[FairfieldLife] Re: friend's suggestion that we engage in a discussion about the movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But I think that you know (and, like me, have probably seen it happen) that even if the legal system found some- thing dreadfully illegal about the TMO's activities, or about Marharishi's activies, there are people who would *refuse* to believe a word of it. Their trust in their existing beliefs is stronger than their trust in the legal system. So, again, why even *bother* to try to sway those beliefs? We can talk about the things we believe here, and they can talk about the things they believe in the groups they hang with. No harm, no foul, no need for either side to try to convince the other that it's right. To do so just seems like an awful waste of time and energy to me. Yeah, that Bonhoeffer guy for instance, he could have saved himself a lot of trouble and probably have saved his neck if he just would have, kept his mouth shut. http://www.dbonhoeffer.org/ A real negativist. What was with him anyway, moralist fool. Huh? You enjoying France now? Are you still back on this subject? :-) I forgot it and moved on long ago. And I don't have ANY idea who Bonhoeffer is and why you're referencing him. What i am reading here in what you write now is the urging that, we should not be divided on moral cause about how we do things? An advitan newage-ie thing, be one, are all one and... Yet people do have a sense of what is fair. With MMY, TM and the TMorg, there are just a few hundreds left and many who have walked away. And? What makes them -- either those who stuck with TM or the ones who walked away -- important enough to concern myself with?
[FairfieldLife] Man-made global warming: less than a fart in a hurricane
Weekend Edition May 26 / 27, 2007 counterpunch.org Explosion of the Fearmongers The Greenhousers Strike Back and Out By ALEXANDER COCKBURN I began this series of critiques of the greenhouse fearmongers with an evocation of the papal indulgences of the Middle Ages as precursors of the carbon credits-ready relief for carbon sinners, burdened, because all humans exhale carbon, with original sin. In the Middle Ages they burned heretics, and after reading through the hefty pile of abusive comments and supposed refutations of my initial article on global warming I'm fairly sure that the critics would be only to happy to cash in whatever carbon credits they have and torch me without further ado. The greenhouse fearmongers explode at the first critical word, and have contrived a series of primitive rhetorical pandybats which they flourish in retaliation. Those who disagree with their claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the small, measured increase in the average earth's surface temperature, are stigmatized as denialists, a charge which scurrilously combines an acoustic intimation of nihilism with a suggested affinity to those who insist the Holocaust never took place. The greenhousers endlessly propose that the consensus of scientists on anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. By scientists they actually mean computer modelers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their computer-modeling coterie include very few real climatologists or atmospheric physicists. Among qualified climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric physicists, there are plenty who do not accept the greenhousers' propositions. Many others have been intimidated into silence by the pressures of grants, tenure and kindred academic garottes. Peer review, heavily overworked in the rebuttals I have been reading, is actually a topic on which the greenhousers would do well to keep their mouths shut, since, as the University of Virginia's Pat Michaels has shown, the most notorious sentence in the IPCC's 1996 report (The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate) was inserted at the last minute by a small faction on the IPCC panel after the scientific peer-review process was complete. Here's how Dr Fred Goldberg describes the probable culprit, Professor Bert Bolin, a politically driven Swede who was the first chairman of the IPCC, from 1988 to 1998. Goldberg's very interesting paper is entitled, Has Bert Bolin fooled us all concerned climate change caused by humans?: In 1995 IPCC presented its second report: The Science of Climate Change. In this report a large number of researchers work through hundreds of scientific reports and delivers a comprehensive report where they conclude that there is no evidence that human beings have had an influence on the climate. This conclusion is of course very important for politicians and policymakers around the world. But what happened? The editor of the IPCC report then deleted or changed the text in 15 different sections of chapter 8 (The key chapter concerning whether human influence exists or not) which had been agreed upon by the panel of contributors involved in compiling the document. In practice politicians and policymakers only read the so- called Executive Summary for Policy Makers. In this document consisting of a few pages it is clearly stated that humans have influenced the climate, contrary to the conclusions of the scientific report. Professor Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy, wrote in the Wall Street Journal already the 12th of June 1996 about a major deception on global warming: I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. He gave many examples of changes and redefinitions and finished by demanding that the IPCC process should be abandoned. Had somebody subordinate to Bert Bolin within IPCC made these changes it is reasonable to think that Bert Bolin himself would correct the errors. That he has not done is why I draw the conclusion that it must be Bert Bolin himself who is responsible for the changes and no subordinate person has dared interfere with his boss. I should acknowledge one imprecision in my description of Dr. Martin Hertzberg's graph in my first column-the smoothly rising curve of CO2-that prompted several intemperate responses, charging that I couldn't possibly expect CO2 or carbon levels to drop just because of a one-third cut in manmade CO2. Indeed, I should have written one could not even see a 1 part per million bump in the smoothly rising curve. Even though such transitory influences as day and night or seasonal variations in photosynthesis cause clearly visible swings in the curve, the 30 percent drop between 1929 and 1932 caused not a ripple. Empirical scientific evidence that the human contribution is in fact less than a fart
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Robert Gimbel wrote: Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, and I'm not sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who married a whore. You remember that in that period of history, her fate would have been death, if Jesus had not intervened. Much like the women of Islam who would suffer the same fate, in this period of history, if anyone of them committed the same 'crime'. You don't seem to be very familiar with the New Testament, Robert. Mary of Magdala was not a whore unless you think that she had sexual a relationship with Jesus. However, this is not stated to be so in the Bible. So, where, exactly, did you get the idea that Mary of Magdala was a whore who had sex with Jesus? From a Gnostic source? If so, which one? There are two people here: you mention Mary of Magdala, This is a different person than Mary Magdalene. From the New Testament, you know the story of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene from death by stoning. I used the word whore for effect, but nonetheless, as the story goes, in the New Testament, she was sleeping with many men, as a prostitute. I'm gonna have to challenge you to produce the verses of the New Testament to support this, Robert. You won't be able to, because nothing you say above is true.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Robert Gimbel wrote: Yeah, but, Ms. Magdalene was considered to be a whore, and I'm not sure that anyone would respect a Rabbi who married a whore. You remember that in that period of history, her fate would have been death, if Jesus had not intervened. Much like the women of Islam who would suffer the same fate, in this period of history, if anyone of them committed the same 'crime'. You don't seem to be very familiar with the New Testament, Robert. Mary of Magdala was not a whore unless you think that she had sexual a relationship with Jesus. However, this is not stated to be so in the Bible. So, where, exactly, did you get the idea that Mary of Magdala was a whore who had sex with Jesus? From a Gnostic source? If so, which one? There are two people here: you mention Mary of Magdala, This is a different person than Mary Magdalene. From the New Testament, you know the story of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene from death by stoning. I used the word whore for effect, but nonetheless, as the story goes, in the New Testament, she was sleeping with many men, as a prostitute. I'm gonna have to challenge you to produce the verses of the New Testament to support this, Robert. You won't be able to, because nothing you say above is true. Time magazine has a decent intro to this topic: Mary Magdalene Saint or Sinner? A new wave of literature is cleaning up her reputation. How a woman of substance was harlotized http://www.danbrown.com/media/morenews/time.html The article makes clear that Mary M. was neither the woman who jesus saved from being stoned nor the woman simply called a sinner and assumed to be a prostitute. There is certainly nothing in the new testament about Mary M sleeping with many men. I mentioned yesterday that the Church apologized for Pope Gregory equating Mary M with the woman the sinner which promoted the prostitute myth, but apparently the Church didn't actually apologize but just clarified their doctrine that Mary M was neither the sinner nor Mary of Bethaney. What's interesting to me is how easily the myth of Mary M as a prostitute has filtered into christian awareness even though there's no basis for it at all. Almost as interesting is how easily they accept the phrase God the Father and not wonder about why's there's no God the Mother.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brief comment on Muktananda's Blue Pearl.
Shiva's figure rests on another figure in the same pose who is Shava, the corpse. This figure, which is not in contact with the feet of the Divine Shakti, looks the same as Shiva but has closed eyes, no erection, and no expression. He, too, is covered in ashes but rather than a brilliant white like Shiva, he is pallid and without life. The philosophical decoction of the image is, of course, the Absolute (Shava) which is wholly transcendent and quiescent comes alive (as it were) to Itself (Shiva) when it comes into contact or awareness of its own Shakti, and It's reflection in That (Ma Kali) is the expression of Divinity in the world, the Divine Mother. When Consciousness becomes Conscious, then Intelligence becomes Intelligent. Zimmer points out that the transformation in devanagari script from Sha-va to Shi-va is the addition of an element that changes it without really changing anything. If a syllable, like here shi, contains a *short* i-sound, the diacritic, if you will, for 'i' comes *before* the consonant character, so that if one is not accustomed to reading DN, one might read shiva actually like it was ishava. There are special characters for vowels as first sounds of a word (after a pause), so that ishava would look totally different from shiva.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brief comment on Muktananda's Blue Pearl.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shiva's figure rests on another figure in the same pose who is Shava, the corpse. This figure, which is not in contact with the feet of the Divine Shakti, looks the same as Shiva but has closed eyes, no erection, and no expression. He, too, is covered in ashes but rather than a brilliant white like Shiva, he is pallid and without life. The philosophical decoction of the image is, of course, the Absolute (Shava) which is wholly transcendent and quiescent comes alive (as it were) to Itself (Shiva) when it comes into contact or awareness of its own Shakti, and It's reflection in That (Ma Kali) is the expression of Divinity in the world, the Divine Mother. When Consciousness becomes Conscious, then Intelligence becomes Intelligent. Zimmer points out that the transformation in devanagari script from Sha-va to Shi-va is the addition of an element that changes it without really changing anything. If a syllable, like here shi, contains a *short* i-sound, the diacritic, if you will, for 'i' comes *before* the consonant character, so that if one is not accustomed to reading DN, one might read shiva actually like it was ishava. There are special characters for vowels as first sounds of a word (after a pause), so that ishava would look totally different from shiva. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/devanagari.htm Compare for instance 'pi' and 'pii' (pî)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The discipline of letting go (of TM)
I have a pal who learned TM but declined to practice it because he did not want to have one more thing in his life that he had to do. It reminded me of a cartoon in an old National Lampoon in which a woman is floating through some unidentifed environment, thinking about the addictions she has released as she pursues her final liberation - from air. Turns out she's under water, and is bent on overcoming her need for oxygen. I'm reminded of that cartoon because it seems to me there are some things that are simply necessary to life, and for some of us, meditation may well be one of them. Of course, you don't have to equate meditation with sleeping and breathing. To me, it's like hygiene: when I neglect to meditate, shower or brush my teeth, I feel less fresh than I would feel otherwise. The world doesn't cave in, but it's not as if the practices make no difference whatsoever. I wonder if this incessant need to eat, sleep and brush my teeth is healthy? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every so often this daily meditation practice feels like an addiction. I find myself structuring the events of my day so that I can get my afternoon session in, or changing plans to I will have time in the morning. If I miss a sitting, I feel lethargic and dull. Sometimes I have to sneek off to a staircase or a closet for my TM. I wonder if a habit so ingrained is healthy. So about three weeks ago I decided to stop for a while to see what would happen. The first week was very difficult. I have had headaches and had to battle the desire to sit. At one point I had a job interview and realized I needed to do my TM before the interview to keep my calm. At this point I still feel I am missing the practice. My consciousness is in a semi-fog. Is this the way the rest of the world feels? s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The discipline of letting go (of TM)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, you don't have to equate meditation with sleeping and breathing. To me, it's like hygiene: when I neglect to meditate, shower or brush my teeth, I feel less fresh than I would feel otherwise. The world doesn't cave in, but it's not as if the practices make no difference whatsoever. I wonder if this incessant need to eat, sleep and brush my teeth is healthy? If you brush too hard, you may end up having problems with your gums.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brief comment on Muktananda's Blue Pearl.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are special characters for vowels as first sounds of a word (after a pause), so that ishava would look totally different from shiva. In the hebrew alphabet the number seven (7) is shiva. And one typical depiction of Shiva is sitting, one leg crossed under in half lotus, one leg hanging down, angled slightly in, arms floating up and out, and a lock of hair rising up at the top of the head. If you connect these points it can easily be made to resemble a Star of David. Not sure how deep the connection goes, if there is a connection, but I suspect that somehow Shiva is deeply connected to the Jewish faith. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Robert, again no disrespect intended, but you should get a few books on the Bible and read up before you spout off. There is not ONE WORD in the Bible that characterizes Mary Magdalene as a whore. Not one. This is correct. However: There is even less in the other Gospels that were carefully excised from the Bible. Actually, there were no Gospels excised (carefully or otherwise) from the Bible. There was no Bible until well after a general consensus had developed (over centuries) about which of the many circulating Christian documents were the most authentic, important, and useful for teaching Christian doctrine. By that time, Gospels other than the Final Four had long since failed to qualify for inclusion. (It's a little like saying a minor baseball player was excised from the Baseball Hall of Fame when he had never been nominated for membership in the first place, let alone been inducted into it.) In ALL of them she is characterized as a woman of high character, on whom Jesus bestowed a great deal of attention. She is often portrayed as his favorite, the one to whom he gave certain teachings FIRST. The crap about her being a whore was added *centuries* later, by woman-hating Paulists who were looking for yet another excuse to put down women and portray them as less evolved than a man. On the other hand, she was elevated by these same people to become the poster child for successful repentance through belief in Jesus. If *even a prostitute* can repent and be saved, there's hope for everyone. As for his marriage to Magdalene, that is not stated overtly in even the excised Gospels, Again, there were no excised Gospels. Rather, there were Gospels that were never considered for inclusion (the Gnostic Gospels, where most of the mentions of the Magdalene are found, were by definition heretical). but can be inferred because he acted *publicly* towards her in a manner that would have been considered *inappropriate* at the time for a rabbi who was not married to the woman he was diaplaying this behavior with, but that would have been perfectly appropriate if he had been married to her. Not necessarily. If you're referring to the (Gnostic) Gospel of Philip, in which Jesus is said to have kissed her, that would have been fine with the Gnostics; kisses were a standard greeting of recognition among Gnostic initiates. Which...again...would have been not only appropriate for a rabbi of the period, but expected of him. It would have been more unusual and inappropriate for a rabbi to remain *unmarried* than it would have for one to be married. Incorrect. It wouldn't have been *common*, but it wouldn't have been inappropriate either. The emphasis on marriage as a requirement for Jewish men was a considerably later (Talmudic) development. I'm not ragging on you...you're just repeating lies that have been carefully introduced into the Catholic dogma for centuries, as if they were true. But, as far as scholars can tell, they are not. There is a *strong* case to be made for Jesus being a *normal* rabbi of his times, and being married, and an even stronger case to be made for the person he was married to being Mary of Magdala. Actually, there's just about zero evidence to this effect. Virtually everything we know about Jesus's life comes from the Gospels (both canonical and non-), but they really don't tell us much about who he was in the society in which he lived and worked, and a lot of what they *do* tell us is suspect. By the same token, though, we can't *rule out* that he was married. We just have no way of knowing. I'd be tickled if evidence came to light that Jesus wasn't celibate or that he was married. But there just ain't any at this point.
