You mentioned previously, Neil that there are answers. I took it to mean alternate economies for the globe. I would love to be able to do things differently and don't see a place to invest or even put money where it isn't grabbed (negative interest coming soon to a theater near you.) What are the alternatives available to an average schmo like me?
On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:34:20 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > Enigmatic can mean any of mysterious, puzzling, hard to understand, > mystifying, inexplicable, baffling, perplexing, bewildering, confusing, > impenetrable, inscrutable, incomprehensible, unexplainable, unfathomable, > indecipherable, Delphic, oracular; ambiguous, equivocal, paradoxical, > sibylline, unaccountable, insoluble, obscure, elliptical, oblique; arcane, > abstruse, recondite, secret, esoteric, occult, cryptic; informal - as clear > as mud > > The enigmatic is seen by some as rude, None of this is how I think of > Gabby, though she can touch a few bases. Mutual understanding is not a bad > context - though a long way from nodding donkey consensus. > > On Tuesday, 4 November 2014 14:24:59 UTC, archytas wrote: >> >> Context is difficult with you Gabby, partly on enigmatic grounds (I mean >> the term nicely) on your expression. I'm broadly probing the >> legitimation crisis. We have reached a point when politicians promising >> change need to be greeted with shouts of 'apple juice'. We lack public >> context on economic matters even though technology could give us an >> economics we could use as we use washing machines or drive cars. Instead >> of this we have perverse resource allocation and devolved budgets to ration >> services that revictimise victims through the false promise of help, which >> is really going to be the denial of the complaint and exposure of >> complainants to more harm. Meanwhile the problems grow under the pretence >> we are dealing with them. We might learn about data and evidence in an >> examination of this. We don't seem prepared to do so. >> >> On Tuesday, 4 November 2014 06:07:33 UTC, Gabby wrote: >>> >>> Ah ja? I'm not so sure. >>> Am 04.11.2014 01:49 schrieb "archytas" <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Needless to say. >>>> >>>> On Monday, November 3, 2014 9:18:32 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Again your interpretation. I meant to have politely replied: What is >>>>> your context? >>>>> >>>>> 2014-11-03 20:41 GMT+01:00 archytas <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Gabby makes some important points - seem to remember the 81 paper but >>>>>> there were many, Dictionaries don't really help here - nor the >>>>>> hermeneutics of 'finding the original copy' - German sin is exemplified >>>>>> in >>>>>> the Jewish Numbers 31 and so on across genocides and the concentration >>>>>> camp >>>>>> as a business tactic in such as 'red rubber'. Primitive societies tell >>>>>> us >>>>>> their wars are based on revenge - though they always involve resource >>>>>> grabs >>>>>> (land, hunting, women, children). We seem to have merely managerialised >>>>>> this. >>>>>> >>>>>> The demand for social services and welfare is much greater than we >>>>>> admit, extending into such issues as why we have been so stupid to >>>>>> expand >>>>>> the human population in tripling it in my lifetime, global warming, >>>>>> pollution and the crass failures of "education". One might think one >>>>>> could >>>>>> at least focus on 'the abuse next door' - but I have to say when this >>>>>> came >>>>>> along in my life Sue and I failed and found the agencies and politicians >>>>>> much worse than useless. The ultimate standard of morality would have >>>>>> been >>>>>> to shoot the parents and do the time - had one been able to rely on the >>>>>> agencies looking after the kids rather than doing a worse job. >>>>>> >>>>>> The resource issues are not insurmountable though they are within our >>>>>> stupid economic system. Even to talk of this is more or less heresy - >>>>>> and >>>>>> look what we prefer to do - speak of young kids preferring a 'prostitute >>>>>> lifestyle' and hear politicians talking about the few cases in which >>>>>> abused >>>>>> children hit the care jackpot. The ages of consent across the West were >>>>>> often created in response to child prostitution. The first law of >>>>>> innocents I know of comes from Dark Age Scotland and I am by no means >>>>>> sure >>>>>> what the improvements since have been. >>>>>> >>>>>> The specific social services resource issue was discussed in the >>>>>> 1950's in terms of concentric circles - one could only focus on a small >>>>>> number of the worst cases in a much wider circle of need. Only 10% of >>>>>> kids >>>>>> killed by parents in the UK are actually known to social services in the >>>>>> sense of being subject to a care order. The costs of admitting a >>>>>> problem >>>>>> soon spiral and following the money one soon realises little actually >>>>>> gets >>>>>> spent on the kids. Gabby raises the issue that it is cruel to promise >>>>>> solution when we have no intent of funding what's needed. In terms of >>>>>> sufficient numbers of people to do most of what is needed there is no >>>>>> problem - we just create a system which prevents money-resourcing. