Bill Lear wrote: > >> It wasn't investment for profit, but it certainly was taking a huge > risk with a ton of money for a far-off goal that,
If you have billions, hundreds of millions of pocket change as it were, what do you do for fun. You can only tuck so man thousand-dollar bills in the stockings of cigarette-girls (David Rockefeller), lose so many 10s of millions gambling, own so many houses in different regions and countries. You've still got a lot to spend. Why not indulge in financing the building of a fucking big telescope. And the results are predictable here in general: astronomers will see quite a few more stars in quite a bit more detail. And all because of you. Sure beats flying 10 times instead of 5 times a quarter to France or Tokyo for a weekend -- especially when you can do that too. The rich are different from you and me, and one of the ways they are different is that they have to keep looking for new ways to have a good time. Especially if they are perhaps reasonably intelligent and (within the framework of TINA) even have a public consciousness. Please note that framework of TINA. Within that framework there is no contradiction between consciously bringing about the deaths of millions and having a public consciousness. Hilary Clinton is a war ciminal, and would be quite wiling to see more millions die to maintain u.s. hegemony in the middle east. She would be willing to see millions of americans live in misery rather than endanger TINA by favcoring a real health plan. That is not at all in contradiction to having a sincere public consciousness and campaigning for Obama because she is really convinced that Obama will serve TINA better than McCain -- and she really believes in TINA. Don't have such a narrow view of our enemy. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