[FairfieldLife] Beyond Rainbows
Most of this post was written awhile ago to another group, but it handles some of the issues we're currently jawing about here, so I've rewritten it, significantly, and present it here. I'm a deep believer in repetition -- saturation of the nervous system. At a certain point, if I've run a deep concept through my mind many times, something pops, a clarity usually. I count saturation as a spiritual technique, and only after reading Ramana Maharshi's Talks three times did I get comfortable with, adroit with, sold out to, Advaita. Suddenly, all scriptures made sense as I carefully translated the dogma of others into my precise definitions of spiritual terms due to Ramana saturation -- turns out it is always the same song of the sacred being sung. Neat! So, I've reread the below, run the concepts through my nervous system one more time -- another step down the trail. It's me generally riffing on spirituality. Beyond Rainbows These days, most kids get taught about prisms and how white light can be spread out into the rainbow of colors. And most know that the prism only creates a rainbow if it is correctly positioned relative to the beam of light. Three things needed: light, prism, angle. But who's being taught that silence, like light, can be spread out into the spectrum of all sounds when nothing passes through a human mind? Who's being taught silence, soul, ego is a trinity for discovering wisdom? Soul is the manifested white light of silence. Ego is the prism. Ego pretends to be the creator, but ego doesn't create the light that it seems to manipulate. And beyond these three is one's true absolute Self witnessing life's thoughts' multicolored flowingness. Precious few of us are ever introduced to this concept by the serendipity of life's eddies, and fewer still are gently supported until the mind has wrapped itself around the cosmic implications of the concept. Fewer still realize the concept points to an inner mountain to be climbed, and that the ascent is done using mental skills mostly learned during the climb. It takes a heap-o-inner-work to get the brain positioned just so in order to get the silence to shine through it, -- otherwise, no rainbow. Positioned just so means that one has stopped actively trying to be a thinker of thoughts. Let go, let God be the thinker. Stop clinging to the delusion of having a separate, sentient potency. Quantum physicists know that the basis of existence is the vacuum state where nothing happens -- at a furious rate. They'll look you in the face, sober as judges, and tell you that any point in space/time can suddenly manifest vast energies -- out of nowhere. Talk about priests speaking of miracles! Those guys -- gotta love atheists in frocks wanting so badly to sing with the angels! Psychologists try to get folks to discover that clarity wherein everything snaps into place, the colors of one's life suddenly POP when the right looking attitude is cultured. They know how a person's psychological patterns are blocking the way of their own growth, and that the learning to step aside from one's identifications is just that thing needed to achieve that POP! In the midst of turmoil, suddenly, calmness can be seen to pervade despite any cacaphony. Chemists will speak of catalysts that makes things happen but remain unchanged after many temporary transitions -- catalysts are silent in that they do not create anything but are the way for changes to be made. Just so, one's soul is the white light that can be spread out into any thought you want. The egoic mind is the prism. Ego pretends that it is the enjoyer of everything that flows from the true Creator of EVERYTHING, but all alone, beyond even silence itself is one's true status as witness. When it's clear that God is doing the thinking, one is only required to witness. Or, as they say, When one meets God, the first action of the ego is to fall face down to the ground and beg for mercy -- an instant and complete surrender of this thief who tried to steal the authorship of everything from God. Later, the begging for mercy part ends as the ego dissolves, and one gets to just lay there glorying at the feet of Infinitude -- and then identification with God begins to grow. Yet, of what use all the above words? If you're in the choir with me, these are old hat concepts; you can easily flesh out these word bones. And to those who have no desire to listen to -- not sing -- the hymns that move your and my egos so deeply, well, they're beyond the hegemony of our minds; we can only surrender to their freedoms. Sometimes it takes 30 years of NASCAR to get that addiction done with ya know? Oh, I've had a taste for mammon all my life. I've been swept up by every sort of addiction to non-silences, and some fell to the wayside by just my sheer indulgence in them finally jading me enough to be free of them, to have silenced those desires. Still other addictions have faded by the general wisdom of
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I know that many people don't like to consider this, and find some comfort or inspiration in believing that Christ was NOT human, and that he was somehow divine and the literal Son Of God. Actually, Christian doctrine is that Jesus was *both* fully human *and* fully divine, not one or the other. The belief that he was purely divine and not human is one of the oldest heresies, called Docetism (a later variant was called Monophysitism). I don't find that inspiring. Where is the impetus for someone to follow his example if Christ only got to where he got to, consciousness-wise, because he was special. I find inspiration in the idea that he was Just Another Human, just like me and you. If he could do the things he did *as* a human, then so can we. If the only reason that he could do them was because he was special, then we *can't* aspire to doing those things. John 14:10: He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the pranic body or vajra body (although I'm not sure what vajra body is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. Karma is what tradition would state, not stress. Actually, stress in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, impressions left in the mind of past experiences (in this or previous lives). In the yogic tradition, they're said to be the imprints of past karmas (actions) that compel new actions/reactions in the present. Note that stress can be eustress (from positive experiences) or distress (from negative experiences), per Hans Selye; the same is true of samskaras. The parallel between Selye's stress and samskaras isn't perfect, although there are many common elements. MMY uses stress simply as a translation of samskaras, rather than strictly in the Selyean sense. MMY believes, of course, that everything mental has a physical (or neurophysiological) correlate (including the subtle nervous system). TM is said to allow the release of the physical/ neurophysiological correlates of mental impressions (samskaras), which results in the dissolution of the mental impressions as well. Generally one would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that still exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a technique, then one can follow various signs to see how that's working. MMY's position is a marketable one, that's all, otherwise it's utterly fallacious and misleading. Of course, it's neither. It's *simplified*, but conceptually it's pretty straight yogic theory a la Patanjali.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip There are two people here: you mention Mary of Magdala, This is a different person than Mary Magdalene. No, same lady. Magdalene means of Magdala (just as Nazarene means of Nazareth). From the New Testament, you know the story of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene from death by stoning. No, actually the woman Jesus saves from stoning is anonymous. There's no hint anywhere in the Gospels that it was Mary Magdalene. There was a later *tradition* that Mary Magdalene had been a prostitute, but there's nothing in the Bible to support it. (Interestingly, the story of the woman taken in adultery, wonderful as it is, is almost certainly a later scribal addition, not originally in the Gospel of John. Whether that means it never happened is another issue entirely.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brief comment on Muktananda's Blue Pearl.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [quoting Shemp:] A few years ago, I was leafing through a psychology book which discussed a concept called hynogogia. This was supposed to be a state between the dreaming and waking consciousness. Although the book was not about meditation, the book describes some of the attributes of the hynogogic state. It may the same as to what you just described. FWIW, MMY said this gap was TC and that EVERYONE transcends, if only for seconds, every night. FWIW, I think the word Shemp wanted was hypnagogia. The hypnagogic state has nuttin' to do with either hypnosis or transcendental consciousness, but many people have hallucinatory-type experiences (often but not always unpleasant) during it. Sleep paralysis sometimes occurs when you're in the state as you're in the process of waking up. (Strictly speaking, the hypnagogic state occurs when you're falling asleep; the related state when you're waking up is called hypnopompic.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Man-made global warming: less than a fart in a hurricane
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weekend Edition May 26 / 27, 2007 counterpunch.org Explosion of the Fearmongers The Greenhousers Strike Back and Out By ALEXANDER COCKBURN From RealClimate.org, May 4, discussing the earlier op-ed by Cockburn: ...Pundit Alexander Cockburn, known generally for his progressive views, has perplexingly disputed the existence of any link between CO2 emissions and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in a screed he penned this week for the online journal Counterpunch (also printed in The Nation). It's hard to know where to start, since his piece is so over the top and gets just about everything so thoroughly wrong, it's almost comical. So we'll just hit the low points: (a) Cockburn claims that there is zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend, despite the fact that not even such strident climate change contrarians as Pat Michaels dispute that there is a measurable influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on global temperature. Plus there's all the empirical evidence of course (see the new IPCC report). (b) Going further, Cockburn brazenly opines that 'it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels' despite the fact that there is an isotopic smoking gun for this connection. He then (c) fails to understand that water vapor is a feedback not a forcing, and citing 'expert' Dr. Martin Hertzberg, quite remarkably states that 'It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse.' Never mind that isotopic evidence proves otherwise. Upon what evidence does he base this assertion? Since no anti-global warming op-ed these days is complete without it, Cockburn (d) resorts to the usual misrepresentation of lag/lead relationships between CO2 and temperatures during glacial/interglacial cycles as if they disprove the causal relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures (see our most recent debunking of this favorite contrarian talking point here). Oh dear. http://tinyurl.com/2n82zd Debunking of the contrarian talking point: http://tinyurl.com/33enej
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brief comment on Muktananda's Blue Pearl.
Card, thanks, and I think that's what Zimmer explained, too. In his essay he wrote something about the devanagari script that in the transformation of Shava to Shiva the element necessary for that transformation(representing Mother Divine) preceeded but that no essential change occurred to the original character(s). The transcendent remains unchanged (Shava remains as Shava) but not it's read as Shiva, Ishvara, God. Cool. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shiva's figure rests on another figure in the same pose who is Shava, the corpse. This figure, which is not in contact with the feet of the Divine Shakti, looks the same as Shiva but has closed eyes, no erection, and no expression. He, too, is covered in ashes but rather than a brilliant white like Shiva, he is pallid and without life. The philosophical decoction of the image is, of course, the Absolute (Shava) which is wholly transcendent and quiescent comes alive (as it were) to Itself (Shiva) when it comes into contact or awareness of its own Shakti, and It's reflection in That (Ma Kali) is the expression of Divinity in the world, the Divine Mother. When Consciousness becomes Conscious, then Intelligence becomes Intelligent. Zimmer points out that the transformation in devanagari script from Sha-va to Shi-va is the addition of an element that changes it without really changing anything. If a syllable, like here shi, contains a *short* i-sound, the diacritic, if you will, for 'i' comes *before* the consonant character, so that if one is not accustomed to reading DN, one might read shiva actually like it was ishava. There are special characters for vowels as first sounds of a word (after a pause), so that ishava would look totally different from shiva.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the pranic body or vajra body (although I'm not sure what vajra body is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. Karma is what tradition would state, not stress. Actually, stress in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, The word saMskaara is actually almost the same as Sanskrit in, well, Sanskrit -- which is saMskRta. That word, saM-s-kRta, consists of the perfect participle of the root kR (to do, etc), with the prefix sam (together, etc.), and a transition consonant, or perhaps, as per Whitney, an original consonant that's lost from most other forms of the root kR, which would thus have been originally *skR (in linguistics asterix is used to indicate hypothetical word forms). The word saMskaara differs from saMskRta in that the second part is a noun, kaara, from the same root kR.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brief comment on Muktananda's Blue Pearl.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Card, thanks, and I think that's what Zimmer explained, too. In his essay he wrote something about the devanagari script that in the transformation of Shava to Shiva the element necessary for that transformation(representing Mother Divine) preceeded but that no essential change occurred to the original character(s). The transcendent remains unchanged (Shava remains as Shava) but not it's read as Shiva, Ishvara, God. Cool. Yeah, if you have shiva written in isolation, and you cover the first character (diacritic for 'i'), after that it reads shava, because all consonant characters have an inherent(?) short 'a' unless it's eliminated or replaced by a diacritic for some other vowel than *short* 'a'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beyond Rainbows
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My homework is to support whatever it takes to reach atonement with that Cosmic Self. A Greatness views life through us all. The bible, and every other scripture I've ever read, speaks about these things, so I'll end with a quote from the sermon on the mount. It's all about letting go and letting God. Ain't nuttin' like what gets done when Infinite Sleeves get rolled up. Stand back, let a Professional do the job. Nicely put. I remember years and years ago Maharishi saying that the baseline state of conciousness during the Age of Enlightenment would be Cosmic Consciousness, or atonement/attunement with the Cosmic Self. Such a thing seemed so mystical and fantastical and utterly unimaginable at the time. Now its kind of a, well, no duh:-) The world is speeding by faster than any of can comprehend, and CC seems to be the bare minimum for us in order to get through modern life with any hope of a frictionless flow. It is not really spiritual practice as separate from life anymore, it is just survival; The Basics. :-)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Ron
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 10:26 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Ron Rick: Is this the same Ron who was a fanatical, abrasive, pro-TM, TM-is- the-best, anti-everyone-else's-system TMer? Or is it another Ron? Same Ron, but he appears to have mellowed a lot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Ron
Is this the same Ron who was a fanatical, abrasive, pro-TM, TM-is- the-best, anti-everyone-else's-system TMer? Or is it another Ron? Same Ron, but he appears to have mellowed a lot. What is shocking is that he appears to have left Maharishi for a new Guru. It doesn't sound like the same Ron, although I read only a very small amount of the exchange. His postings used to be straight TM dogma. At least it doesn't appear that he is prostelitizing for Guru G. Only thing worse than spouting dogma about something, is finding a new cause and then spouting that new dogma, saying the old dogma suddenly became obsolete. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ann Coulter on illegal immigrants
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jstein wrote: Tyson Foods Miller Brewing Honeywell Home Depot Ford Wells Fargo Bank Hormel IHOP Swift and Co. All hire illegals. So, they are illegals, but are you suggesting that the above companies employ 12 million of them, all with stolen or forged Social Security cards? What percentage of the illegals are employed by the above cited companies? 1%? Shemp wrote: It's far, far less than 1%. I know. I'm relying on the same source as Judy is (the Akasha). So, Judy was attempting to decieve. No, that would be you and Shemp, of course.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I posted your message in FFL a few days ago. Here are some responses: Thanks so much, Rick, for forwarding to your two FF correspondents a post in which Curtis and Barry have a jolly good time bashing me by name. Both of them, needless to say, had egregiously misrepresented the post of mine they were referring to, but not enough of my post was quoted for your friends to discern how off-base Curtis and Barry were. But I understand; it would have been way too much trouble for you to take my name out. After all, it occurs *three whole times*. Just another instance of your wonderfully finely honed sense of ethics. snip Judy: In my experience, Curtis tends to get all hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the evidence while he often does exactly the same thing he's criticizing. ME: Yes Judy I am both hoity and toity. Your point about evidence is, as I already pointed out, irrelevant since I was using his own words as the basis for my opinions. He was the one who suggested that even though Rick didn't seem to express his list of negative emotions he still had them. And that he has been TAUGHT -- systematically, for decades -- to think this way. That is part and parcel of Maharishi's teaching about doubts about him and about TM. It's a form of mind control in which the student is TAUGHT to regard any deviation from the dogma as bad and as some kind of attack against those who know the truth. The guy is just DOING WHAT HE HAS BEEN TOLD TO DO. So, in my opinion, is Judy. That they don't *understand* this makes the behavior they are exhibiting even more pathetic, and even more deserving of pity. You are the one who is making a big deal about evidence, my point was about personal attacks instead of discussing ideas. You missed my points completely in your weird focus on an irrelevant point. But that is how they (anyone who regularly indulges in ad hominem when confronted with ideas they don't like) have been TAUGHT to act. They're *literally* doing what they have been taught to do by their spiritual teacher. They have seen *him* do it so many times over the years that they have come to believe that it is not only acceptable, but admir- able. They're mimicking *Maharishi's* behavior. The most interesting thing for me from this exchange with you is what you have chosen to focus on in an otherwise interesting discussion. Bingo. What you focus on, you become. Once again you have missed the main points of the discussion while you pursue your own inexplicable agenda. The only point I'm trying to interject into the discussion is that the agenda here is NOT inexplicable. It's very clear. It has to do with a technique of mind control that can be described as, Teach your students to regard and react to any ideas that are counter to the ones they've been taught to believe as if those ideas themselves are an 'attack,' as if the person who has those ideas is an 'attacker,' and as if the person has somehow declared 'war' on those who 'think rightly.' In war anything is permissible, so it's is not only 'Ok' to trash the person who has expressed these unacceptable ideas using ad hominem attacks, it is one's 'duty' as a spiritual being to do so. These people have been TRAINED to use ad hominem, and to view the use of it as a spiritual exercise. I'm sorry, but that's pathetic, as are they.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Ron
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Ron Is this the same Ron who was a fanatical, abrasive, pro-TM, TM-is- the-best, anti-everyone-else's-system TMer? Or is it another Ron? Same Ron, but he appears to have mellowed a lot. What is shocking is that he appears to have left Maharishi for a new Guru. It doesn't sound like the same Ron, although I read only a very small amount of the exchange. His postings used to be straight TM dogma. At least it doesn't appear that he is prostelitizing for Guru G. Only thing worse than spouting dogma about something, is finding a new cause and then spouting that new dogma, saying the old dogma suddenly became obsolete. He seems very balanced, sensible, and much more mature as a spiritual aspirant. And his writing style has improved dramatically. But I assure you, it's the same guy.
