall guide us"!"

No Kid, I'm not anti-left. You are. Let me quote you something that anaxarchos, one of your heroes, posted on SI in response to what is happening here.

"Meanwhile, PI (Tinoire on this board) decided that "Socialists" were a hell of a lot better than moldy new age pustules growing all over her board."

Nice, huh? Spoken by one of those who is espousing unity? (You ARE all about unity, aren't you?) That, my friend, is example #! of what I've been trying to get through to you and yours all along. He's a fraud. Yea, I'm gonna hitch my wagon to an imbecile like that. He just wants his "side" to win, just like any party hack. Trouble is, he's so full of himself that he can't even begin to comprehend that there may be other ways to get across the river. The other bridges may be too long, or too short, or too high, or too low. His bridge, you see, is the One True Way , and he'll be sure to throw the full force of his righteous indignation (sponsored by Coors Light) on anyone who can't "see."

You've got a long way to go Kid, before you realize that the world ain't your oyster. Start by listening instead of screaming "anti-left! anti-left! as if Karl Marx was really Barney Fife with a beard. Try and come up with answers to the questions I ask instead of painting me with some kind of bizarro-world paint brush (a favorite tactic of the right, BTW).

You see, Kid, you could very well be right, but until all the questions get answered we'll never really know now, will we????

with a little Buchanan and Santorum thrown in for measure ;)

I hope this is settled soon so we can actually talk about politics again.

"She has been completely straightforward and honest about this"


That depends on when she decided to be "completely straightforward and honest about this" It sure was not from the beginning. We had to learn of the new direction of this board by accident and a link to SocIndy. Many people here felt blindsided by the whole thing. It would have been "nice" to hear from her here first instead of reading the crap some people on Soc thought about us.


And because the Bar and Grill is gone now I guess there is no place here for some R&R. And then there is the fact that we do have a GD and a GDP. One would think because of that distinction one could talk about other stuff from time to time. But I guess now it is not appropriate to talk about anything but politics. And anyone to do so is inundated with negativity and pushed away. At times one needs to be able to talk with like minded individuals about other things, just for a pleasant break from all politics all day.

If it is the intention of the SocIndy folks to talk about nothing but politics then I guess you should do away with all the other forums here since they will be of no use. And this place will look exactly like SocIndy.

because your inquisition is irrelevant and absurd, not to mention anything but sincere or well-intentioned

Following Marx, I think human society and productivity is the continual/perpetual transformation of human nature. I'd find the exact quote but you doubtless have heard it before, right?

Further, once more following Marx, I think "solutions" of the kind you want to talk about are incapable of being plans but only serve as (potential no less) palliatives and ploys. They are little more than the appeals of the faithful, guised as they are as calls for "democracy", "freedom", "justice", whathefuckever.

I think the the productive powers of the human race are shackled to a set of social relations which inhibit their full realization because a part of the social product is always set aside and reserved for those who dictate the use and distribution of all social production. That INCLUDES btw our own species..we produce ourselves more surely and truly than we produce any commodity.

This is not something you can *change* -- exploitation, which you know is the extraction of surplus value because you read Marx, is inherent in the private property form. It doesn't suffer change, it can only be overthrown, and this by its very definition

I will put it very simply: as a wage worker you can not possibly be paid as much as produced for your employer. If you were it would be a zero net gain and no employer is going to do that, nor could they survive if they did. Therefore, the interest in question is one common to ALL wage workers ("wage work" understood broadly). That interest transcends and trivialized all of your concerns, just as it scoffs at your objections and annihilates your ambivalent dithering (maybe this, maybe that, maybe yes maybe not)

You want to stand against that CLASS interest because you feel you have an incentive to do so. You parrot the logic of capital and the boss because you see your own livelihood as beholden to them. I am suggesting that you ARE beholden, but rather than groveling I encourage you to join the resistance and fight back.

You are wrong about who and what you are, but there is no need to speculate because I suspect that one day we WILL know the answer.

from Tinoire might have been helpful, but that is only hind site. At the time she may have thought that the old members would just have their membership id's turned back on, start posting, and slowly the tone might change. No one could have foreseen the firestorm that would ensue.

SLAD, what Mike is saying is that we need to make some decisions here. Tinoire is ready to turn the reins over to new owners. What are your thoughts on that? You don't need to answer immediately, just wondered if you had given some thought to taking over the place yourself. Or do you simply wish to be involved going forward with Mike at the helm?

I know there are some hurt feelings, but it seems like we can all work this out like adults. The "who takes it over" thing is important because someone has to do the admin work & pay the fees if the site is going to survive.

I'll go first - I don't want to own it. I'll support Mike from behind the scenes but I want no official role. Mike has stated he'll do it, but only if you (SLAD et al) guys don't want it yourselves. So, that's where we are.

I understand that people felt blind-sided. We didn't anticipate what was going to happen, and were blind-sided too. In hindsight we could have handled it better. We have both apologized for that several times.

What you read at SocIndy was not about the people, they were not personal attacks, they were criticisms of what people were saying and the way they were acting.

PI was, I believe, intended to be a political board, and furthermore a left wing political board. But that is one of the things that needs to be resolved and agreed upon.

SocIndy was not intended to be a board for the general public. Repeating the same "you are losers" line of argument is not helpful and only builds more resentment.

I do not agree that the returning members are spreading negativity and pushing people away. They are all the most recc-ed, read, followed and popular members on several boards and have been for years. People steer clear of SocIndy because the word "socialist" scares them half to death.

There are thousands of places on the Internet to talk about other stuff. There is no place to talk left wing politics. That is going to happen, and soon, as there is a growing consensus that there are no left wing political boards, that the approach all of us have been taking has failed, and that the time is right to replace DU with a real left wing board. The only questions are these: will it happen here, and will you be part of it?

