My feelings switch between hope and fear. Obama will change a lot. He has to keep as much of his promises as he can. But the people, they expect too much from him. And that's why he will fail on some others. There will be an amelioration on several points, a stagnation on others and some will even turn the bad way. What goes where is unpredictable. I warned everybody in my groups when I was still on Care2. There were just a few who admitted. The day of his inauguration did not change my mind. I called Nancy in the clinic. She did not even 'watch the show'. I did. And I had tears in my eyes of hope. But as happened in JFK's days, I fear our hope is too big. LOve and peace. Willy. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Jenkins To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 6:26 PM Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: what should we do?
Ohhhh-bama. His cabinet is made up of DC insiders, big government stalwarts, and generals in the war on drugs. Change we can believe in? Heh. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: I have great sympathy for that view Ian. We even have a minor version of what Chris put forward. It's called Warm Front or something like it. Insulation and central heating grants ripped off by a company doing transfer pricing as surely as any Russian oligarch steals gas by the same mechanism. We do not do the circumspection first, let alone incorporate it in action strategies. Hardly surprising we gave the congestion plan the finger in Greater Manchester - we just don't trust the politicians. They are reading out the Lord's Prayer at Obama's inauguration - and I'm feeling he is a complete con already. I would say "the economy" has crippled us already - in heart and mind. The guy doing the one stop booths for post offices was working for Prescott's idiot office via Lancaster University. I rather approve of the Kinnock statue - at least we could nick that and melt it down! My point is there is no real argument - just bluster. Sooner or later, as we are forced to look up the skirts of Glenys' golden idol, they will tell us this proves government strategy is working. When we ask to see the actual strategy, they will just tell us to look harder up the skirts and that we had better damn well smile too! Governments are very bad. Maybe they survive because we can't even do circumspect analysis ourselves? On 20 Jan, 14:24, "Chris Jenkins" <[email protected]> wrote: > And that's the issue with AGW. They want us to spend 20 Trillion, and > cripple are already palsied and polio'ed economy, based on theories which > don't stand up well to critical analysis. > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2009/1/20 archytas <[email protected]> > > >> Thus I think we should act as though > >> mankind is screwing up big-time and get more control of global > >> warming, even if the evidence eventually turns out to have been > >> misinterpreted. > > > Fair enough, but only if the risk of ploughing on with such initiatives was > > not so terrifying. The obscene amounts of cash the government spends on this > > rubbish could be far better spend investigating zero gravity feeding for > > cats, setting up state-funded whore houses, creating one-stop euthanasia > > booths in post offices, and creating a 200ft solid gold statue of Glenys > > Kinnock. > > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