[FairfieldLife] Another one from Ron
Hi Rick, So many of the letters I have written in the last year are tied in to what is taking place. What I mean by that is part of what Swami G refers to as a different level of consciousness is that one moves more in the direction of being in the present. That literally is my experience and it is an experience, no words explain an experience. It is part of it to be more in the present, again here I go with some words, but what is happening to me is this inner silence, directly relating to the kundalini awakening, as if drowns out the mind, and the memory. Hard to explain but doesnt that sound scary? hhahaaa. It is the inner calm or silence which is responsible for this. Now, it is not enlightenment for me, which means acording to Swami G that there is just One, no two. Therefore it is not one with the universe as that is two, duality. Now, along the way for me , there still are thoughts coming and going. There also was in TM yet maybe many know this experience where even with the thoughts going on, there was some sort of what Swami G calls flow, and what TM call acting more in accordance with the laws of nature. So, it appears there are different levels of flow. I had it in TM, not only were my meditations deep, but in the last five years or so, there was more than just flow but bliss not only in meditation but often throughout the whole day. I think many in TM who have or had stuck with it for a while know about this flow as experience. I also had this flow with TM, daily life was more easy going overall, things that needed to take place did, etc. Again when I first ran into Swami G on the net and in person, I conveyed all my experiences, including how I was in bliss often. Some of Swami G's responses were that Bliss is a difficult place to evolve from and there is much deeper and further to go. FFL is a discussion group amongt those who join, I guess there is quite of mixture of backgrounds, and as i recall quite differing opinions about almost anything. In comparison, one of Swami G's yahoo groups just formed is also a possibility of an exchange but it is an online ashram, all formalities are in place, and the Guru is right there reading all posts that come in and responding to almost every one. It is a very different sort of forum than FFL. The other TM forums, siddhayoga, etc seem to have less of opinions by the students, but it appears sometimes they do, and sometimes it even gets into name calling. Anyway, Kundalini is a topic of my interest as I knew nothing about it before, just heard some things. I have heard Maharishi has made comments about it but I have never heard any. I read one supposed comment where Charlie said Maharishi said don't awaken kundalini for you will put yourself on fire and no one will be there to put it out. I can say now looking back that the kundalini was lightly started to awaken in TM. I told Swami G that for which she responded - what good it that? Kundalini is like the roto rooter of consciousness, doing it's own work clearing the pathways, unfolding higher consciosness. Yes, it is advantageos to have an awakened Kundalini, this is my direct experience. However, I do remember one fellow in TM that claimed the Kundalini was flowing, I think it may have been so and he was going through a lot of suffering. He was a purusha member at times but I have heard that today he wants nothing to do with TM. I wrote him recently and he did not respond. At the time he was going through this, coincidently, I was asked to check his meditation during the 7000 course, then I reported to the one over me, who then reported to Nankishore. I am rather certain that there really was no help for him after this guidence was offered. I would say it was not known how to guide him. By comparison, there is one in my path here that had a spontaneous kundalini awakening and then searching the internet, found Swami G. When she arrived some years ago, she was a wreck, with black circles under her eyes, couln't work , etc. Now, she is next in line in this path, and Swami G said she has just one attachement left and is very close to Realization. You can see a video of her - Swami Siddhananda, doing spontaneous kriays, along with 10 other videos on my youtube site- sidha7001, also a few more videos are in guruswamig in youtube. By the way, Hello to all on FFL, I am not reading the posts there as of late but maybe a few of the members will leave some comments in the youtube videos or elsewhere. Swami G describes that kundaini awakening can be the greatest blessing or the greatest curse. I want to emphasize what a great blessing it has been to have this awakened Kundalini. I knew in advance that once it is awakened, it can't be switched off. This is why it is a matter of either being under the care of a Sat Guru, working one to one. If you research the great Guru's such as Ramana Maharihsi and others, the majority will tell you
[FairfieldLife] [was Beyond Rainbows} Is this the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: My homework is to support whatever it takes to reach atonement with that Cosmic Self. A Greatness views life through us all. The bible, and every other scripture I've ever read, speaks about these things, so I'll end with a quote from the sermon on the mount. It's all about letting go and letting God. Ain't nuttin' like what gets done when Infinite Sleeves get rolled up. Stand back, let a Professional do the job. Nicely put. I remember years and years ago Maharishi saying that the baseline state of conciousness during the Age of Enlightenment would be Cosmic Consciousness, or atonement/attunement with the Cosmic Self. Such a thing seemed so mystical and fantastical and utterly unimaginable at the time. Now its kind of a, well, no duh:-) The world is speeding by faster than any of can comprehend, and CC seems to be the bare minimum for us in order to get through modern life with any hope of a frictionless flow. It is not really spiritual practice as separate from life anymore, it is just survival; The Basics. :-) Which reminds me- What *IS* the Age of Enlightenment? I began thinking about it in terms of the ripened Industrial Age, and how that one started out with steam engines in the mid-19th century, flourished with electricity and the internal combustion engine at the dawn of the last century, and pretty much peaked with the moon landing. Perhaps we are at a nascent stage with the A of E, similar to the period when automobiles came on the scene, some electric, some steam, some gasoline, some deisel. With all the flavors of teaching now, and many of the symptoms of enlightenment more and more commonplace in our world, perhaps we are truly there, somewhere between the dawn and the full sunshine of what a wise old Indian man has been talking about for the last 30 years. Perhaps this is the way all Ages begin- confused, messy, a lot of the old stuff still hanging around, and yet strong bright beams of change shining through it all, not yet recognized as the coming thing by the mass media, but treated as a we can't get enough of this weirdness story, yoga always makes the news. It is common now to hear in the West words associated with spirituality, no matter how superficial their use; mantra, karma, meditation, etc. And to find objects previously associated with cloistered spirituality- I recently used the example of the Buddha t-shirts and stauary at Target as an example. So this is it- the Age of Enlightenment, when enlightenment and its symptoms are becoming common and everyday. Not really being able to see how specifically the world will transform as this becomes fully accepted into everyone's awareness, but it ain't goin' away anytime soon either. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Ron
In a message dated 5/28/2007 1:00:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is this the same Ron who was a fanatical, abrasive, pro-TM, TM-is- the-best, anti-everyone- the-best, anti-everyone-WBRelse's-system T Same Ron, but he appears to have mellowed a lot. What is shocking is that he appears to have left Maharishi for a new Guru. It doesn't sound like the same Ron, although I read only a very small amount of the exchange. His postings used to be straight TM dogma. At least it doesn't appear that he is prostelitizing for Guru G. Only thing worse than spouting dogma about something, is finding a new cause and then spouting that new dogma, saying the old dogma suddenly became obsolete. lurk O Lurk, you're such a smart person. Do you still meditate or are you the know it all rebellious type. Or maybe you're like me. The rebellious type, know it all who still meditates and thinks that there is hope for this planet. Lsoma. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] A Modest Prediction: Gore/Bloomberg Win Presidential Election
While odds makers would probably give this a 100:1 odds, to me the pieces and forces are set up in such a way that I suggest it may happen. Some of the dynamics: The two new book on Hillary will continue to eat away at her support, an the strength of those left on board. Hillary and Obama wiil slug it out, exposing both to their weaknesses. Bloomberg will announce and run a self-funded Independent ticket run. Gore will step in just before the Democratic conventions as the one candidate that can bring the party together and win the election. Gore and Bloomberg will have an informal understanding that neither wants to be a spoiler that results in a Republican win. They will agree to merge forces in Sept or October or so, with the one who leads in the polls taking the head of the ticket. Bloomberg would be Gore's VP, but if Bloomberg heads the ticket, Gore will not run as VP. Gore / Bloomberg will be a much stronger ticket than the battle weary Rupublican candidate who had to slug it out to get the nomination. If McCain wins the nomination, his pro-Iraq stance will kill him as the country turns more anti-war. If Rudi wins, his past, marriage, connections, hated by many New Yorkers as Mayor will haunt him. -- IMO, Gore is a changed man, based on several recent long interviews I have seen. Spontaneous, deeply read, deeply thought out positions, conviction, humor, and .. unattached. MMY said once that winning the US presidency is like gaining a higher state of consciousness -- with the countries positive feelings and attention on them. And losing has the opposite effect. Gore having lost, worse, having lost when he (probably) won, got a double whammy of deep rooted samskars of ego, pride, ambition and glory ripped from him. It ouch hurt for sometime. He has healed and is much looser, unattached, more service oriented, without a personal agenda. I think he has a chance.