As far as what the SocIndy people think, I can't speak for others, but here is my opinion FWIW - I think some of the regulars here are being petulant, defensive, angry and hostile, and also that "progressive" is so poorly defined that we have extreme right wingers promoting their ideas here with a mere fig leaf of "progressive" rhetoric to disguise that. Right now it is difficult to tell which is which. I was as surprised as anyone to see the reception the returning people received. That is not a very flattering assessment, but it is not a personal attack nor is it evidence of some sort of evil plan.

and I am sorry I must have missed that, I was not aware.


"They are all the most recc-ed, read, followed and popular members on several boards and have been for years."



And again I apologized I did not intend to slight SocIndy with my remarks




and then if you could address this:


And because the Bar and Grill is gone now I guess there is no place here for some R&R. And then there is the fact that we do have a GD and a GDP. One would think because of that distinction one could talk about other stuff from time to time. But I guess now it is not appropriate to talk about anything but politics. And anyone to do so is inundated with negativity and pushed away. At times one needs to be able to talk with like minded individuals about other things, just for a pleasant break from all politics all day.

Thanks, I misread the thread. I can't tell who is talking to whom.

We could have a lounge. Can't see why not.

Let me ask you a question if I may. What do you think the purpose of the board is or should be?

I was not aware until 2 weeks ago there was a problem with PI.

He saw his enemies like unto himself,
And he learned love.
Then, he was answered.[/i][/b]



http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/321_06-Balanced_Rock-5-03-100.jpg


Why do we never get an answer
When were knocking at the door?
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war.

Its where we stop and look around us
There is nothing that we need.
In a world of persecution
That is burning in its greed.

Why do we never get an answer
When were knocking at the door?
Because the truth is hard to swallow
Thats what the wall of love is for.

Its not the way that you say it
When you do those things to me.
Its more the way that you mean it
When you tell me what will be.

And when you stop and think about it
You wont believe its true.
That all the love youve been giving
Has all been meant for you.

Im looking for someone to change my life.
Im looking for a miracle in my life.
And if you could see what its done to me
To lose the the love I knew
Could safely lead me through.

Between the silence of the mountains
And the crashing of the sea
There lies a land I once lived in
And shes waiting there for me.

But in the grey of the morning
My mind becomes confused
Between the dead and the sleeping
And the road that I must choose.

Im looking for someone to change my life.
Im looking for a miracle in my life.
And if you could see what its done to me
To lose the the love I knew
Could safely lead me to
The land that I once knew.
To learn as we grow old
The secrets of our souls.

Its not the way that you say it
When you do those things to me.
Its more the way you really mean it
When you tell me what will be.

Why do we never get an answer
When were knocking at the door?
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war.

Its where we stop and look around us
There is nothing that we need.
In a world of persecution
That is burning in its greed.

Why do we never get an answer
When were knocking at the door?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_xjpKhz5_o



After he had journeyed,
And his feet were sore,
And he was tired,
He came upon an orange grove
And he rested
And he lay in the cool,
And while he rested, he took to himself an orange and tasted it,
And it was good.
And he felt the earth to his spine,
And he asked, and he saw the tree above him, and the stars,
And the veins in the leaf,
And the light, and the balance.
And he saw magnificent perfection,
Whereon he thought of himself in balance,
And he knew he was.

Just open your eyes,
And realize, the way it's always been.
Just open your mind
And you will find
The way it's always been.
Just open your heart
And that's a start.

And he thought of those he angered,
For he was not a violent man,
And he thought of those he hurt
For he was not a cruel man
And he thought of those he frightened
For he was not an evil man,
And he understood.
He understood himself.

Upon this he saw that when he was of anger or knew hurt or felt fear,
It was because he was not understanding,
And he learned, compassion.

And with his eye of compassion.
He saw his enemies like unto himself,
And he learned love.
Then, he was answered.

Just open your eyes,
And realize, the way it's always been.
Just open your mind
And you will find
The way it's always been.
Just open your heart
And that's a start.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6jXLa-TK34

There may not be a problem with PI. Some of us think it has drifted far to the right in the absence of any leftists, and away from politics (same thing really) - including the admin. So we are saying that the approach that has been taken is not reaching the goals originally set out, and we want to take a different approach, and also that the board is drifting to the right. It has even strayed away from politics of any kind, since politics is about and has always been about power and resources - who does and who does not have access to those - and not about personal belief systems or personal choices.

If you look at the original mission statement, "radical" is as far right as a person can be and be welcome, while Socialists and Communists are said to be welcome. If people want to re-define the purpose of PI to match what it has become, they should say so and describe exactly what they want and how they propose to go about that. But don't shoot the messenger. All we are doing is pointing out the PI has seriously strayed from the original mission, and I am asking people of they are happy with that or want to re-focus the site to line up with the original purpose.

I'm hell at the Weekly Standard brainstorm meetings, though. :)

If you've studied Marx as extensively as you say, you either forgot everything you learned or you are deliberately misrepresenting his work.

A giant one size fits all plan? No 'lead' carpenters? I don't know what you are going on about here. I really don't. Didn't read that part of the manifesto I guess...I thought that people having different abilities and different needs was built into the foundation of basic Marxist theory but maybe I missed something. Can you provide a quote for these things you are claiming are part of Marxism?

Sorry I didn't really answer your questions but since they don't really make sense I wasn't sure how to begin.

There isn't any groupspeak going on here among the returning members. That is just a clever way to lump everyone who may disagree with you together to encourage people to ignore all of them.

The returning members are masters at it, although they do couch it much better than I.

Seriously, has any one of them gotten off the socialism train since it pulled up?

They don't want discussion, they want agreement.

The two are very far afield at times.

I needn't encourage anyone to ignore "them" - judging by the fact that this place is hemorrhaging members I would gather they are doing quite the job of that on their own.

and they most assuredly have the same (work) needs. They all wanna be the big dog. The ones that don't aren't vying for anything.

