I wonder what May Jo's family thought of the air time given to the great senator?
I go with Orn on what at bottom is a lack of honesty in our systems. I go with Molly in that we have to believe in something to create anything, though I don't see the dynasties as having any solutions - they are very much part of the problem to me, preventing people being connected for the right reasons. We conflate issues in 'dirty hands'. Knowing one has tracked down a miserable kidnapping killer, it's hard to justify not using his foul engines on him or his female familiar to find out where the victims are to save them or bring closure for relatives, but it is rare outside literature to be in such a position. More likely, the cops and other agencies will screw up (as in Baby P or the recent US case currently in the news) and not act on the evidence and criminal records in plain view. In the Detroux case in Belgium, the cops actually sealed the last victims to their fate by sealing up the house they were captive in. When it comes to terrorism, the authorities are clearly demonising (as does literature) whilst the only people we are catching are either totally innocent or pathetic. We have seen one bungle after another - and this is surely the longer case in a history in which imperial plunder has continued. Here, even in military terms, Europe (then including Russia) blundered in 1861 because it was blind to the real threat (the USA) because we were more concerned to plunder Africa, the sub-continent, China and the middle east. This continued after WW2 with the US as the only major player, able to swat the old European players like flies. Think of the lies about Vietnam (in the UK this was a much more secret time of wars against Indonesia and so on). What one would like to see before engaging in dirty hands is real evidence of what the problems are. Given the record of our authorities in small-scale stuff like criminal cases, it appears we can't even see the obvious. I've met 'Jihadis' around the world and in my classrooms - some nutters, but generally decent people swayed by their own version of the propaganda oused around us - the decency taken advantage of. Many of these people were laughed at by their contemporaries. The Wahhabi extreme is very frightening, but even this is a creation of British atrocities in India (in large part) and the area generally. I'd say the idea of trying to negotiate peace looking down other people's gun-barrels is dumb. The is no point in conflating the ideal of peace with forcing an absolute ideal of non-violence on oneself - otherwise those women who choose to hate our soldiers could no doubt convert the men who would stick them in Burkhas if it were not for our soldiers. The notion of hordes of feminists in attack mode against tribal sexism is intriguing, but I have seen no volunteers. They are much more likely to beat up on those like me, who they must sense are no threat to their freedom to be what they want and have a just sense of what force can be used for. The dirty hands argument is 'Catch 22' - we can't have it in the open for 'reasons of national security' - yet without the true reasoning and evidence we can't do rational analysis. Here I think Orn has long pointed to a form of evidence in plain sight, yet behind the ouse or kitsch of edutainment and the lies of pride we are dragged up with. What literature I have seen (generally TV) on terrorism makes me believe our security services now dominate the popular genre, probably directly by using writers. James Bond, Sleeper Cell, Spooks and almost any action film are probably most people's 'reality' - NCIS is a personal favourite because it's so crude. I often hear the taught morality of dirty hands from these 'lectures' in my classes, almost exclusively from people who have never been anywhere other than a rock concert. The paranoid version of this was 'Three Days of the Condor' (title a bit wrong maybe) - even when you get the truth to the New York Times you are still screwed because 'they' control that too. There are counter-examples in book and film, but these don't have wide appeal (years back we had 'A Very British Coup'). In all likelihood, the 'CIA' (several organisations really) has penetrated our secret service in Europe and I guess our main political parties in the UK. It is fatuous to believe the Soviets could do this with their scarce resources and that the 'CIA' has not with a vast budget and much greater familiarity. The idea that we don't spy on friends is known to be a lie. This may sound like the kind of paranoia they say you can find in the asylum (I have always found 'nutters' to be very conservative in their fantasies - don't bother with the research, I wasn't an in-patient!). The real point here is that our systems of democracy (should we agree to write this """democracy""") are prone to abuse by money, vested interest, dynasty and foreign powers because of the way our parties are structured and our representatives elected. There is no evidence these are our 'best people' for the job and also plenty of room to contest whether we just want the 'best people' (for surely they will inevitably be a 'class'). Constitution change rhetoric always blows hard about different ways to produce the same old 'business as usual' types. I have some ideas about means to ends that switch the focus from dirty dealing and the need for it. I ain't swooned by the same kind of sweet smiling drug and sex addicts that have got to Molly, but only because I don't like men. Shirley Williams, Lynne Featherstone (the MP active in forcing the Baby P enquiry), Barbara Castle - now they smiled sweetly. So did Harriet Harmon, but she is clearly a dolt these days. I have changed - the very kind of socialist smile in a woman that would once get me walking a million miles just hits at points of total revulsion in me. What's got me thinking is the notion we don't need MPs, senators and the rest to have politics and democracy and they may well be in the way of