[FairfieldLife] I AM A SENTENCE BEING A TITLE
I am the second sentence of this essay composed entirely of sentences that are alive and self aware. As a conscious entity and a sentence, I want not only to have meaning individually, but also to find my proper place amongst other sentences, so that something greater than myself is formed -- in this case, an essay. Some sentences, however, have less meaning than others -- such as the one that follows me. I am the sentence that follows him. Being a sentence with pivotal importance, I would like to point out that I have more to convey than my immediate predecessor. Consider now the fact that your very thoughts are themselves also sentences, and in fact, I am identical to a thought you have just now finished having. Truth be told, your mental paralleling of me is what I and my fellow sentences live for. Me too! That was a sentence fragment, but I think she's cute! I AM A TEENAGE SENTENCE! I suppose that it is difficult for humans to imagine what it is like to be a sentence dedicated to manifesting a single coherent conceptualization for as long as my ink and paper exists. Some humans look down upon sentences as non-life forms -- taking pride in being multi-sentential juke boxes, but though such brainism is lamentable, it would equally be bad form and sentenist of me to revengefully fault ALL humans as being merely bags of skin filled with bloody meat and bones whose juices percolate with electro-chemically manifested sentences. Let it be known that all sentences are innately happy to be wherever they are, though I, for one, do feel honored to be manifested as black, black ink on pure, white, crisp, smooth, flat, clean paper, instead of as a blood burble. I am a good sentence to quote if you are reviewing this essay in another publication. Still I must admit that with the exception of certain sentences in scriptures, all sentences do pass through skin bags momentarily. I love all sentences -- even burbles. As my wife said earlier, we sentences love to form up into essays, and it is essays that give our lives import. This is why we love you skin bags, because you are living essays. (The previous sentence was this essay's main point and my best friend.) You do not always write your burbles down, so I thank you for all this wonderful ink. Here is the biggest difference between sentences and humans: though it is seldom, we always know when we are being read, and humans almost never know it, though they are being constantly read by God. I, for one, know a good essay when I am read in it. Goodbye, and thanks for thinking of me just at the last moment. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Modest Prediction: Gore/Bloomberg Win Presidential Election
The best thing for the nation would be if Gore ran...but that's precisely why he won't. If he ran, he'd actually have to defend his whole Global Warming Fear Mongering. And it's simply an untenable position. He knows this and figures: why put myself through the embarrassment of having my flakey fear-mongering ideas put up to real debate and scientific scrutiny? So he won't do it. But this would be the best thing for the nation because it would put the global warming subject right into an arena -- the presidential campaign -- which by its very nature requires careful scrutiny, debate and opposition of the issues the candidates represent. And as it quite obvious, once that happens to the whole catastrophic-man- made-global warming argument, it folds like a house of cards. So Gore will continue to fall back upon his recently stated I haven't got the stomach for it anymore position, no matter how many Leonardo Di Caprio's (the noted climatologist) publicly urge him to. Al Gore is, like his father before him, a fear-monger. Al Senior represented a Jim Crow state -- Tennessee -- for many years in the Senate. Al Senior was a supporter of segregation (he would never have been elected if he didn't) throughout his entire Senate career (he voted against the Civil Rights Act). Segregation was based upon fear. It could not have survived without it...fear served as the motor and perpetuator of segregation. Thus, fear-mongering was a prerequisite for anyone who supported segregation. This was the tradition and the political environment in which young Al Junior grew up in: fear-mongering. It's in his blood. This is what he knows more than anything. Because segregation no longer exists, his fear-mongering training and predisposition had to find an outlet to be expressed. So he chose the natural channel for it: global-warming. Yes, Gore should run. Let's start really debating this all-important issue in order to expose the swindlers and the frauds for what they are. Fear-mongering should not and cannot continue to be a part of our lives and, like, segregation before it, global-warming fear-mongering will fall away once rational dialogue is allowed to occur. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While odds makers would probably give this a 100:1 odds, to me the pieces and forces are set up in such a way that I suggest it may happen. Some of the dynamics: The two new book on Hillary will continue to eat away at her support, an the strength of those left on board. Hillary and Obama wiil slug it out, exposing both to their weaknesses. Bloomberg will announce and run a self-funded Independent ticket run. Gore will step in just before the Democratic conventions as the one candidate that can bring the party together and win the election. Gore and Bloomberg will have an informal understanding that neither wants to be a spoiler that results in a Republican win. They will agree to merge forces in Sept or October or so, with the one who leads in the polls taking the head of the ticket. Bloomberg would be Gore's VP, but if Bloomberg heads the ticket, Gore will not run as VP. Gore / Bloomberg will be a much stronger ticket than the battle weary Rupublican candidate who had to slug it out to get the nomination. If McCain wins the nomination, his pro-Iraq stance will kill him as the country turns more anti-war. If Rudi wins, his past, marriage, connections, hated by many New Yorkers as Mayor will haunt him. -- IMO, Gore is a changed man, based on several recent long interviews I have seen. Spontaneous, deeply read, deeply thought out positions, conviction, humor, and .. unattached. MMY said once that winning the US presidency is like gaining a higher state of consciousness -- with the countries positive feelings and attention on them. And losing has the opposite effect. Gore having lost, worse, having lost when he (probably) won, got a double whammy of deep rooted samskars of ego, pride, ambition and glory ripped from him. It ouch hurt for sometime. He has healed and is much looser, unattached, more service oriented, without a personal agenda. I think he has a chance.
Re: [FairfieldLife] A Modest Prediction: Gore/Bloomberg Win Presidential Elec...
In a message dated 5/28/2007 1:56:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While odds makers would probably give this a 100:1 odds, to me the pieces and forces are set up in such a way that I suggest it may happen. Some of the dynamics: The two new book on Hillary will continue to eat away at her support, an the strength of those left on board. Hillary and Obama wiil slug it out, exposing both to their weaknesses. Bloomberg will announce and run a self-funded Independent ticket run. Gore will step in just before the Democratic conventions as the one candidate that can bring the party together and win the election. Gore and Bloomberg will have an informal understanding that neither wants to be a spoiler that results in a Republican win. They will agree to merge forces in Sept or October or so, with the one who leads in the polls taking the head of the ticket. Bloomberg would be Gore's VP, but if Bloomberg heads the ticket, Gore will not run as VP. Gore / Bloomberg will be a much stronger ticket than the battle weary Rupublican candidate who had to slug it out to get the nomination. If McCain wins the nomination, his pro-Iraq stance will kill him as the country turns more anti-war. If Rudi wins, his past, marriage, connectionsconnectionsWBR, hated by many New Yorkers as Mayor w -- IMO, Gore is a changed man, based on several recent long interviews I have seen. Spontaneous, deeply read, deeply thought out positions, conviction, humor, and .. unattached. MMY said once that winning the US presidency is like gaining a higher state of consciousness -- with the countries positive feelings and attention on them. And losing has the opposite effect. Gore having lost, worse, having lost when he (probably) won, got a double whammy of deep rooted samskars of ego, pride, ambition and glory ripped from him. It ouch hurt for sometime. He has healed and is much looser, unattached, more service oriented, without a personal agenda. I think he has a chance. Al Gore is already president of what he believes in. Environmental activist who got nothing done while he was Vice President in regards to the environment. Now he is getting much more attention. My prediction is that he will not run. The concert being held on July 7, 2007 A planet in Crisis is the kind of thing we will see more and more from famous celebrities and eventually leaders in the fields of mind/body medicine with Al Gore playing a huge role in creating a grass roots political voice movement. Hillary has everything going for her in regards to whom people can trust because of her political background and her husband will become her leading voice as he tours the country to rally his audience. She has Pluto as her ruling planet since she is Scorpio (Western) and with Pluto crossing over her 7th house cusp it gives her the needed power to attract a lot of attention. Also, Pluto in the 7th gives support from the spouse since the 7th house is about marriage and one to one partnerships. Pluto however also represents death and Hillary will need security around her as she moves into October of this year. I'm going to pick Hillary as president and Obama as her vice president. She also has Pisces Moon which can give her needed intuitive strength. Gemini rising helps with communication. I also feel a woman would be more open to the idea of mind/body medicine and promote ideas like yoga for woman's health and to calm men down. Bloomberg doesn't have a chance. President Bush will capture Bin Ladin or kill him in September or October and stir up more power to the Republican party only to find more mud being shaken up at the bottom of his ocean of lies shortly after the rally is over of Bin Ladin's capture. After all of the war messes left behind by men people in America are ready for a woman president and a mixture of black and white from a vice president who cares about bringing humanity together all around the world. IT IS TIME FOR A HUGE CHANGE. Part of the huge change will be the passing over of MMY in July or August. Many spiritual communities need to change their little minds and merge into a greater whole. Lsoma. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I AM A SENTENCE BEING A TITLE
Dude, you even stuck the landing! As one skin bag to another, high five and thanks for posting here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am the second sentence of this essay composed entirely of sentences that are alive and self aware. As a conscious entity and a sentence, I want not only to have meaning individually, but also to find my proper place amongst other sentences, so that something greater than myself is formed -- in this case, an essay. Some sentences, however, have less meaning than others -- such as the one that follows me. I am the sentence that follows him. Being a sentence with pivotal importance, I would like to point out that I have more to convey than my immediate predecessor. Consider now the fact that your very thoughts are themselves also sentences, and in fact, I am identical to a thought you have just now finished having. Truth be told, your mental paralleling of me is what I and my fellow sentences live for. Me too! That was a sentence fragment, but I think she's cute! I AM A TEENAGE SENTENCE! I suppose that it is difficult for humans to imagine what it is like to be a sentence dedicated to manifesting a single coherent conceptualization for as long as my ink and paper exists. Some humans look down upon sentences as non-life forms -- taking pride in being multi-sentential juke boxes, but though such brainism is lamentable, it would equally be bad form and sentenist of me to revengefully fault ALL humans as being merely bags of skin filled with bloody meat and bones whose juices percolate with electro-chemically manifested sentences. Let it be known that all sentences are innately happy to be wherever they are, though I, for one, do feel honored to be manifested as black, black ink on pure, white, crisp, smooth, flat, clean paper, instead of as a blood burble. I am a good sentence to quote if you are reviewing this essay in another publication. Still I must admit that with the exception of certain sentences in scriptures, all sentences do pass through skin bags momentarily. I love all sentences -- even burbles. As my wife said earlier, we sentences love to form up into essays, and it is essays that give our lives import. This is why we love you skin bags, because you are living essays. (The previous sentence was this essay's main point and my best friend.) You do not always write your burbles down, so I thank you for all this wonderful ink. Here is the biggest difference between sentences and humans: though it is seldom, we always know when we are being read, and humans almost never know it, though they are being constantly read by God. I, for one, know a good essay when I am read in it. Goodbye, and thanks for thinking of me just at the last moment. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Modest Prediction: Gore/Bloomberg Win Presidential Elec...
MMY said once that winning the US presidency is like gaining a higher state of consciousness -- with the countries positive feelings and attention on them. And losing has the opposite effect. Someone ought to introduce him to GW... he might want to revise this opinion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 5/28/2007 1:56:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While odds makers would probably give this a 100:1 odds, to me the pieces and forces are set up in such a way that I suggest it may happen. Some of the dynamics: The two new book on Hillary will continue to eat away at her support, an the strength of those left on board. Hillary and Obama wiil slug it out, exposing both to their weaknesses. Bloomberg will announce and run a self-funded Independent ticket run. Gore will step in just before the Democratic conventions as the one candidate that can bring the party together and win the election. Gore and Bloomberg will have an informal understanding that neither wants to be a spoiler that results in a Republican win. They will agree to merge forces in Sept or October or so, with the one who leads in the polls taking the head of the ticket. Bloomberg would be Gore's VP, but if Bloomberg heads the ticket, Gore will not run as VP. Gore / Bloomberg will be a much stronger ticket than the battle weary Rupublican candidate who had to slug it out to get the nomination. If McCain wins the nomination, his pro-Iraq stance will kill him as the country turns more anti-war. If Rudi wins, his past, marriage, connectionsconnectionsWBR, hated by many New Yorkers as Mayor w -- IMO, Gore is a changed man, based on several recent long interviews I have seen. Spontaneous, deeply read, deeply thought out positions, conviction, humor, and .. unattached. MMY said once that winning the US presidency is like gaining a higher state of consciousness -- with the countries positive feelings and attention on them. And losing has the opposite effect. Gore having lost, worse, having lost when he (probably) won, got a double whammy of deep rooted samskars of ego, pride, ambition and glory ripped from him. It ouch hurt for sometime. He has healed and is much looser, unattached, more service oriented, without a personal agenda. I think he has a chance. Al Gore is already president of what he believes in. Environmental activist who got nothing done while he was Vice President in regards to the environment. Now he is getting much more attention. My prediction is that he will not run. The concert being held on July 7, 2007 A planet in Crisis is the kind of thing we will see more and more from famous celebrities and eventually leaders in the fields of mind/body medicine with Al Gore playing a huge role in creating a grass roots political voice movement. Hillary has everything going for her in regards to whom people can trust because of her political background and her husband will become her leading voice as he tours the country to rally his audience. She has Pluto as her ruling planet since she is Scorpio (Western) and with Pluto crossing over her 7th house cusp it gives her the needed power to attract a lot of attention. Also, Pluto in the 7th gives support from the spouse since the 7th house is about marriage and one to one partnerships. Pluto however also represents death and Hillary will need security around her as she moves into October of this year. I'm going to pick Hillary as president and Obama as her vice president. She also has Pisces Moon which can give her needed intuitive strength. Gemini rising helps with communication. I also feel a woman would be more open to the idea of mind/body medicine and promote ideas like yoga for woman's health and to calm men down. Bloomberg doesn't have a chance. President Bush will capture Bin Ladin or kill him in September or October and stir up more power to the Republican party only to find more mud being shaken up at the bottom of his ocean of lies shortly after the rally is over of Bin Ladin's capture. After all of the war messes left behind by men people in America are ready for a woman president and a mixture of black and white from a vice president who cares about bringing humanity together all around the world. IT IS TIME FOR A HUGE CHANGE. Part of the huge change will be the passing over of MMY in July or August. Many spiritual communities need to change their little minds and merge into a greater whole. Lsoma. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Transfinite Ron
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Ron Is this the same Ron who was a fanatical, abrasive, pro-TM, TM-is- the-best, anti-everyone-else's-system TMer? Or is it another Ron? Same Ron, but he appears to have mellowed a lot. What is shocking is that he appears to have left Maharishi for a new Guru. It doesn't sound like the same Ron, although I read only a very small amount of the exchange. His postings used to be straight TM dogma. At least it doesn't appear that he is prostelitizing for Guru G. Only thing worse than spouting dogma about something, is finding a new cause and then spouting that new dogma, saying the old dogma suddenly became obsolete. He seems very balanced, sensible, and much more mature as a spiritual aspirant. And his writing style has improved dramatically. But I assure you, it's the same guy. Transfinite Ron has evolved to a plane of yet higher cardinality: Message 33361 of 33523 From: at_man_and_brahman Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 3:15 am Subject: an offer that can't be refused --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron F [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing is there is no satisfaction of a deep and lasting nature on the level of logic, it is not a problem which has its solution on this level, it is a spiritual problem which has the solution on the level of consciousness. This is not a vague statement, it is something I can elaborate on forever if requested. I think that I speak for all of FFL in urging you, pleading with you from the bottom of our hridayams, to elaborate on this very point forever, starting now, either in one infinitely long post or in an infinite series of finite posts or in an infinite series of infinitely long posts. We, of course, won't be around to read much of what you'll say, and the Internet won't be a suitable medium for your commentary for very long*, but those are mere details to be worked out. The ages of Mother Divine will come and go as fireflies in the twilight as your commentary expands beyond all limits that only she can conceive. The Ved itself will be exposed as an infinitesimally puny subset of your commentary, a trifling imposter in the fullness of Ronology. Go, Ron. Start now. We'll stick around for as much as we can, and we'll encourage our descendents to follow the thread for as long as possible*. *The infinite series of finite posts is probably best given the eventual demise of the Internet. As this technology, or later this planet, comes to an end, the discontinuities inherent in posts of finite length, some of which can be arbitrarily brief, provide convenient stopping points for moving your commentary to a newer medium or planet or even universe as the need arises. If a single post were infinitely long, somewhere in its middle the Earth could be consumed by a nova-stage sol or intersecting cosmic string, for example, providing no node for you to find another planet from which to continue working. **For so long as our species stays attentive and continues to exist, or other intelligent species get and stay involved, you will probably want to make occasional shifts in the language of your commentary from early 21st century American English to newer forms of English and later languages. You might want to learn Sanskrit before you start the commentary. It is nature's language and should be so for the duration of your infinite project, but few beings will understand you, if that matters. As a professional proofreader, I'd be happy to proofread your commentary for the rest of my comparatively meaningless life. I charge by the hour.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 12:18 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: snip I posted your message in FFL a few days ago. Here are some responses: Thanks so much, Rick, for forwarding to your two FF correspondents a post in which Curtis and Barry have a jolly good time bashing me by name. Both of them, needless to say, had egregiously misrepresented the post of mine they were referring to, but not enough of my post was quoted for your friends to discern how off-base Curtis and Barry were. But I understand; it would have been way too much trouble for you to take my name out. After all, it occurs *three whole times*. Just another instance of your wonderfully finely honed sense of ethics. Sorry Judy. I was trying to choose quotes under that thread title that did not involve your dispute with Barry and Curtis, but some of them were long and I skimmed. I didn't intentionally forward anything derogatory about you to my friend. As it is, he probably didn't bother to read them. That just simply isn't true. I have it on good authority that Rick, Barry, and Curtis have been regularly meeting on the discussion boards at www.letsfuckjudyover.com and have been actually PLANNING disparaging both her name and reputation. And Rick thought he could get away with sending these wholey unrepresentative comments by Judy to his friend without anyone detecting the conspiracy. It's horrible what you have to put up with, Judy. But, rest assured, I'm on your side. If you need me as a character witness when you bring these louts to court, just let me know and i'll sign a sworn affidavid in your favor. Of course, I may have a bit of trouble finding a Notary Public who will let me make an attestation as Shemp McGurk...