See, there's that pesky human equation again.

I know you won't answer the rest mm - that's OK.

I've seen the "you're so dense I won't bother to even respond" line many times before.

The last resort of the scoundrel and all that... :)

I don't really understand what you are saying. What is "the socialism train" and how does one get off or on it?

Tinoire says traffic is up, and members are coming back - according to the logs. Some are pissed and leaving, yes. Not sure what that means.

Everyone seeks agreement from others in a discussion.

"They are on the socialism train" and "they are driving away members" and "they are seeking agreement" are statements that have no real meaning, but woven together are intended to give people some sort of idea that those who disagree with you have ulterior motives and are not to be listened to. Whether you need to do that or not is irrelevant.

No one can "drive away" members - they are doing it themselves as some sort of power play - and everyone is on some "train" or other, and everyone seeks to win agreement from others in a discussion.

I am?????

Shit, that explains things....

And I wasted all those keystrokes fer nuttin'.

The human equation. Human equation. Human equation. It's the fly in the ointment. You can quote Karl till next July if you'd like - the human equation, son.

The theory is wonderful. In a vacuum it's freaking perfect.

When put to the test with real live humans it fails miserably. Unless of course you can find me an example where it didn't.

P.S. Google "communes." You weren't old enough. I was. The human equation was ALL OVER their collapse.

P.P.S. Even read any Scott Nearing? Check him out - I got to meet him a long time ago.
"The Making Of A Radical" and "The Conscience Of A Radical" are both quite good, but they may be a bitch to find these days.

You are just a garden variety foul dog... retro version. One doesn't have to go very deep, either. Out comes the 1954, the "reds are at my door", bullshit. Even that would be tolerable but it is that rancid smell of entitlement and superiority that is overwhelming when the "Bear" is on the "warpath". Me, me, a thousand times me...

Wanna quote me? Here is the whole thing, in answer to a question on SI:

"Yes. Once upon a time, a small crew here got thrown off of PI for being "Socialists". Then they formed a new board called "PopIndy", which actually had the duality of being terrific but also having no members and nobody even interested in letting anyone in. The guy who did it ("Pinko" around these parts), was the TGV of political consciousness. He went from Gandhi to Marx in about 2 hours... pretty well too. But he left the baggage at the old station. In a fit of "property is theft" and "I don't care about ownership", he left all that eminently reusable writing in the hands of some crackpot friend who is no longer his friend... You can make up the rest.

Meanwhile, PI (Tinoire on this board) decided that "Socialists" were a hell of a lot better than moldy new age pustules growing all over her board. Thus, reconciliation and drama played out in three acts...

It's all good - helps the "growth" process."

The above is absolutely true... however in normal times, it would be irrelevant. Right now is not normal times. Recession, unemployment, deep crisis in both political parties, the failure of the "net roots" - all of this calls out for some web alternatives.

Tinoire originally created PI to serve as such... not just a refuge from DU but as a more general outlet. Unfortunately, as it stands now, that is impossible. This joint has grown moss from so much inbreeding. There are many who don't partake and do their best to keep it on track, but there is entirely too much "tolerance" for every crackpot theory and conspiracy (some of which are downright fetid), and for every attitude that any clown wants to project. On a political board, that means debate and not "administrative action". But, that is hard to do if you shot your "Socialists". So what do you do? You swallow your pride and go to get them back. I give her big points. She feels responsible.

You... not so much. No, you aren't New Age. You are Old Age. A middle-class malcontent that is about as "left" as my left butt cheek, full of the mentality of frustrated middle management. Run every Gallop Poll you like on how Left you are. You ain't. You are just a typical sheep in wolf's clothing. DU was a good home for you.

Hah. You are looking for "alternatives"? You might as well be looking for inner peace or the meaning of life. You are not going to find any of the above. Better idea - look for you ass. Look on the ground.

and not some sort of Anaxarchos sideshow

Look, you're one of me. Even though I'm the kinda dude who watches his shoes as he walks and you're a sophisticated audiophile who doesn't live in his parents basement.

Between us two we ain't jack. But collectively, we're everything.

See ya

The conversation can get nowhere if we aren't even defining the most basic terms of the debate in the same way - in this case, Marxism. The problem is, you are convinced you know what it means, and as I said, you either don't actually know what it is or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. Thing is, it isn't one of those words that's particularly debatable in definition. It's pretty specific.

The fact that you are trying to equate 60s communes with Marxism demonstrates what I'm trying to say here.

And I second what TA said about your 'groupspeak' comments.

The wall will never listen (it has no ears) and my head hurts.

Before I leave though, don't you think it was funny that you "seconded" a comment about "groupspeak."

The defense rests.

As do I.

So any time one poster agrees with another, that is "groupspeak?"

I can twist them
I can squeeze them
any which way I want

And they will always make sense to me.
Yakety yak
Don't talk back.
Just finish cleaning up this room

Words alone will never reveal the TRUTH.
Try some Math
Get on the Path

All of it
Why not take all of it
Can't you see
You're no good just talking shit

Take these derivatives.
They will abuse you.
Your goodbye
Will make the brokers cry
They can't go on without you.

JFK
Magic bullet?
Just 6 seconds
Blown away
End of days

WTC 7?
6 seconds
"Pull It"
Free-fall
We all fall


Obama 22m mandate?
You found out too late.

He won a landslide.
But watch your hide.

Those FEMA camps
are there for you and me

Just integrate
Sum it all up

Masterbate
Get this straight

OPERATIONMINDCRIME?
An intellect as thin as one thin dime

tritosfme?
Can't you see
A brain so small
it' a living stem cell

DLC calling
Skinner: Why me?
It's 3 o'clock in the morning.

Sometimes I wonder
why I spend the lonely night
Posting on a board

1963 is my reverie
A paradise where roses bloom
Though I dream in vain

It always will remain
A childhood memory
A memory of sad refrain

sting like a basis space, B

(PS the first part of that poem is about a blowup doll, right?)