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have, of course, pumped trillions into subsidy of manufacturing >>>>>> and banks over the years - these areas supposedly thrusting self-reliant >>>>>> genius competitors - and very little into what we call welfare - we >>>>>> 'police' Afghanistan and Iraq making things much worse but do almost >>>>>> nothing for our own victims. There are answers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:46:36 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I befriended one of the LaCasa employees that worked with children >>>>>>> in groups and took disclosures. She eventually became a police >>>>>>> officer, >>>>>>> hoping it would be less stressful. I think it probably was.If the >>>>>>> network >>>>>>> is large enough, no one burns out. Trouble is, it is rarely large >>>>>>> enough. >>>>>>> I think people have the need to look away from this problem more than >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 2:59:57 PM UTC-5, Allan Heretic wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah, pedophiles they have been in the news including one for >>>>>>>> soliciting an underage computer image. Personally I am glad to see the >>>>>>>> aggressive prosecution, I am very proud of the enforcement effort. >>>>>>>> I wish I could say it would an honor to be part of the team thing >>>>>>>> on pedophile but truth is I think it would destroy me. I do give them >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>> full support, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Molly <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>> Sent: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 8:26 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Who can we tell? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *It is important to agree on terms when conversing. This from the >>>>>>>> Free Dictionary:* >>>>>>>> *em·power·ment** n.* >>>>>>>> *Usage Note: *Although it is a contemporary buzzword, the word >>>>>>>> *empower* is not new, having arisen in the mid-17th century with >>>>>>>> thelegalistic meaning "to invest with authority, authorize." >>>>>>>> Shortly thereafter it began to be used with an infinitive in a more >>>>>>>> general waymeaning "to enable or permit." Both of these uses >>>>>>>> survive today but have been overpowered by the word's use in >>>>>>>> politics and poppsychology. Its modern use originated in the civil >>>>>>>> rights movement, which sought political *empowerment* for its >>>>>>>> followers. The wordwas then taken up by the women's movement, and >>>>>>>> its appeal has not flagged. Since people of all political pers >>>>>>>> uasions have a need fora word that makes their constituents feel >>>>>>>> that they are or are about to become more in control of their >>>>>>>> destinies, *empower* has been adopted by conservatives as well as >>>>>>>> social reformers. It has even migrated out of the political arena >>>>>>>> into other fields. · The UsagePanel has some misgivings about this >>>>>>>> recent broadening of usage. For the Panelists, the acceptability of >>>>>>>> the verb *empower* depends on the context. Eighty percent approve >>>>>>>> of the example *We want to empower ordinary citizens.* But in >>>>>>>> contexts that are not political the Panel is markedly less >>>>>>>> enthusiastic. The sentence >>>>>>>> *Hunger and greed and then sexual zeal are felt by some to be stages >>>>>>>> of experiencethat empower the individual* >>>>>>>> garners approval from only 33 percent of the Panelists. The Panel >>>>>>>> may frown on this kind of psychological empowering because it r >>>>>>>> esonates of the self-help movement, which is notorious for trendy >>>>>>>> coinages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've never been interested in talking politics, and although I've >>>>>>>> had occasion to work with some, never really affiliated with any >>>>>>>> party. I >>>>>>>> will leave any tendency to interpret what I say as an affiliation with >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> political party up to you. I really don't have one. I will be excited >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> see Dave Bing next week when he comes to my place of employment. for a >>>>>>>> photo shoot, the Democrat who restored integrity to the office of >>>>>>>> Mayor of >>>>>>>> Detroit. He took a lot of heat and it took guts to devout the years of >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> life that he did to turning the city around like a freighter on the >>>>>>>> river. >>>>>>>> Like skin color, religion or citizenship, I don't don't hold many >>>>>>>> preconceived notions to a persons political persuasion when relating >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> them, so really can't speak to your comment about republicans and >>>>>>>> democrats. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nice to know pedophiles are prosecuted somewhere. Congratulations! >>>>>>>> A system working! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:28:13 PM UTC-5, Gabby wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The big picture, that you draw, is very much a U.S. American >>>>>>>>> Republican's view. I know quite a number of people whose >>>>>>>>> aggressivenes gets >>>>>>>>> triggerd by this deliberate choice of imagery. (I'm sure the relief >>>>>>>>> barking >>>>>>>>> will set in later) >>>>>>>>> Let's see if we can find a common ground for the word >>>>>>>>> "empowerment". The root is English, that's correct, but the modern >>>>>>>>> popularity and usage goes back to the American Julian Rappaport: In >>>>>>>>> praise >>>>>>>>> of paradox. A social policy of empowerment over prevention, in: >>>>>>>>> American >>>>>>>>> Journal of Community Psychology, 9/1981, 1-25 (13), saying: „Having >>>>>>>>> rights >>>>>>>>> but no resources and no services available is a cruel joke.“ I think >>>>>>>>> we can >>>>>>>>> all agree if we don't take a closer look at our rights, but assume we >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>> As for moving, if you cannot protect innocent children - this >>>>>>>>> would still be a taboo in our German context, even if we wanted to do >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> same. We have left innocent Jews to the apparatus, we have no excuse >>>>>>>>> left. >>>>>>>>> It is the alledged pedophiles who have to be protected in our >>>>>>>>> communities, >>>>>>>>> or they have to move elsewhere, no laws and law enforcement could do >>>>>>>>> something about that. >>>>>>>>> But you know what, I believe your call for a kid's survival >>>>>>>>> training is more of an anti-Democrat, Republican demagogy than a real >>>>>>>>> call! >>>>>>>>> :) Am I right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>>>> topic/minds-eye/QYatNwqDgp8/unsubscribe. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/QYatNwqDgp8/unsubscribe. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>> [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