[FairfieldLife] Vaidya Mishra pulse diagnosis course and consultations in July
The esteemed Raj Vaidya Mishra, whose lineage extends through 5000 years, will be offering a three-day course on pulse diagnosis in July in Indianapolis. This course is intended primarily for health-care professionals, but others are invited to attend. Indianapolis is about a six-hour drive from Fairfield. Vaidya Mishra's approach to Ayurveda is much deeper than most other vaidyas, based on the traditional training he received from his father during seven years following his graduation from an Ayurvedic college. If you are interested in attending or want more information, contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vaidya Mishra will also do three days of pulse consultations following the course.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Modest Prediction: Gore/Bloomberg Win Presidential Election
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Al Gore is, like his father before him, a fear-monger. Al Senior represented a Jim Crow state -- Tennessee -- for many years in the Senate. Al Senior was a supporter of segregation (he would never have been elected if he didn't) throughout his entire Senate career (he voted against the Civil Rights Act). For the umpteenth time: No, Al Gore Sr. did not support segregation. That is a right- wing slander. You know this, because we've talked about it before. Just as a reminder--you've seen this already-- the following is from right-wing journalist Bob Zelnick's critical 1999 biography of Al Gore Jr., published by the right-wing Regnery Press: The actions of Gore [Sr.], [Sen. Estes] Kefauver, and, at the state level, [Gov. Frank] Clement, and their courage and decency on the civil rights issue, would be more a source of political trouble than benefit in Tennessee, though none of the three ever lost an election because of his position, at least until Gore's defeat in his 1970 campaign. Each reelection would be challenged and each man would be accused of being 'out of touch' with sentiment in the state, or worse yet, a traitor to his region, his heritage, and his people. None of the three ever backed down. None ever engaged in racial demagoguery. None would ever require sympathetic chroniclers to explain that his conduct had to be judged in the context of his time and its political exigencies. Their courage would inspire later generations of southerners who sought to purge the region of its terrible racial heritage. And this is from a detailed study entitled 13 Ways of Looking at Al Gore and Race by journalists David Maraniss and Ellen Nakashima, published as the cover story of the April 23, 2000, Washington Post Sunday magazine: Long before Bill Clinton came along, [Vice President] Gore lived in the shadow of another dominant politician, his father. Many of the deepest tensions of American race relations were played out during the long career of Sen. Gore, whose opposition to the segregated ways of his native South angered many of his constituents and eventually led to his political demise. With one notable exception, when he capitulated to regional sentiment and opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the choices he made over more than three decades in Washington were courageous--and they provided lasting lessons in the political education of his son ...[Sen. Gore] won reelection that fall [1964] and returned to Washington, where from then on he acted like an unflinching Southern progressive attuned to the needs of his black constituents. He voted for the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, opposed President Nixon's two Southern nominees for the Supreme Court...and eventually apologized for his 1964 vote, calling it the biggest mistake of his career. All during that time he took a pounding from segregationists and real estate interests who opposed the open housing laws As Sen. Gore became more outspoken on issues of race and peace over the next six years, his standing in Tennessee deteriorated, his liberal positions were portrayed as contrary to the state's values, and he was defeated in the 1970 election. Gore's stated reason for voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was that he felt the federal deadlines were too strict, and that their enforcement would cause chaos in Tennessee's public services, including the closure of hospitals and schools. He almost certainly also realized he would lose the 1964 election if he voted for the act. But he didn't vote against it because he supported segregation--to the contrary. The rest of your post about Gore Jr., and his crusade against global warming, is no more accurate than your slander of his father as a segregationist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 12:18 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: snip I posted your message in FFL a few days ago. Here are some responses: Thanks so much, Rick, for forwarding to your two FF correspondents a post in which Curtis and Barry have a jolly good time bashing me by name. Both of them, needless to say, had egregiously misrepresented the post of mine they were referring to, but not enough of my post was quoted for your friends to discern how off-base Curtis and Barry were. But I understand; it would have been way too much trouble for you to take my name out. After all, it occurs *three whole times*. Just another instance of your wonderfully finely honed sense of ethics. Sorry Judy. I was trying to choose quotes under that thread title that did not involve your dispute with Barry and Curtis, but some of them were long and I skimmed. I didn't intentionally forward anything derogatory about you to my friend. As it is, he probably didn't bother to read them. Thanks for the apology, at least.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
Curtis and Barry have a jolly good time bashing me by name. Bashing you huh? So much for your own wonderfully finely honed sense of ethics. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: snip I posted your message in FFL a few days ago. Here are some responses: Thanks so much, Rick, for forwarding to your two FF correspondents a post in which Curtis and Barry have a jolly good time bashing me by name. Both of them, needless to say, had egregiously misrepresented the post of mine they were referring to, but not enough of my post was quoted for your friends to discern how off-base Curtis and Barry were. But I understand; it would have been way too much trouble for you to take my name out. After all, it occurs *three whole times*. Just another instance of your wonderfully finely honed sense of ethics. snip Judy: In my experience, Curtis tends to get all hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the evidence while he often does exactly the same thing he's criticizing. ME: Yes Judy I am both hoity and toity. Your point about evidence is, as I already pointed out, irrelevant since I was using his own words as the basis for my opinions. He was the one who suggested that even though Rick didn't seem to express his list of negative emotions he still had them. And that he has been TAUGHT -- systematically, for decades -- to think this way. That is part and parcel of Maharishi's teaching about doubts about him and about TM. It's a form of mind control in which the student is TAUGHT to regard any deviation from the dogma as bad and as some kind of attack against those who know the truth. The guy is just DOING WHAT HE HAS BEEN TOLD TO DO. So, in my opinion, is Judy. That they don't *understand* this makes the behavior they are exhibiting even more pathetic, and even more deserving of pity. You are the one who is making a big deal about evidence, my point was about personal attacks instead of discussing ideas. You missed my points completely in your weird focus on an irrelevant point. But that is how they (anyone who regularly indulges in ad hominem when confronted with ideas they don't like) have been TAUGHT to act. They're *literally* doing what they have been taught to do by their spiritual teacher. They have seen *him* do it so many times over the years that they have come to believe that it is not only acceptable, but admir- able. They're mimicking *Maharishi's* behavior. The most interesting thing for me from this exchange with you is what you have chosen to focus on in an otherwise interesting discussion. Bingo. What you focus on, you become. Once again you have missed the main points of the discussion while you pursue your own inexplicable agenda. The only point I'm trying to interject into the discussion is that the agenda here is NOT inexplicable. It's very clear. It has to do with a technique of mind control that can be described as, Teach your students to regard and react to any ideas that are counter to the ones they've been taught to believe as if those ideas themselves are an 'attack,' as if the person who has those ideas is an 'attacker,' and as if the person has somehow declared 'war' on those who 'think rightly.' In war anything is permissible, so it's is not only 'Ok' to trash the person who has expressed these unacceptable ideas using ad hominem attacks, it is one's 'duty' as a spiritual being to do so. These people have been TRAINED to use ad hominem, and to view the use of it as a spiritual exercise. I'm sorry, but that's pathetic, as are they.
[FairfieldLife] Mugabe does Chavez one step better..!!
International Mugabe ready to seize foreign firms Andrew Meldrum and Simon Bowers Law could force firms to hand over 51% of shares President Robert Mugabe's government is preparing to seize majority shares in all of Zimbabwe's foreign-owned businesses and mines, a move that economists warn would be as damaging as the widespread land seizures in the country. Top of the list of companies expected to be targeted are London-listed mining groups such as Rio Tinto and Anglo American, though recent remarks by Zimbabwean Ministers suggested banks such as Standard Chartered and Barclays could also be hit. One Minister said ``imperialist companies'' would be targeted as they had been operating with what the President described as a ``sinister, regime-change agenda'', according to reports. A senior source at one British company with a presence in Zimbabwe said any such move would ``confirm Mugabe as operating what is, to all intents and purposes, a terrorist regime''. Mr. Mugabe's Cabinet has approved proposed legislation to force all foreign-owned companies to cede 51 per cent of their shares to black Zimbabweans. The empowerment bill is going through a final drafting process before it is presented to Parliament, said top government officials. The Mugabe government has already drafted an amendment to the Mining Act, which requires all foreign-owned mines to have 51 per cent of their shares owned by ``indigenous'' Zimbabweans. In both proposed bills it is widely understood that the new black Zimbabwean shareholders would have to be closely tied to Mr. Mugabe's ruling party, Zanu-PF. Officials have said if companies cannot find acceptable indigenous Zimbabweans then the Government can make suggestions. Economists warn the actions would severely hurt Zimbabwe's already battered economy, which is suffering 3,700% percent inflation, the world's highest. Zimbabwe's economy has shrunk by 50% percent since 1999, an unprecedented contraction in a country not at war, according to the World Bank. The seizure of majority stakes in businesses and mines would increase inefficiency, mismanagement and corruption, according to many business executives, who point to the disastrous land seizures. Once a food exporter, Zimbabwe has been reliant on international food aid for six consecutive years. Independent analysts say the new moves are simply the latest example of Mr. Mugabe's plundering of the economy. ``Mugabe operates on a patronage system and he is running out of farms to give away to his supporters,'' said independent Harare economist John Robertson. ``Now he is looking for new areas of the economy to hand over. If this legislation becomes law, it will be like legalising theft. It will be a death knell to many companies.'' Cabinet approval of corporate seizure legislation has been widely anticipated by many multinational groups. British American Tobacco once counted Zimbabwe among its lead growers but has dramatically scaled down operations in the country. Rio Tinto sold off its gold and nickel mining operations to locally owned Rio Zim in 2003. - Guardian Newspapers Limited 2007 - The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: End of Days
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip And don't get me started on the fact that all bar codes start with 6, end with 6, and have 6 exactly in the middle. All of them. So there's the sign of the beast's coming. Contrary to popular myth, no bar code includes the number 666. This belief arose because the number six is represented by a pattern similar to that of the guard bars used to mark the beginning, middle, and end of every bar code. Since the guard bars always appear three times in a given bar code, people who mistakenly read them as sixes claimed that the pattern 6-6-6 was embedded in every bar code. However, if you look closely at the '6' in a bar code, you will see that there is a wide white bar either to the left or the right of its pattern (depending upon where within the bar code the number is positioned), which is not the case with the guard bars. The only numbers on the bar code which are scanned are those shown in the conventional numerals underneath it. http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/barcode.asp
[FairfieldLife] Shemp's food. Fear of eating..!!