TIA- THIS THREAD IS WHY I PREFER TO TALK WITH NUMBERS...


TINOIRE- THIS THREAD IS WHY I PREFER TO READ POETRY...


That was beautiful, heartfelt, and sheesh, I wish I'd written that because this drama is driving me nuts too. It makes you wonder "why bother"?

... But it matters because of people like you... who care about getting the truth out there.

This is painful but we'll sort it out.

My my, aren't we in a huff today?

Let's see - starting off with a "foul dog" remark - is that part of the Kumbaya section of the Manifesto? I mean, with comments like that I can't fathom that your little make-believe coffee klatch won't just explode! I'll bet USA Today even picks up on the phenomenal grow of the movement, due solely to that smooth talkin' anax.

"There is entirely too much 'tolerance' for every crackpot theory and conspiracy." BWANG!!!!! That was the irony meter imploding. The King Of All Things Nut complains - priceless. The Master Of The Non-Answer complains that their are "clowns" on the board. Checked your nose recently, Bozo?

Ah, but it gets better. I am now a middle-class malcontent that doesn't pass the anax "purity" test. What oh what I am I to do? How shall I deal with this mass of frustrated middle management that burns inside me? Well, this is how I dealt with it yesterday. I met my neighbor Ray (75 years old, does excavation work) at his house (one bedroom, with a gravel pit out back). We loaded the two Cat dozers on the flatbed (he gets the D9, I get the DH8 'cause he hasn't taught me how to run the D9 yet) and went over to a friends house whose small machine shop burned down last month. We spent the day chatting and moving debris, trying to get the site level so rebuilding could begin. Of course all the work was donated, as was the fuel for the Cats (and they suck fuel like thirsty kids).

Now just imagine if that man of the people anax spent the day with Ray. Wouldn't that be something? What would you do, chief, give him a large color photo of Your Really Cool Avatar and then talk over his head for the remainder of the day? Of course you would - it's all you know. You wouldn't know how to interact with a real person if he/she came up and bit you in the ass (more on the ass later - stay tuned!)

So, I just spent the day saying "baaah" according to you. What did YOU do ace? Was yesterday Researching Discredited Theory Day, or was it perhaps Condescending Comment Day, or maybe even Holier Than Thou Economic Revelation Day? There is so much bullshit on your calendar I lose track.

Go pretend you're the real true left sport. Convince yourself over and over again as you shout in echo chambers and marvel at the quick responses. Stand in a pile of your own waste and tell the rest of the world that it's full of shit. Nobody loves a zealot, and you got scarlet "Z" tattoos on every part of your body.

Here's a real challenge for ya - try and answer a question that doesn't start with "Marx says". I know, it's like asking a mime to speak, but give it a try. If nothing else it will keep your inane drivel off the Internet for a while.

To quote the immortal Firesign Theatre -

"Put on that work shirt, pick up that guitar, and tell it like it was!"

"Do you hear the people sing,
singing the songs of angry men..."

"Oh man, I'm gettin' all misty"
-Maynard G. Krebs-

P.S. Thank you for the instructions on where to find my ass - I'm getting old and sometimes misplace it. If you ever lose yours, however, just look for Kid's head - it will be firmly up it.

because I was going to hurt if you totally left me out. I sorta felt you building up to it though. You could saved everybody a week by just being upfront.

I already said it once but

See Ya

People are manipulated/identifying with a false ego.

I'm curious what you mean by that.

What people? What false ego?

But now I have to say a couple more things.

Refusing to argue the merits of someone's points because they invoke Marx is intellectually dishonest. You do this time and time again. You cannot win an argument this way. Hell, you can't even participate in an argument this way. No wonder people resort to snark with you - there is no real debate possible.

YOU are the one who makes it personal. You make it personal when you refer multiple times to 'betterment' (eg but I want more stuff!!!) while refusing to address the fact that most people in this world don't have access to the most basic of human needs. Betterment comes when all of the people have control over their resources and their labor can no longer be exploited for profit.

You ignore the bulk of someone's post, the substance, and glom on to one snarky or rude statement. It's transparent and tedious.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/seemslikeadream/gifts/m_540d7ac09b6bb9766145ff62ed379874.gif


Beyond the Frontiers of the Mind


Ego: The false centre

One has to take a step into the unknown. For a while all boundaries will be lost. For a while you will feel dizzy. For a while, you will feel very afraid and shaken, as if an earthquake has happened. But if you are courageous and you don't go backwards, if you don't fall back to the ego and you go on and on, there is a hidden center within you that you have been carrying for many lives.



The first thing to be understood is what ego is. A child is born. A child is born without any knowledge, any consciousness of his own self. And when a child is born the first thing he becomes aware of is not himself; the first thing he becomes aware of is the other. It is natural, because the eyes open outwards, the hands touch others, the ears listen to others, the tongue tastes food and the nose smells the outside. All these senses open outwards.

That is what birth means. Birth means coming into this world, the world of the outside. So when a child is born, he is born into this world. He opens his eyes, sees others. 'Other' means the thou. He becomes aware of the mother first. Then, by and by, he becomes aware of his own body. That too is the other, that too belongs to the world. He is hungry and he feels the body; his need is satisfied, he forgets the body.

This is how a child grows. First he becomes aware of you, thou, other, and then by and by, in contrast to you, thou, he becomes aware of himself.

This awareness is a reflected awareness. He is not aware of who he is. He is simply aware of the mother and what she thinks about him. If she smiles, if she appreciates the child, if she says, "You are beautiful," if she hugs and kisses him, the child feels good about himself. Now an ego is born.

Through appreciation, love, care, he feels he is good, he feels he is valuable, he feels he has some significance.

A center is born.