it. On 31 Aug, 14:07, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I have to go with Rigsy and Francis on this one. Casting our > conscientious votes is only one way for us to participate in our > larger communities - there are thousands available to us. We can sit > back and talk about the problems we see (thus bringing more of them > into our experience,) blame others, question motives etc,. but that > really doesn't do anything but isolate us further. Taking that first > step, say into public service, thinking and feeling in ways that > express our fraternity or connection will again, bring more of that > into individual and collective experience. We each must take > responsibility for ourselves and the whole, and visa versa. It begins > with each of us. No one is going to do it for us. > > There has been a great deal of air time to the Kennedy family and > their devotion to public service, especially Ted, who had a hand in > every US program that aids and equalizes opportunities for people it > seems. The Kennedy's are human, they fall and are redeemed before our > eyes. But they are not afraid to step into the thick of it, as Jack > did, inheriting the cold war with the bully Kruchev and going public > with the Cuban crisis, trying to unwrangle and warm things up. Jack, > Robert and Ted, it seems to me, never lost sight of the fact that we > are all connected, that any US hunger is hunger for all of us, each > success is success for all of us. It has been inspiring to watch this > family over the years because each of these men and many others in the > family have been golden examples of what it means to actually love > humanity. Not saying so to be polite or posture, but actually love > humanity...to be willing to get into the trenches like Neil and > negotiate and work hard with what is available to help people, get > your hands dirty, ease suffering, and lead others into hope and > brotherhood. It is not surprising to me that these three Kennedy's > were able to move so many people together into hope for a better > tomorrow, they believed that vision of tomorrow is possible today, and > people followed. It doesn't mean they weren't human, we all are. It > doesn't mean they didn't make mistakes, we all do. It means they > lived as if we are all connected, and what they did, thought and felt > effected everyone in the country and the world - and they showed us > that this is so. > > On Aug 31, 7:24 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We get the system(s) we have allowed to exist so we are part of the > > problem. > > > On Aug 30, 11:37 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “…The US electorate decided in 2002, 2004 and 2006 not to give them > > > practical majorities…” – fran > > > > Well, it might appear to be the case to many fran. And, knowing that > > > voting fraud is as old as voting is, I still will provide one list of > > > issues when it comes to the black box. > > > >http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1954.html > > > > Here is another. I no longer wear rose colored glasses when it comes > > > to the veracity of vote tallies. > > > >http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/8.html > > > > For those who care about election results and wish to get any sleep at > > > night, do NOT read any of the above! > > > > And, as to the current topic, yes, it does appear that there are those > > > who carry the belief that the ends justify the means. > > > > On Aug 30, 10:43 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 30 Aug., 17:51, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, you have good points except that Guantanamo went on for seven > > > > > years. There was plenty of outrage, yet It is still not over. > > > > > I'll just quickly take up one point here. Yes, the USA needed 7 years > > > > to tackle the Guantanamo question. In this period there were two mid- > > > > term elections and two presidential elections - only after the last of > > > > these did things finally start to move. The basic "facts" pertaining > > > > to Guantanamo were generally known from the beginning. There were also > > > > figures who presented themselves (more or less) as alternatives to > > > > Bush's politics and measures. The US electorate decided in 2002, 2004 > > > > and 2006 not to give them practical majorities. Like it or not, those > > > > of us living in systems which organise themselves according to the > > > > principle of representative democracy have to accept election results > > > > (as long as they are generally regarded as being fair). The > > > > unfortunate fact is that, despite the question of legitimacy regarding > > > > Bush's first term (I'll leave it to Chris to educate us in the > > > > peculiarities of Florida election procedures, should he wish), the > > > > majority of those who voted in November 2004 in the USA gave Dubya a > > > > second term. Confused, misled, lied-to, foxxed as the electorate may > > > > have partly been, the majority of US Americans who bothered to vote > > > > chose to ignore the alternative views being presented and confirmed > > > > Bush, his regime and his policies for a second term. > > > > > It took so long, because it took so long for the majority of voters in > > > > the US to finally look at what was really going on. But, seen in a > > > > purely US context, that was as much the responsibility of "us" (the > > > > voting electorate, who gave Bush a continued mandate) as it was of > > > > "them" (the politicians who carried on doing what they were doing). > > > > Try as we may, we cannot abdicate responsibilities - or pass them on, > > > > like a blank cheque, to someone else. > > > > > "If we have this power you speak of, why do these things not only > > > > > > occur, but carry on for years and years?" > > > > > Because it often takes that long for us to realise our > > > > responsibilities and do something about them, that's why. > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