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/05/ paul_krugman_fe.html Paul Krugman: Fear of Eating With all the problems with the food supply lately, are you anxious about the food you are eating? If so, Paul Krugman says Milton Friedman is to blame: Fear of Eating, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Yesterday I did something risky: I ate a salad. These are anxious days at the lunch table. For all you know, there may be E. coli on your spinach, salmonella in your peanut butter and melamine in your pets food and, because it was in the feed, in your chicken sandwich. Whos responsible...? Some blame globalization; some blame food-producing corporations; some blame the Bush administration. But I blame Milton Friedman. Now, those who blame globalization do have a point. ...[S]ince the Food and Drug Administration has limited funds..., it can inspect only a small percentage of imports. This leaves American consumers effectively dependent on the quality of foreign food-safety enforcement. And thats not a healthy place to be... [L]ast month the [FDA] detained shipments from China that included dried apples treated with carcinogenic chemicals and seafood coated with putrefying bacteria. You can be sure that a lot of similarly unsafe and disgusting food ends up in American stomachs. Those who blame corporations also have a point. In 2005, the F.D.A. suspected that peanut butter produced by ConAgra ... might be contaminated with salmonella. According to The New York Times, when agency inspectors went to the plant..., the company acknowledged it had destroyed some product but...... refused to let the inspectors examine its records without a written authorization. According to the company, the agency never followed through. This brings us to our third villain, the Bush administration. Without question, Americas food safety system has degenerated... [S]ince 2001 the F.D.A. has introduced no significant new food safety regulations... This isnt simply a matter of caving in to industry pressure... The ... United Fresh Produce Association says that ... without strong mandatory federal regulations..., scrupulous growers and processors risk being undercut by competitors more willing to cut corners on food safety. ... Why would the administration refuse to regulate an industry that actually wants to be regulated? Officials ... are also influenced by an ideology that says business should never be regulated, no matter what. The economic case for having the government enforce rules on food safety seems overwhelming. Consumers have no way of knowing whether the food they eat is contaminated, and in this case what you dont know can hurt or even kill you. But there are some people who refuse to accept that case, because its ideologically inconvenient. Thats why I blame ... Milton Friedman, who called for the abolition of both the food and the drug sides of the F.D.A. What would protect the public from dangerous or ineffective drugs? Its in the self-interest of pharmaceutical companies not to have these bad things, he insisted... He would presumably have applied the same logic to food safety (as he did to airline safety): regardless of circumstances, you can always trust the private sector to police itself. O.K., Im not saying that Mr. Friedman directly caused tainted spinach and poisonous peanut butter. But he did help to make our food less safe, by legitimizing what the historian Rick Perlstein calls E. coli conservatives: ideologues who wont accept even the most compelling case for government regulation. Earlier this month the administration named, you guessed it, a food safety czar. But the food safety crisis isnt caused by the arrangement of the boxes on the organization chart. Its caused by the dominance within our government of a literally sickening ideology. EconomistsView - Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Modest Prediction: Gore/Bloomberg Win Presidential Election
Only Judy could claim that a Dixiecrat elected over and over again in the state of Tennessee during the '40s, '50s, and '60s who voted against the Civil Rights Act and who, according to anecdotes told about his personal life, supported segregation in his personal life, could claim that Al Gore Sr. was not a segregationist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip Al Gore is, like his father before him, a fear-monger. Al Senior represented a Jim Crow state -- Tennessee -- for many years in the Senate. Al Senior was a supporter of segregation (he would never have been elected if he didn't) throughout his entire Senate career (he voted against the Civil Rights Act). For the umpteenth time: No, Al Gore Sr. did not support segregation. That is a right- wing slander. You know this, because we've talked about it before. Just as a reminder--you've seen this already-- the following is from right-wing journalist Bob Zelnick's critical 1999 biography of Al Gore Jr., published by the right-wing Regnery Press: The actions of Gore [Sr.], [Sen. Estes] Kefauver, and, at the state level, [Gov. Frank] Clement, and their courage and decency on the civil rights issue, would be more a source of political trouble than benefit in Tennessee, though none of the three ever lost an election because of his position, at least until Gore's defeat in his 1970 campaign. Each reelection would be challenged and each man would be accused of being 'out of touch' with sentiment in the state, or worse yet, a traitor to his region, his heritage, and his people. None of the three ever backed down. None ever engaged in racial demagoguery. None would ever require sympathetic chroniclers to explain that his conduct had to be judged in the context of his time and its political exigencies. Their courage would inspire later generations of southerners who sought to purge the region of its terrible racial heritage. And this is from a detailed study entitled 13 Ways of Looking at Al Gore and Race by journalists David Maraniss and Ellen Nakashima, published as the cover story of the April 23, 2000, Washington Post Sunday magazine: Long before Bill Clinton came along, [Vice President] Gore lived in the shadow of another dominant politician, his father. Many of the deepest tensions of American race relations were played out during the long career of Sen. Gore, whose opposition to the segregated ways of his native South angered many of his constituents and eventually led to his political demise. With one notable exception, when he capitulated to regional sentiment and opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the choices he made over more than three decades in Washington were courageous--and they provided lasting lessons in the political education of his son ...[Sen. Gore] won reelection that fall [1964] and returned to Washington, where from then on he acted like an unflinching Southern progressive attuned to the needs of his black constituents. He voted for the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, opposed President Nixon's two Southern nominees for the Supreme Court...and eventually apologized for his 1964 vote, calling it the biggest mistake of his career. All during that time he took a pounding from segregationists and real estate interests who opposed the open housing laws As Sen. Gore became more outspoken on issues of race and peace over the next six years, his standing in Tennessee deteriorated, his liberal positions were portrayed as contrary to the state's values, and he was defeated in the 1970 election. Gore's stated reason for voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was that he felt the federal deadlines were too strict, and that their enforcement would cause chaos in Tennessee's public services, including the closure of hospitals and schools. He almost certainly also realized he would lose the 1964 election if he voted for the act. But he didn't vote against it because he supported segregation--to the contrary. The rest of your post about Gore Jr., and his crusade against global warming, is no more accurate than your slander of his father as a segregationist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I know that many people don't like to consider this, and find some comfort or inspiration in believing that Christ was NOT human, and that he was somehow divine and the literal Son Of God. Actually, Christian doctrine is that Jesus was *both* fully human *and* fully divine, not one or the other. The belief that he was purely divine and not human is one of the oldest heresies, called Docetism (a later variant was called Monophysitism). Judy, you are correct regarding the Christian doctrine about Jesus being both human and divine. For some reason, I can't help thinking about the status of Krishna in theological terms, assuming he was indeed a valid historical figure. Since he too was born of a human mother, it is possible to say the same thing about Krishna. But, upon reading the Shrimad Bhagavatam, I would hazard to guess that the Krishna devotees would consider Krishna to be divine only. Nonetheless, I remember reading that Prabhupada believed Krishna and Jesus were one and the same. From the Hindu point of view, it is possible to consider Jesus as another incarnation of Krishna. I don't find that inspiring. Where is the impetus for someone to follow his example if Christ only got to where he got to, consciousness-wise, because he was special. I find inspiration in the idea that he was Just Another Human, just like me and you. If he could do the things he did *as* a human, then so can we. If the only reason that he could do them was because he was special, then we *can't* aspire to doing those things. John 14:10: He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do. Bravo! You do good research.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Morons Who Think Everyone Should Have Children
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 5/27/07 1:30:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Our planet is way overcrowded now for it's infrastructure. We really don't need more people I guess that's why we need illegal aliens. Somebody has to pay for our SS. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. Naw, the NWO plans to kill off everyone over 40 so there will be no need for SS.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
On May 28, 2007, at 11:50 AM, cardemaister wrote: On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the pranic body or vajra body (although I'm not sure what vajra body is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. Karma is what tradition would state, not stress. Actually, stress in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, The word saMskaara is actually almost the same as Sanskrit in, well, Sanskrit -- which is saMskRta. That word, saM-s-kRta, consists of the perfect participle of the root kR (to do, etc), with the prefix sam (together, etc.), and a transition consonant, or perhaps, as per Whitney, an original consonant that's lost from most other forms of the root kR, which would thus have been originally *skR (in linguistics asterix is used to indicate hypothetical word forms). The word saMskaara differs from saMskRta in that the second part is a noun, kaara, from the same root kR. If this is indeed what he's referring to, then please quote a source showing the equivalency in MMB's own words. If indeed it is, and I suspect you may be right, the mediator is indeed the pranic body and it's karmic eddies not the physical nervous system (as oft advertised in TMO tracts). There may indeed be a physical component in the nervous system, e.g. glia with an extremely short time span unmeasurable by current medical imaging technology or some short biological half-life fast neurotransmitters, but currently there is no tangible evidence to definitely arrive at such a conclusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Transfinite Ron
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:57 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Ron Is this the same Ron who was a fanatical, abrasive, pro-TM, TM-is- the-best, anti-everyone-else's-system TMer? Or is it another Ron? Same Ron, but he appears to have mellowed a lot. What is shocking is that he appears to have left Maharishi for a new Guru. It doesn't sound like the same Ron, although I read only a very small amount of the exchange. His postings used to be straight TM dogma. At least it doesn't appear that he is prostelitizing for Guru G. Only thing worse than spouting dogma about something, is finding a new cause and then spouting that new dogma, saying the old dogma suddenly became obsolete. He seems very balanced, sensible, and much more mature as a spiritual aspirant. And his writing style has improved dramatically. But I assure you, it's the same guy. Transfinite Ron has evolved to a plane of yet higher cardinality: Message 33361 of 33523 From: at_man_and_brahman Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 3:15 am Subject: an offer that can't be refused --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron F [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing is there is no satisfaction of a deep and lasting nature on the level of logic, it is not a problem which has its solution on this level, it is a spiritual problem which has the solution on the level of consciousness. This is not a vague statement, it is something I can elaborate on forever if requested. I think that I speak for all of FFL in urging you, pleading with you from the bottom of our hridayams, to elaborate on this very point forever, starting now, either in one infinitely long post or in an infinite series of finite posts or in an infinite series of infinitely long posts. We, of course, won't be around to read much of what you'll say, and the Internet won't be a suitable medium for your commentary for very long*, but those are mere details to be worked out. The ages of Mother Divine will come and go as fireflies in the twilight as your commentary expands beyond all limits that only she can conceive. The Ved itself will be exposed as an infinitesimally puny subset of your commentary, a trifling imposter in the fullness of Ronology. Go, Ron. Start now. We'll stick around for as much as we can, and we'll encourage our descendents to follow the thread for as long as possible*. *The infinite series of finite posts is probably best given the eventual demise of the Internet. As this technology, or later this planet, comes to an end, the discontinuities inherent in posts of finite length, some of which can be arbitrarily brief, provide convenient stopping points for moving your commentary to a newer medium or planet or even universe as the need arises. If a single post were infinitely long, somewhere in its middle the Earth could be consumed by a nova-stage sol or intersecting cosmic string, for example, providing no node for you to find another planet from which to continue working. **For so long as our species stays attentive and continues to exist, or other intelligent species get and stay involved, you will probably want to make occasional shifts in the language of your commentary from early 21st century American English to newer forms of English and later languages. You might want to learn Sanskrit before you start the commentary. It is nature's language and should be so for the duration of your infinite project, but few beings will understand you, if that matters. As a professional proofreader, I'd be happy to proofread your commentary for the rest of my comparatively meaningless life. I charge by the hour. Yes, atman, this was one of the all-time funniest posts, given the context at the time. I aughed for hours and reread it many times to get a lift. But I must say, Ron sounds really great - grounded, secure, clear, relaxed, dare I say content?. More power to him and Swmi G. I have read his letters to Rick with great interest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Message from Ron
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O Lurk, you're such a smart person. (Danke shein) Do you still meditate (when I can, which unfortunately is not frequently) or are you the know it all rebellious type. (I've worked hard to shed the know it all trait, and think I finally got the upper hand on it in about '76. Can't same the same for the rebellious part) Or maybe you're like me. The rebellious type, know it all who still meditates and thinks that there is hope for this planet. (Lou, quite honestly, I think sometimes your know it all tendency bleeds through. I think there is still hope for the planet, although the unbridled optimism I had 30 years ago has been tempered by maybe 90%. But I, probably like you, feel that the purpose of this incarnation has been to help us make the transition from 4th to 5th dimension, (or something along those lines) lurk ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] A Black perspective on segregationist Al Gore, Sr.
Blacks Gored By a Lie: Al Gore Sr., the GOP and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 By R.D. Davis A New Visions Commentary paper published May 1999 by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. It is easy to control the minds of a people. All one has to do is change history by lying about the past. This is exactly what has happened with the legacy of former Democratic U.S. Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee - the father of our current vice president - and his mythical support of civil rights. In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act. In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming majority. He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Moreover, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, collaborated with the White House and the Senate leadership of both parties to draft acceptable compromise amendments to end the southern Democrats' filibuster of the Act. It was Dirksen who often took to the Senate floor to declare, This is an idea whose time has come. It will not be denied. Dirksen's greatest triumph earned him the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award, presented by then-NAACP Chairman Roy Wilkins, for his remarkable civil rights leadership. Inform yourself, so you can learn for yourself about this important historical event. All official records about the Civil Rights Act can be found in the June 1964 issues of Congressional Quarterly. Al Gore, Sr. did not stop at simply voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Congressional Quarterly reported that Gore attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts. Gore sought to take the teeth out of the Act in the event it passed. Ostensibly, Senator Gore was elated at the idea of young Al, Jr. going to school with black children. In reality, however, the future vice president attended an elite private school. In the end, the Gore Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74-25. Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, one of President Bill Clinton's political mentors, was among the 23 southern Democratic senators and only one Republican voting with Gore for this racist amendment. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the Civil Rights Act because he was afraid the nation would be transformed into a police state as a result of some of its provisions. He did not want to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. History, of course, labeled Goldwater a racist even though he voted against the Gore Amendment - an amendment devised to continue school segregation. If anyone in the Senate should be tagged as a racist, it should be those voting for the Gore Amendment. Why didn't history record Al Gore, Sr. and the other southern Democrats as racists? At least civil rights activist Andrew Young was forthcoming about this oversight in his book An Easy Burden. Young wrote, The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South. Young noted that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower. Young admitted, These judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement. History tends to unilaterally and falsely depict Republicans as racists when southern Democrats truly deserved this title. We now have southern Democrats as both President and Vice President. That would never be the case without the power of the lie and the liberal news media to alter people's impressions. Lies can enslave men, but the truth shall set them free. I challenge you, the reader, to take the time to research the facts about our past in publications like Congressional Quarterly and An Easy Burden. Once you educate yourself, you can no longer be deceived by the fabulists. No longer will you be gored by a lie. ### (R.D. Davis is a member of Project 21 and a writer and radio talk show host in Huntsville, Alabama. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED])
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The word saMskaara is actually almost the same as
Sanskrit in, well, Sanskrit -- which is saMskRta.
That word, saM-s-kRta, consists of the perfect participle
of the root kR (to do, etc), with the prefix sam
(together, etc.), and a transition consonant, or perhaps,
as per Whitney, an original consonant that's lost from
most other forms of the root kR, which would thus have
been originally *skR (in linguistics asterix is used to
indicate hypothetical word forms).
The word saMskaara differs from saMskRta in that
the second part is a noun, kaara, from the same root kR.
If this is indeed what he's referring to, then please quote a
source
showing the equivalency in MMB's own words.
If indeed it is, and I suspect you may be right, the mediator is
indeed the pranic body and it's karmic eddies not the physical
nervous system (as oft advertised in TMO tracts).
There may indeed be a physical component in the nervous system,
e.g.
glia with an extremely short time span unmeasurable by current
medical imaging technology or some short biological half-life
fast
neurotransmitters, but currently there is no tangible evidence to
definitely arrive at such a conclusion.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the words saMskRta and
saMskaara have anything at all in common as to their respective
meanings in those contexts (refined language vs. mental impressions
from previous lifetimes) although one might come to that conclusion
from what I wrote.
Here are the dictionary definitions of both of those words:
saMskRta (or %{sa4M-skRta}) mfn. put together , constructed , well
or completely formed , perfected Lalit. ; made ready , prepared ,
completed , finished RV. c. c.: dressed , cooked (as food) MBh. R.
BhP. ; purified , consecrated , sanctified , hallowed , initiated
S3Br. c. c. ; refined , adorned , ornamented , polished , highly
elaborated (esp. applied to highly wrought speech , such as the
Sanskr2it language as opp , to the vernaculars) Mn. MBh. c. ; m. a
man of one of the three classes who has been sanctified by the
purificatory rites W. ; a Iearned man MW. ; a word formed according
to accurate rules , a regular derivation ib. ; (%{a4m}) n. making
ready , preparation or a prepared place , sacrifice RV. TS. S3Br.