But this center is a reflected center. It is not his real being. He does not know who he is; he simply knows what others think about him. And this is the ego: the reflection, what others think. If nobody thinks that he is of any use, nobody appreciates him, nobody smiles, then too an ego is born: an ill ego; sad, rejected, like a wound; feeling inferior, worthless. This too is the ego. This too is a reflection.

First the mother - and mother means the world in the beginning. Then others will join the mother, and the world goes on growing. And the more the world grows, the more complex the ego becomes, because many others' opinions are reflected.

The ego is an accumulated phenomenon, a by-product of living with others. If a child lives totally alone, he will never come to grow an ego. But that is not going to help. He will remain like an animal. That doesn't mean that he will come to know the real self, no.

The real can be known only through the false, so the ego is a must. One has to pass through it. It is a discipline. The real can be known only through the illusion. You cannot know the truth directly. First you have to know that which is not true. First you have to encounter the untrue. Through that encounter you become capable of knowing the truth. If you know the false as the false, truth will dawn upon you.

Ego is a need; it is a social need, it is a social by-product. The society means all that is around you - not you, but all that is around you. All, minus you, is the society. And everybody reflects. You will go to school and the teacher will reflect who you are. You will be in friendship with other children and they will reflect who you are. By and by, everybody is adding to your ego, and everybody is trying to modify it in such a way that you don't become a problem to the society.

They are not concerned with you.

They are concerned with the society.

Society is concerned with itself, and that's how it should be.

They are not concerned that you should become a self-knower. They are concerned that you should become an efficient part in the mechanism of the society. You should fit into the pattern. So they are trying to give you an ego that fits with the society. They teach you morality. Morality means giving you an ego which will fit with the society. If you are immoral, you will always be a misfit somewhere or other. That's why we put criminals in the prisons - not that they have done something wrong, not that by putting them in the prisons we are going to improve them, no. They simply don't fit. They are troublemakers. They have certain types of egos of which the society doesn't approve. If the society approves, everything is good.

One man kills somebody - he is a murderer.

And the same man in wartime kills thousands - he becomes a great hero. The society is not bothered by a murder, but the murder should be commited for the society - then it is okay. The society doesn't bother about morality.

Morality means only that you should fit with the society.

If the society is at war, then the morality changes.

If the society is at peace, then there is a different morality.

Morality is a social politics. It is diplomacy. And each child has to be brought up in such a way that he fits into the society, that's all. Because society is interested in efficient members. Society is not interested that you should attain to self-knowledge.

The society creates an ego because the ego can be controlled and manipulated. The self can never be controlled or manipulated. Nobody has ever heard of the society controlling a self - not possible.

And the child needs a center; the child is completely unaware of his own center. The society gives him a center and the child is by and by convinced that this is his center, the ego that society gives.

A child comes back to his home - if he has come first in his class, the whole family is happy. You hug and kiss him, and you take the child on your shoulders and dance and you say, "What a beautiful child! You are a pride to us." You are giving him an ego, a subtle ego. And if the child comes home dejected, unsuccessful, a failure - he couldn't pass, or he has just been on the back bench - then nobody appreciates him and the child feels rejected. He will try harder next time, because the center feels shaken.

Ego is always shaken, always in search of food, that somebody should appreciate it. That's why you continuously ask for attention.

You get the idea of who you are from others.

It is not a direct experience.

It is from others that you get the idea of who you are. They shape your center. This center is false, because you carry your real center. That is nobody's business. Nobody shapes it.

You come with it.

You are born with it.

So you have two centers. One center you come with, which is given by existence itself. That is the self. And the other center, which is created by the society, is the ego. It is a false thing - and it is a very great trick. Through the ego the society is controlling you. You have to behave in a certain way, because only then does the society appreciate you. You have to walk in a certain way; you have to laugh in a certain way; you have to follow certain manners, a morality, a code. Only then will the society appreciate you, and if it doesn't, you ego will be shaken. And when the ego is shaken, you don't know where you are, who you are.

The others have given you the idea.

That idea is the ego.

Try to understand it as deeply as possible, because this has to be thrown. And unless you throw it you will never be able to attain to the self. Because you are addicted to the center, you cannot move, and you cannot look at the self.

And remember, there is going to be an interim period, an interval, when the ego will be shattered, when you will not know who you are, when you will not know where you are going, when all boundaries will melt.

You will simply be confused, a chaos.

Because of this chaos, you are afraid to lose the ego. But it has to be so. One has to pass through the chaos before one attains to the real center.

And if you are daring, the period will be small.

If you are afraid, and you again fall back to the ego, and you again start arranging it, then it can be very, very long; many lives can be wasted.

I have heard: One small child was visiting his grandparents. He was just four years old. In the night when the grandmother was putting him to sleep, he suddenly started crying and weeping and said, "I want to go home. I am afraid of darkness." But the grandmother said, "I know well that at home also you sleep in the dark; I have never seen a light on. So why are you afraid here?" The boy said, "Yes, that's right - but that is MY darkness." This darkness is completely unknown.

Even with darkness you feel, "This is MINE."

Outside - an unknown darkness.

With the ego you feel, "This is MY darkness."

It may be troublesome, maybe it creates many miseries, but still mine. Something to hold to, something to cling to, something underneath the feet; you are not in a vacuum, not in an emptiness. You may be miserable, but at least you ARE. Even being miserable gives you a feeling of 'I am'. Moving from it, fear takes over; you start feeling afraid of the unknown darkness and chaos - because society has managed to clear a small part of your being.

It is just like going to a forest. You make a little clearing, you clear a little ground; you make fencing, you make a small hut; you make a small garden, a lawn, and you are okay. Beyond your fence - the forest, the wild. Here everything is okay; you have planned everything. This is how it has happened.

Society has made a little clearing in your consciousness. It has cleaned just a little part completely, fenced it. Everything is okay there. That's what all your universities are doing. The whole culture and conditioning is just to clear a part so that you can feel at home there.

And then you become afraid.

Beyond the fence there is danger.

Beyond the fence you are, as within the fence you are - and your conscious mind is just one part, one-tenth of your whole being. Nine-tenths is waiting in the darkness. And in that nine-tenths, somewhere your real center is hidden.

One has to be daring, courageous.

One has to take a step into the unknown.

For a while all boundaries will be lost.

For a while you will feel dizzy.

For a while, you will feel very afraid and shaken, as if an earthquake has happened. But if you are courageous and you don't go backwards, if you don't fall back to the ego and you go on and on, there is a hidden center within you that you have been carrying for many lives.

That is your soul, the self.

Once you come near it, everything changes, everything settles again. But now this settling is not done by the society. Now everything becomes a cosmos, not a chaos; a new order arises.

But this is no longer the order of the society - it is the very order of existence itself.

It is what Buddha calls Dhamma, Lao Tzu calls Tao, Heraclitus calls Logos. It is not man-made. It is the VERY order of existence itself. Then everything is suddenly beautiful again, and for the first time really beautiful, because man-made things cannot be beautiful. At the most you can hide the ugliness of them, that's all. You can decorate them, but they can never be beautiful.

The difference is just like the difference between a real flower and a plastic or paper flower. The ego is a plastic flower - dead. It just looks like a flower, it is not a flower. You cannot really call it a flower. Even linguistically to call it a flower is wrong, because a flower is something which flowers. And this plastic thing is just a thing, not a flowering. It is dead. There is no life in it.

You have a flowering center within. That's why Hindus call it a lotus - it is a flowering. They call it the one-thousand-petaled-lotus

. One thousand means infinite petals. And it goes on flowering, it never stops, it never dies.

But you are satisfied with a plastic ego.

There are some reasons why you are satisfied. With a dead thing, there are many conveniences. One is that a dead thing never dies. It cannot - it was never alive. So you can have plastic flowers, they are good in a way. They are permanent; they are not eternal, but they are permanent.

The real flower outside in the garden is eternal, but not permanent. And the eternal has its own way of being eternal. The way of the eternal is to be born again and again and to die. Through death it refreshes itself, rejuvenates itself.

To us it appears that the flower has died - it never dies.

It simply changes bodies, so it is ever fresh.

It leaves the old body, it enters a new body. It flowers somewhere else; it goes on flowering.

But we cannot see the continuity because the continuity is invisible. We see only one flower, another flower; we never see the continuity.

It is the same flower which flowered yesterday.

It is the same sun, but in a different garb.

The ego has a certain quality - it is dead. It is a plastic thing. And it is very easy to get it, because others give it. You need not seek it, there is no search involved. That's why unless you become a seeker after the unknown, you have not yet become an individual. You are just a part of the crowd. You are just a mob.

When you don't have a real center, how can you be an individual?

The ego is not individual. Ego is a social phenomenon - it is society, its not you. But it gives you a function in the society, a hierarchy in the society. And if you remain satisfied with it, you will miss the whole opportunity of finding the self.

And that's why you are so miserable.

With a plastic life, how can you be happy?

With a false life, how can you be ecstatic and blissful? And then this ego creates many miseries, millions of them.

You cannot see, because it is your own darkness. You are attuned to it.

Have you ever noticed that all types of miseries enter through the ego? It cannot make you blissful; it can only make you miserable.

Ego is hell.

Whenever you suffer, just try to watch and analyze, and you will find, somewhere the ego is the cause of it. And the ego goes on finding causes to suffer.

You are an egoist, as everyone is. Some are very gross, just on the surface, and they are not so difficult. Some are very subtle, deep down, and they are the real problems.

This ego comes continuously in conflict with others because every ego is so unconfident about itself. Is has to be - it is a false thing. When you don't have anything in your hand and you just think that something is there, then there will be a problem.

If somebody says, "There is nothing," immediately the fight will start, because you also feel that there is nothing. The other makes you aware of the fact.

Ego is false, it is nothing.

That you also know.

How can you miss knowing it? It is impossible! A conscious being - how can he miss knowing that this ego is just false? And then others say that there is nothing - and whenever the others say that there is nothing they hit a wound, they say a truth - and nothing hits like the truth.

You have to defend, because if you don't defend, if you don't become defensive, then where will you be?

You will be lost.

The identity will be broken.

So you have to defend and fight - that is the clash.

A man who attains to the self is never in any clash. Others may come and clash with him, but he is never in clash with anybody.

It happened that one Zen master was passing through a street. A man came running and hit him hard. The master fell down. Then he got up and started to walk in the same direction in which he was going before, not even looking back.

A disciple was with the master. He was simply shocked. He said, "Who is this man? What is this? If one lives in such a way, then anybody can come and kill you. And you have not even looked at that person, who he is, and why he did it."

The master said, "That is his problem, not mine."

You can clash with an enlightened man, but that is your problem, not his. And if you are hurt in that clash, that too is your own problem. He cannot hurt you. And it is like knocking against a wall - you will be hurt, but the wall has not hurt you.

The ego is always looking for some trouble. Why? Because if nobody pays attention to you, the ego feels hungry.

It lives on attention.

So even if somebody is fighting and angry with you, that too is good because at least the attention is paid. If somebody loves, it is okay. If somebody is not loving you, then even anger will be good. At least the attention will come to you. But if nobody is paying any attention to you, nobody thinks that you are somebody important, significant, then how will you feed your ego?

Other's attention is needed.

In millions of ways you attract the attention of others; you dress in a certain way, you try to look beautiful, you behave, you become very polite, you change. When you feel what type of situation is there, you immediately change so that people pay attention to you.

This is a deep begging.

A real beggar is one who asks for and demands attention. And a real emperor is one who lives in himself; he has a center of his own, he doesn't depend on anybody else.