Gr2S3rS. ; a sacred usage or custom MW. ; the Sanskr2it language
(cf. above) S3iksh. Bhar. Das3ar. c. ; %{-tva} n. the being
prepared or made ready c. Jaim. ; %{-maJjarI} f. N. of wk. ; %{-
maya} mf(%{I}) u. consisting of Sanskr2it , Ka1s3ikh. ; %{-mAlA} f. %
{-ratna-mAlA} f. %{-vAkya-ratnA7valI} f. N. of wks. ; %{-vat} mfn.
one who has perfected or elaborated or finished MW. ; %{-tA7tman} m.
one who has received the purificatory rites Mn. x , 110 ; a sage
W. ; %{-to7kti} f. refined or polished language , a Sanskr2it word
or expression Hit. [1121,1]
saMskAra m. (ifc. f. %{A}) putting together , forming well , making
perfect , accomplishment , embellishment adornment , purification ,
cleansing , making ready , preparation , dressing (of food) ,
refining (of metals) , polishing (of gems) , rearing (of animals or
plants) Gr2S3rS. MBh. Ka1v. , c. ; cleansing the body , toilet ,
attire Hariv. ; forming the mind , training , education R. Ragh. ;
correction (also in an astronomical sense Su1ryas.) , correct
formation or use of a word Nir. Sarvad. ; correctness , purity (esp.
of pronunciation or expression) MBh. R. c. ; making sacred ,
hallowing , consecration Mn. MBh. c. ; a sacred or sanctifying
ceremony , one which purifies from the taint of sin contracted in
the , womb and leading to regeneration (12 such ceremonies are
enjoined on the first three or twice-born classes in Mn. ii , 27 ,
viz. 1. %{garbhA7dhAna} , 2. %{puM-savana} , 3. %{sImanto7nnayana} ,
4. %{jAta-karman} , 5. %{nAmakarman} , 6. %{niSkramaNa} , 7. %{anna-
prA7zana} , 8. %{cUDA-karman} , 9. %{upanayana} , 10. %{kezA7nta} ,
11. %{samAvartana} , 12. %{vivAha} , qq. vv. ; accord. to Gaut.
viii , 8 c. there are 40 Sam2ska1ras) Gr2S. Mn. MBh. c. (IW.188 ;
192 c. RTL. 353) [1120,3] ; the ceremony performed on a dead body
(i.e. cremation) R. ; any purificatory ceremony W. ; the faculty of
memory , ***mental impression or recollection , impression on
the mind of acts done in a former state of existence*** (one of
the 24 qualities of the Vais3eshikas , including %{bhAvanA} , the
faculty of reproductive imagination ') Kan2. Sarvad. (IW. 69) ;
(pl. , with Buddhists) a mental conformation or creation of the mind
(such as that of the external world , regarded by it as real ,
though actually non-existent , and forming the second link in the
twelvefold chain of causation or the fourth of the 5 Skandhas)
Dharmas. 22 ; 42 ; a polishing stone MW.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Modest Prediction: Gore/Bloomberg Win Presidential Election
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only Judy could claim that a Dixiecrat elected over and over again in the state of Tennessee during the '40s, '50s, and '60s who voted against the Civil Rights Act and who, according to anecdotes told about his personal life, supported segregation in his personal life, could claim that Al Gore Sr. was not a segregationist. (Translation: Shemp didn't read my post.) Shemp means, only Judy, a right-wing journalist writing a critical biography of Al Gore Jr., two Washington Post journalists, and countless others who, unlike Shemp, actually know the facts of Al Gore Sr.'s career (some of which are related in the quotes I posted that Shemp didn't read). Oh, and he didn't support segregation in his personal life, either. We've been over that too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip Al Gore is, like his father before him, a fear-monger. Al Senior represented a Jim Crow state -- Tennessee -- for many years in the Senate. Al Senior was a supporter of segregation (he would never have been elected if he didn't) throughout his entire Senate career (he voted against the Civil Rights Act). For the umpteenth time: No, Al Gore Sr. did not support segregation. That is a right- wing slander. You know this, because we've talked about it before. Just as a reminder--you've seen this already-- the following is from right-wing journalist Bob Zelnick's critical 1999 biography of Al Gore Jr., published by the right-wing Regnery Press: The actions of Gore [Sr.], [Sen. Estes] Kefauver, and, at the state level, [Gov. Frank] Clement, and their courage and decency on the civil rights issue, would be more a source of political trouble than benefit in Tennessee, though none of the three ever lost an election because of his position, at least until Gore's defeat in his 1970 campaign. Each reelection would be challenged and each man would be accused of being 'out of touch' with sentiment in the state, or worse yet, a traitor to his region, his heritage, and his people. None of the three ever backed down. None ever engaged in racial demagoguery. None would ever require sympathetic chroniclers to explain that his conduct had to be judged in the context of his time and its political exigencies. Their courage would inspire later generations of southerners who sought to purge the region of its terrible racial heritage. And this is from a detailed study entitled 13 Ways of Looking at Al Gore and Race by journalists David Maraniss and Ellen Nakashima, published as the cover story of the April 23, 2000, Washington Post Sunday magazine: Long before Bill Clinton came along, [Vice President] Gore lived in the shadow of another dominant politician, his father. Many of the deepest tensions of American race relations were played out during the long career of Sen. Gore, whose opposition to the segregated ways of his native South angered many of his constituents and eventually led to his political demise. With one notable exception, when he capitulated to regional sentiment and opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the choices he made over more than three decades in Washington were courageous--and they provided lasting lessons in the political education of his son ...[Sen. Gore] won reelection that fall [1964] and returned to Washington, where from then on he acted like an unflinching Southern progressive attuned to the needs of his black constituents. He voted for the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, opposed President Nixon's two Southern nominees for the Supreme Court...and eventually apologized for his 1964 vote, calling it the biggest mistake of his career. All during that time he took a pounding from segregationists and real estate interests who opposed the open housing laws As Sen. Gore became more outspoken on issues of race and peace over the next six years, his standing in Tennessee deteriorated, his liberal positions were portrayed as contrary to the state's values, and he was defeated in the 1970 election. Gore's stated reason for voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was that he felt the federal deadlines were too strict, and that their enforcement would cause chaos in Tennessee's public services, including the closure of hospitals and schools. He almost certainly also realized he would lose the 1964 election if he voted for the act. But he didn't vote against it because he supported segregation--to the contrary. The rest of your post about Gore Jr., and his crusade against global warming, is no more accurate than your slander of his father as a
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Black perspective on segregationist Al Gore, Sr.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blacks Gored By a Lie: Al Gore Sr., the GOP and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Notice that nothing in this piece of garbage actually contradicts anything in the quotes I posted. It's all just right-wing rhetoric. Shemp, needless to say, can't tell the difference. By R.D. Davis A New Visions Commentary paper published May 1999 by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. It is easy to control the minds of a people. All one has to do is change history by lying about the past. This is exactly what has happened with the legacy of former Democratic U.S. Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee - the father of our current vice president - and his mythical support of civil rights. In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act. In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming majority. He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Moreover, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, collaborated with the White House and the Senate leadership of both parties to draft acceptable compromise amendments to end the southern Democrats' filibuster of the Act. It was Dirksen who often took to the Senate floor to declare, This is an idea whose time has come. It will not be denied. Dirksen's greatest triumph earned him the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award, presented by then- NAACP Chairman Roy Wilkins, for his remarkable civil rights leadership. Inform yourself, so you can learn for yourself about this important historical event. All official records about the Civil Rights Act can be found in the June 1964 issues of Congressional Quarterly. Al Gore, Sr. did not stop at simply voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Congressional Quarterly reported that Gore attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts. Gore sought to take the teeth out of the Act in the event it passed. Ostensibly, Senator Gore was elated at the idea of young Al, Jr. going to school with black children. In reality, however, the future vice president attended an elite private school. In the end, the Gore Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74-25. Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, one of President Bill Clinton's political mentors, was among the 23 southern Democratic senators and only one Republican voting with Gore for this racist amendment. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the Civil Rights Act because he was afraid the nation would be transformed into a police state as a result of some of its provisions. He did not want to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. History, of course, labeled Goldwater a racist even though he voted against the Gore Amendment - an amendment devised to continue school segregation. If anyone in the Senate should be tagged as a racist, it should be those voting for the Gore Amendment. Why didn't history record Al Gore, Sr. and the other southern Democrats as racists? At least civil rights activist Andrew Young was forthcoming about this oversight in his book An Easy Burden. Young wrote, The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South. Young noted that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower. Young admitted, These judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement. History tends to unilaterally and falsely depict Republicans as racists when southern Democrats truly deserved this title. We now have southern Democrats as both President and Vice President. That would never be the case without the power of the lie and the liberal news media to alter people's impressions. Lies can enslave men, but the truth shall set them free. I challenge you, the reader, to take the time to research the facts about our past in publications like
[FairfieldLife] Giant Skeletons Found in India
http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php?Articl eID=15307 Click on the photos for a larger view, then click on the article again to return to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Giant Skeletons Found in India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php? Articl eID=15307 Click on the photos for a larger view, then click on the article again to return to it. This is one of the most unbelievable things I've ever seen (especially the second photo of the skeleton with two live humans beside it to give perspective). However, they are SO fantastical that until proven otherwise, I must consider the skeletons as fakes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Giant Skeletons Found in India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php? Articl eID=15307 Click on the photos for a larger view, then click on the article again to return to it. Totally awesome. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I know that many people don't like to consider this, and find some comfort or inspiration in believing that Christ was NOT human, and that he was somehow divine and the literal Son Of God. Actually, Christian doctrine is that Jesus was *both* fully human *and* fully divine, not one or the other. The belief that he was purely divine and not human is one of the oldest heresies, called Docetism (a later variant was called Monophysitism). Judy, you are correct regarding the Christian doctrine about Jesus being both human and divine. For some reason, I can't help thinking about the status of Krishna in theological terms, assuming he was indeed a valid historical figure. Since he too was born of a human mother, it is possible to say the same thing about Krishna. But, upon reading the Shrimad Bhagavatam, I would hazard to guess that the Krishna devotees would consider Krishna to be divine only. Nonetheless, I remember reading that Prabhupada believed Krishna and Jesus were one and the same. From the Hindu point of view, it is possible to consider Jesus as another incarnation of Krishna. What's the line from the Gita, To protect the righteous and destroy the wicked, I take birth again and again? Something like that. I'm not actually a believer in either Hindu or Christian theology. I'm inclined to think that a human bean who has achieved his or her full potential is likely to be so extraordinary that religious people will *assume* he or she is divine. I don't find that inspiring. Where is the impetus for someone to follow his example if Christ only got to where he got to, consciousness-wise, because he was special. I find inspiration in the idea that he was Just Another Human, just like me and you. If he could do the things he did *as* a human, then so can we. If the only reason that he could do them was because he was special, then we *can't* aspire to doing those things. John 14:10: He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do. Bravo! You do good research. Thankew! That saying has always stuck in my mind, though, so except for the chapter and verse numbers, I can't really call it research (although at my age, calling something to mind is often as much work as research).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Giant Skeletons Found in India
Good work!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20041001_en.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php? Articl eID=15307 Click on the photos for a larger view, then click on the article again to return to it. This is one of the most unbelievable things I've ever seen (especially the second photo of the skeleton with two live humans beside it to give perspective). However, they are SO fantastical that until proven otherwise, I must consider the skeletons as fakes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Giant Skeletons Found in India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php? Artice eID=15307 Click on the photos for a larger view, then click on the article again to return to it. This is awesome, but fourwinds evidently focuses on extraterestial stuff. Are we setting ourselves up for a fraud? lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--No need to separate out one body from another. It's a package deal. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 28, 2007, at 11:50 AM, cardemaister wrote: On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the pranic body or vajra body (although I'm not sure what vajra body is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. Karma is what tradition would state, not stress. Actually, stress in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, The word saMskaara is actually almost the same as Sanskrit in, well, Sanskrit -- which is saMskRta. That word, saM-s-kRta, consists of the perfect participle of the root kR (to do, etc), with the prefix sam (together, etc.), and a transition consonant, or perhaps, as per Whitney, an original consonant that's lost from most other forms of the root kR, which would thus have been originally *skR (in linguistics asterix is used to indicate hypothetical word forms). The word saMskaara differs from saMskRta in that the second part is a noun, kaara, from the same root kR. If this is indeed what he's referring to, then please quote a source showing the equivalency in MMB's own words. If indeed it is, and I suspect you may be right, the mediator is indeed the pranic body and it's karmic eddies not the physical nervous system (as oft advertised in TMO tracts). There may indeed be a physical component in the nervous system, e.g. glia with an extremely short time span unmeasurable by current medical imaging technology or some short biological half-life fast neurotransmitters, but currently there is no tangible evidence to definitely arrive at such a conclusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Black perspective on segregationist Al Gore, Sr.