Buddha sitting under his bodhi tree...if the whole world suddenly disappears, will it make any difference to Buddha? -none. It will not make any difference at all. If the whole world disappears, it will not make any difference because he has attained to the center.

But you, if the wife escapes, divorces you, goes to somebody else, you are completely shattered - because she had been paying attention to you, caring, loving, moving around you, helping you to feel that you were somebody. Your whole empire is lost, you are simply shattered. You start thinking about suicide. Why? Why, if a wife leaves you, should you commit suicide? Why, if a husband leaves you, should you commit suicide? Because you don't have any center of your own. The wife was giving you the center; the husband was giving you the center.

This is how people exist. This is how people become dependent on others. It is a deep slavery. Ego HAS to be a slave. It depends on others. And only a person who has no ego is for the first time a master; he is no longer a slave. Try to understand this.

And start looking for the ego - not in others, that is not your business, but in yourself. Whenever you feel miserable, immediately close you eyes and try to find out from where the misery is coming and you will always find it is the false center which has clashed with someone.

You expected something, and it didn't happen.

You expected something, and just the contrary happened - your ego is shaken, you are in misery. Just look, whenever you are miserable, try to find out why.

Causes are not outside you. The basic cause is within you - but you always look outside, you always ask:

Who is making me miserable?
Who is the cause of my anger?
Who is the cause of my anguish?
And if you look outside you will miss.
Just close the eyes and always look within.
The source of all misery, anger, anguish, is hidden in you, your ego.

And if you find the source, it will be easy to move beyond it. If you can see that it is your own ego that gives you trouble, you will prefer to drop it - because nobody can carry the source of misery if he understands it.

And remember, there is no need to drop the ego.

You cannot drop it.

If you try to drop it, you will attain to a certain subtle ego again which says, "I have become humble."

Don't try to be humble. That's again ego in hiding - but it's not dead.

Don't try to be humble.

Nobody can try humility, and nobody can create humility through any effort of his own - no. When the ego is no more, a humbleness comes to you. It is not a creation. It is a shadow of the real center.

And a really humble man is neither humble nor egoistic.

He is simply simple.

He's not even aware that he is humble.

If you are aware that you are humble, the ego is there.

Look at humble persons.... There are millions who think that they are very humble. They bow down very low, but watch them - they are the subtlest egoists. Now humility is their source of food. They say, "I am humble," and then they look at you and they wait for you to appreciate them.

"You are really humble," they would like you to say. "In fact, you are the most humble man in the world; nobody is as humble as you are." Then see the smile that comes on their faces.

What is ego? Ego is a hierarchy that says, "No one is like me." It can feed on humbleness - "Nobody is like me, I am the most humble man."

It happened once:

A fakir, a beggar, was praying in a mosque, just early in the morning when it was still dark. It was a certain religious day for Mohammedians, and he was praying, and he was saying, "I am nobody. I am the poorest of the poor, the greatest sinner of sinners."

Suddenly there was one more person who was praying. He was the emperor of that country, and he was not aware that there was somebody else there who was praying - it was dark, and the emperor was also saying:

"I am nobody. I am nothing. I am just empty, a beggar at our door." When he heard that somebody else was saying the same thing, he said, "Stop! Who is trying to overtake me? Who are you? How dare you say before the emperor that you are nobody when he is saying that he is nobody?"

This is how the ego goes. It is so subtle. Its ways are so subtle and cunning; you have to be very, very alert, only then will you see it. Don't try to be humble. Just try to see that all misery, all anguish comes through it.

Just watch! No need to drop it.

You cannot drop it. Who will drop it? Then the DROPPER will become the ego. It always comes back.

Whatsoever you do, stand out of it, and look and watch.

Whatsoever you do - humbleness, humility, simplicity - nothing will help. Only one thing is possible, and that is just to watch and see that it is the source of all misery. Don't say it. Don't repeat it - WATCH. Because if I say it is the source of all misery and you repeat it, then it is useless. YOU have to come to that understanding. Whenever you are miserable, just close the eyes and don't try to find some cause outside. Try to see from where this misery is coming.

It is your own ego.

If you continuously feel and understand, and the understanding that the ego is the cause becomes so deep-rooted, one day you will suddenly see that it has disappeared. Nobody drops it - nobody can drop it. You simply see; it has simply disappeared, because the very understanding that ego causes all misery becomes the dropping. THE VERY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE EGO.

And you are so clever in seeing the ego in others. Anybody can see someone else's ego. When it comes to your own, then the problem arises - because you don't know the territory, you have never traveled on it.

The whole path towards the divine, the ultimate, has to pass through this territory of the ego. The false has to be understood as false. The source of misery has to be understood as the source of misery - then it simply drops.

When you know it is poison, it drops. When you know it is fire, it drops. When you know this is the hell, it drops.

And then you never say, "I have dropped the ego." Then you simply laugh at the whole thing, the joke that you were the creator of all misery.

I was just looking at a few cartoons of Charlie Brown. In one cartoon he is playing with blocks, making a house out of children's blocks. He is sitting in the middle of the blocks building the walls. Then a moment comes when he is enclosed; all around he has made a wall. Then he cries, "Help, help!"

He has done the whole thing! Now he is enclosed, imprisoned. This is childish, but this is all that you have done also. You have made a house all around yourself, and now you are crying, "Help, help!" And the misery becomes a millionfold - because there are helpers who are also in the same boat.

It happened that one very beautiful woman went to see her psychiatrist for the first time. The psychiatrist said, "Come closer please." When she came closer, he simply jumped and hugged and kissed the woman. She was shocked. Then he said, "Now sit down. This takes care of my problem, now what is your problem?"

The problem becomes multifold, because there are helpers who are in the same boat. And they would like to help, because when you help somebody the ego feels very good, very, very good - because you are a great helper, a great guru, a master; you are helping so many people. The greater the crowd of your followers, the better you feel.

But you are in the same boat - you cannot help.

Rather, you will harm.

People who still have their own problems cannot be of much help. Only someone who has no problems of his own can help you. Only then is there the clarity to see, to see through you. A mind that has no problems of its own can see you, you become transparent.

A mind that has no problems of its own can see through itself; that's why it becomes capable of seeing through others.

In the West, there are many schools of psychoanalysis, many schools, and no help is reaching people, but rather, harm. Because the people who are helping others, or trying to help, or posing as helpers, are in the same boat.

...It is difficult to see one's own ego.

It is very easy to see other's egos. But that is not the point, you cannot help them.

Try to see your own ego.

Just watch it.

Don't be in a hurry to drop it, just watch it. The more you watch, the more capable you will become. Suddenly one day, you simply see that it has dropped. And when it drops by itself, only then does it drop. There is no other way. Prematurely you cannot drop it.

It drops just like a dead leaf.

The tree is not doing anything - just a breeze, a situation, and the dead leaf simply drops. The tree is not even aware that the dead leaf has dropped. It makes no noise, it makes no claim - nothing.

The dead leaf simply drops and shatters on the ground, just like that.

When you are mature through understanding, awareness, and you have felt totally that ego is the cause of all your misery, simply one day you see the dead leaf dropping.

It settles into the ground, dies of its own accord. You have not done anything so you cannot claim that you have dropped it. You see that it has simply disappeared, and then the real center arises.

And that real center is the soul, the self, the god, the truth, or whatsoever you want to call it.

It is nameless, so all names are good.

You can give it any name of your own liking.



----- Beyond the Frontiers of the Mind by Osho

I can't believe it's come to this, but I need to use the eyeroll smilie.

:rolleyes:

Nothing, nothing at all.

n/t

Maybe you were answering some other question and accidentally responded to me?

My questions weren't vague - they were in direct response to your comment. WHO are you talking about in post #188 slad?

What people? What false ego?

that says specifically who you are talking about?

Cuz I can't find it. Granted i'm a little impatient.

All I'm trying to do here slad is get a clearer picture of what you're trying to say.

If you'd prefer to make that picture even cloudier then so be it. I think that is what is commonly called 'disruption' on discussion forums, no?

A day in the life of the Kid:

Morning - wake up leisurely, make sure dad has gone to work

Make double sure weekly (daily? hourly?) stipend has been left on table

Have someone fix you breakfast - disregard animal cruelty if bacon is ingested (make note to self that Marx makes no provisions for pigs, so all is OK)

Pick up latest reading material - memorize (I mean, read) thoroughly

Say hi to maid - bore her to tears with how she is being exploited - empathize greatly and promise to help

Tell her she needs to clean under your bed

Have a somewhat novel thought - email anax and ask if OK to do so

Nap

Practice regurgitating talking points for Internet discussion

Wait for dad to come home - complain about profit margins undermining basic worker needs, but also ask for new laptop

Borrow car to go to independent bookstore - use GPS to get there even though store is four blocks away

While driving, make decision to go with Democracy Now over Bob Marley on radio - make note to buy Bob Marley CD to assuage guilt

Verbally attack salesperson at store for not having titles you want - do not believe stated reason for same is that "nobody buys this shit"

Pick up rolling papers

Smoke giant splif - tell dad smell is coming from neighbors barbecue

Get good nights sleep - you've done all you can...

Spot on, eh Kid? Hey, ain't it grand being the only true revolutionary on your block with an RV parked in the driveway?

See, I was really serious before. You ARE going to become a corporate tax attorney, and you ARE going to marry the girl who wants you to be just like daddy. Until then, continue being the mirror image of that 12-year old kid who wowed 'em at CPAC. He could spit HIS facts out too - but he was nuts and you, thankfully, are just deluded.

Until then, though - stay at PI. I actually read a post that someone thought you were really smart. You've got that leadership "it" Kid, I can just taste it.

"No General Custer, the Indians are waaaaayyyyy over there...."

Toodles.

Write when you find your ass.

Just kidding, don't write. :hi:

You have no idea how far off the mark you are.

Maybe you are projecting?

Woweee Zoweeeeeeee.

eta: allow me to second the notion that the Kid is very, very smart.

edit again to add: I just realized that you keep saying bye but then posting again. You have to get the last word don't you? Too funny. We could keep you trapped here forever. Bwahahahaha

he addresses all his messages to him and is desperately trying to get a response. But like megan says he keeps threatening to leave and won't ever do it.

Bob Marley??

Hell yeah....

:bong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdT94rOgXDw

Why boasteth thyself, O evil men;
Playing smart and not being clever, oh no!
I say you work in iniquity
To achieve vanity, yeah, if a-so a-so.
But the goodness of Jah - Jah
Idureth for Iver.

If you are the big tree,
We are the small axe
Sharpened to cut you down, (well sharp)
Ready to cut you down, oh yeah!

These are the words of my master
Keep on tellin' me - o-oh! -
no weak heart shall prosper:
Oh no, they can't! Eh.

And whosoever diggeth a pit, Lord,
Shall fall in it - shall fall in it.
Whosoever diggeth a pit
Shall bury in it - shall bury in it.


If you are the big tree,
We are the small axe
Sharpened to cut you down,
Ready to cut you down.
---

---
Whosoever diggeth the pit
Shall fall in it - fall in it, eh!
Whosoever diggeth the pit
Shall bury in it - shall bury in it.

If you are the big tree,
We have a small axe
Ready to cut you down, (well sharp)
Sharpened to cut you down.

If you are the big tree,
Let me tell you this: we are the small axe
Ready to cut you down, (well sharp)
Sharpened to cut you down.

Where there is no wood, I said the fire goes out
So we'll have to cut you down, without a doubt,
If you have a big tree ... [fadeout]