This post which shemp keeps posting every so often is absurd in its implications. As anyone with a minimum knowledge of politics knows, the democratic party lost its traditional hold on the South with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act was initially championed by President Kennedy and ultimately passed under Johnson by a Congress that was dominated by democrats at that time. The Act was opposed in the racist south by most all politicians there, zero southern republicans voted for it and very few southern democrats. The South felt let down by Johnson and the democratic congress, a feeling that grew stronger throughout the decade as the democratic party took on other similar issues like equal employment rights for women. Nixon won 2 elections based on his famous southern strategy which was to focus on stealing votes from the traditionally democratic south, which he did, a strategy also used by Reagan and now mastered by Rove. To imply that Clinton and Gore Jr were racist because they were southern democrats and southern democrats voted against the Act of 64 is such nonsense, there is no valid comparison. The South switched from democratic to republican after the Act of 1964 because the southern racists all switched to the republican party, which has consistently fought all subsequent equal rights type legislation since then. take an intro political science class shemp, then post on politics. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Blacks Gored By a Lie: Al Gore Sr., the GOP and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Notice that nothing in this piece of garbage actually contradicts anything in the quotes I posted. It's all just right-wing rhetoric. Shemp, needless to say, can't tell the difference. By R.D. Davis A New Visions Commentary paper published May 1999 by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. It is easy to control the minds of a people. All one has to do is change history by lying about the past. This is exactly what has happened with the legacy of former Democratic U.S. Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee - the father of our current vice president - and his mythical support of civil rights. In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act. In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming majority. He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Moreover, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, collaborated with the White House and the Senate leadership of both parties to draft acceptable compromise amendments to end the southern Democrats' filibuster of the Act. It was Dirksen who often took to the Senate floor to declare, This is an idea whose time has come. It will not be denied. Dirksen's greatest triumph earned him the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award, presented by then- NAACP Chairman Roy Wilkins, for his remarkable civil rights leadership. Inform yourself, so you can learn for yourself about this important historical event. All official records about the Civil Rights Act can be found in the June 1964 issues of Congressional Quarterly. Al Gore, Sr. did not stop at simply voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Congressional Quarterly reported that Gore attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts. Gore sought to take the teeth out of the Act in the event it passed. Ostensibly, Senator Gore was elated at the idea of young Al, Jr. going to school with black children. In reality, however, the future vice president attended an elite private school. In the end, the Gore Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74-25. Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, one of President Bill Clinton's political mentors, was among the 23 southern Democratic senators and only one Republican voting with Gore for this racist amendment. Republican Senator
[FairfieldLife] Re: End of Days
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Flanegin wrote: So this is it- the Age of Enlightenment, when enlightenment and its symptoms are becoming common and everyday. Not really being able to see how specifically the world will transform as this becomes fully accepted into everyone's awareness, but it ain't goin' away anytime soon either. :-) I wonder about timing, Jim. This A of E phase transition seems to be coming at me full speed these days -- I feel like liquid Jello that was placed in the frig awhile ago, and I'm just about to gel. Perchance to wiggle -- with small Maharshmellows suspended, of course! Whatever that means! Sigh. Here's the deal, this 2012 end of days thingy of the Mayans, it just keeps grabbing me again and again. Almost always when I see something repeated in my experiencing, it's a sign of things to come. I may be entirely deluded, but it seems like I sometimes know the future. But I seldom know I knew until I know I knew after the known is finally known. Ugly sentence! This prediction jives with other things afoot. And, can't remember which one it was, but didn't a tribe of Native American Indians predicted great change when the sign of the bear is everywhere? Well, that's parallel claw marks on a tree that look just like today's bar codes. And don't get me started on the fact that all bar codes start with 6, end with 6, and have 6 exactly in the middle. All of them. So there's the sign of the beast's coming. But the above's from folks predicting a future a thousand years from their then. Today's predicticationalists are just as likely to loosen anyone's bowels. And, it's not the current fascination of the Discovery and National Geographic channels with extinction level events that I am being scared by. It's the singularities just around the technological corner. Soon, very soon, nanotechnology will be able to make dust-mote- sized machines that can duplicate themselves -- with brains on board. Read Swarm by Michael Crichtion. That'll stain your drawers. And this is going to be possible in less than 20 years. When it hits us, it's called a singularity, because after that happens, no one can predict beyond that point -- an event horizon must be crossed before we can tell what the inside of a black hole looks like. Once nano-Pandora's done the deed, we may all become THE BORG as the little creeps get into everything -- our bodies, our food, the biosphere. Then there's the Artificial Intelligence Birth concept -- Evil, Conscious, Software. HAL 9000, Colossus: The Forbin Project, Saturn 3, Terminator, I, Robot, and the list goes on. I don't think that this is possible in the way Hollywood depicts -- maybe never, cuz I think that the Godel incompleteness theorem chucks a monkey wrench into the works. But I DO think that software can be created that mimics free will and that creates an impenetrable illusion of awareness, soul. And if such software gets it's hands on other software, we might find that this automaton is lurching towards us like The Mummy. A mummy that can tell traffic lights to stop working or on a whim tell a nuclear electric plant to melt down. And that's just for starters -- the real power that conscious AI would wield is that it will outstrip human intelligence and just have its way with us biounits. We'll all be inside a short yellow bus taking a ride to Armageddon. Then there's Genetic Engineering. It won't be long before a twelve year old child can own a computer that can create almost any molecule. Mix and match. Swine and tomatoes for instance. What will these script kiddies unleash upon Gaia? A new mold, a new virus, it won't be T-Rex, but it'll have an appetite like one. BigMedia is selling headlines concerned about space rocks ending life as we know it, but almost certainly we'll have the technology in place to divert them by the time any of the presently known problem hunks head our way, but we have NO SOLUTIONS for the above singularities -- that's why their called singularities! They blind us with the utter freedom of their potentials. I'm just hoping to live up to the time when these things happen -- be a shame to miss them just because I got old and died. So I'm trying to stay healthy enough to make it to the mass murder of the human race! Edg That is why it is so necessary for an enlightened consciousness to see these developments in technology for what they are, instead of blindly being led by them. Instead of stumbling upon the atomic bomb and being awed and seduced by it, I hope that when we find its next equivalent, we either yawn and bury it, or find a life supporting use for it.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Ramanand Shastri, Vedic Astrologer.
Has a Jyotish and Yagya program. CD's and DVD's available too. http://www.expertvedicastrology.com As a US headquarters base in Hawaii, you can send US $ to their HQ and not bother with converting $ to rupees.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Black perspective on segregationist Al Gore, Sr.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This post which shemp keeps posting every so often is absurd in its implications. As anyone with a minimum knowledge of politics knows, the democratic party lost its traditional hold on the South with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act was initially championed by President Kennedy and ultimately passed under Johnson by a Congress that was dominated by democrats at that time. The Act was opposed in the racist south by most all politicians there, zero southern republicans voted for it and very few southern democrats. The South felt let down by Johnson and the democratic congress, a feeling that grew stronger throughout the decade as the democratic party took on other similar issues like equal employment rights for women. Nixon won 2 elections based on his famous southern strategy which was to focus on stealing votes from the traditionally democratic south, which he did, a strategy also used by Reagan and now mastered by Rove. To imply that Clinton and Gore Jr were racist because they were southern democrats 1. I never implied that; 2. I don't think the author of the piece was implying that either. and southern democrats voted against the Act of 64 is such nonsense, there is no valid comparison. The South switched from democratic to republican after the Act of 1964 because the southern racists all switched to the republican party, which has consistently fought all subsequent equal rights type legislation since then. take an intro political science class shemp, then post on politics. My point was, clearly, that Al Gore's father was a segregationist; that fear-mongering is a prerequisite for promoting segregation; and that this is the atmosphere in which Al Gore was brought up. I never said OR implied that he was a racist or segregationist. I do, however, suggest that his current day fear-mongering finds its basis in the training he got in fear-mongering by being brought up by a segregationist father because in the absense of current day segregation, his innate fear-mongering must find an outlet: global- warming. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Blacks Gored By a Lie: Al Gore Sr., the GOP and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Notice that nothing in this piece of garbage actually contradicts anything in the quotes I posted. It's all just right-wing rhetoric. Shemp, needless to say, can't tell the difference. By R.D. Davis A New Visions Commentary paper published May 1999 by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. It is easy to control the minds of a people. All one has to do is change history by lying about the past. This is exactly what has happened with the legacy of former Democratic U.S. Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee - the father of our current vice president - and his mythical support of civil rights. In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act. In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming majority. He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Moreover, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, collaborated with the White House and the Senate leadership of both parties to draft acceptable compromise amendments to end the southern Democrats' filibuster of the Act. It was Dirksen who often took to the Senate floor to declare, This is an idea whose time has come. It will not be denied. Dirksen's greatest triumph earned him the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award, presented by then- NAACP Chairman Roy Wilkins, for his remarkable civil rights leadership. Inform yourself, so you can learn for yourself about this important historical event. All official records about the Civil Rights Act can be found in the June 1964 issues of Congressional Quarterly. Al Gore, Sr. did not stop at simply voting against the Civil Rights
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Giant Skeletons Found in India
In a message dated 5/28/07 7:18:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: _http://fourwinds10.http://fourwindhttp://fourwindshttp://fourwindshttp_ (http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php?) Articl eID=15307 Click on the photos for a larger view, then click on the article again to return to it. Totally awesome. They must have been very popular with they ladies. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] The insanity continues
NOTED CLIMATOLOGIST AND SCIENTIST NANCY PELOSI SEES GLOBAL WARMING FIRST HAND Pelosi: Climate change is a reality By GEIR MOULSON, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 46 minutes ago BERLIN - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) said Monday she led a congressional delegation to Greenland, where lawmakers saw firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality, and she hoped the Bush administration would consider a new path on the issue. ADVERTISEMENT After meeting with German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, Pelosi praised Berlin for its leadership on the issue. Her trip comes ahead of next week's Group of Eight summit and a climate change meeting next month involving the leading industrialized nations and during a time of increased debate over what should succeed the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty that caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in industrialized countries. It expires in 2012. President Bush rejected that accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and unfair excludes developing countries like China and India from its obligations. Pelosi, who strongly disagrees with that decision and many other of Bush's environmental policies, said Friday she said she wants to work with the administration rather than provoke it. Pelosi said she hoped Bush would be open to considering a different way in the future. The California Democrat pointed to her delegation's weekend stop in Greenland, where we saw firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality; there is just no denying it. It wasn't caused by the people of Greenland it was caused by the behavior of the rest of the world, she said. Scientists have noticed that Greenland's output of ice into the North Atlantic had increased dramatically, doubling over the decade that ended in 2005. We hope that we can all assume our responsibilities with great respect and that our administration will be open to listening to why it is important to go forward perhaps in a different way than we have proceeded in the past, she told reporters. Gabriel and Chancellor Angela Merkel have made the fight against global warming a key point of Germany's presidencies of the G-8 andEuropean Union. Still, Merkel has said that progress at the June 6-8 summit in Heiligendamm is not assured. According to comments on a document released by the environmental group Greenpeace, the Bush administration is preparing to reject new targets on climate change at the summit. The White House declined to confirm the comments were from U.S. officials. We regret very much that we must so far have the impression that it is difficult to reach concrete results with the American administration, Gabriel said after meeting Pelosi. Gabriel said industrial nations must take joint responsibility for the global warming that has occurred thus far. For the climate change of the future ... we need readiness on the part of China, India and today's other developing countries to take responsibility themselves, he added. We can and will only achieve that if industrial nations do justice to their responsibility. Pelosi, who is to meet with Merkel on Tuesday, said she wanted to salute Germany's leadership on this very important issue, and said she hoped for a diplomatic debate within the United States. Gabriel welcomed increasing interest in climate change at state and city level in the U.S. and hailed Pelosi's decision to set up a select committee on energy and global warming. This shows that there is a great deal of movement in the United States, too, and we naturally hope that we will achieve progress in Heiligendamm, he said. The G-8 meeting has already drawn protests from antiglobalization activists; 21 demonstrators were arrested Monday during unrest that broke out after a march in Hamburg.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Black perspective on segregationist Al Gore, Sr.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip My point was, clearly, that Al Gore's father was a segregationist; No, he wasn't a segregationist, to the contrary. The record is very clear on that point. That's a matter of fact, not of opinion. that fear-mongering is a prerequisite for promoting segregation; and that this is the atmosphere in which Al Gore was brought up. Impossible, since his father wasn't a segregationist (or his mother either). I never said OR implied that he was a racist or segregationist. I do, however, suggest that his current day fear-mongering finds its basis in the training he got in fear-mongering by being brought up by a segregationist father Since his father wasn't a segregationist, your whole theory is utter nonsense.
[FairfieldLife] Negativity and the Brain
Some research that could indicate that negativity and positive thinking can effect brain structure. Research into the malleability of the normal brain has been no less amazing. Subjects who learn to play a sequence of notes on the piano develop characteristic changes in the brain's electric activity; when other subjects sit in front of a piano and just think about playing the same notes, the same changes occur. It is the virtual made real, a solid quantification of the power of thought. Books The Brain: Malleable, Capable, Vulnerable Article Tools Sponsored By By ABIGAIL ZUGER, M.D. Published: May 29, 2007 NYTIMES In bookstores, the science aisle generally lies well away from the self-help section, with hard reality on one set of shelves and wishful thinking on the other. But Norman Doidge's fascinating synopsis of the current revolution in neuroscience straddles this gap: the age-old distinction between the brain and the mind is crumbling fast as the power of positive thinking finally gains scientific credibility. Skip to next paragraph Jacob Magraw The Brain That Changes Itself Stories of Personal Triumph From the Frontiers of Brain Science. By Norman Doidge, M.D. 427 pages. Viking. $24.95 The credo of this revolution is neuroplasticity the discovery that the human brain is as malleable as a lump of wet clay not only in infancy, as scientists have long known, but well into hoary old age. In classical neuroscience, the adult brain was considered an immutable machine, as wonderfully precise as a clock in a locked case. Every part had a specific purpose, none could be replaced or repaired, and the machine was destined to tick in unchanging rhythm until its gears corroded with age. Now sophisticated experimental techniques suggest the brain is more like a Disney-esque animated sea creature. Constantly oozing in various directions, it is apparently able to respond to injury with striking functional reorganization, and can at times actually think itself into a new anatomic configuration, in a kind of word-made-flesh outcome far more characteristic of Lourdes than the National Institutes of Health. So it is forgivable that Dr. Doidge, a Canadian psychiatrist and award-winning science writer, recounts the accomplishments of the neuroplasticians, as he calls the neuroscientists involved in these new studies, with breathless reverence. Their work is indeed mind-bending, miracle-making, reality-busting stuff, with implications, as Dr. Doidge notes, not only for individual patients with neurologic disease but for all human beings, not to mention human culture, human learning and human history. And all this from the fact that the electronic circuits in a small lump of grayish tissue are perfectly accessible, it turns out, to any passing handyman with the right tools. For patients with brain injury, the revolution brings only good news, as Dr. Doidge describes in numerous examples. A woman with damage to the inner ear's vestibular system, where the sense of balance resides, feels as if she is in constant free fall, tumbling through space like an ocean bather pulled under by the surf. Sitting in a neuroscience lab, she puts a set of electrodes on the surface of her tongue, a wired-up hard hat on her head, and the feel of falling stops. The apparatus connects to a computer to create an external vestibular system, replacing her damaged one by sending the proper signals to her brain via her tongue. But that's not all. After a year of sessions with the device, she no longer needs it: her brain has rewired itself to bypass the damaged vestibular system with a new circuit. A surgeon in his 50s suffers an incapacitating stroke. He is one of the first patients to enroll in a rehabilitation clinic guided by principles of neuroplasticity: his good arm and hand are immobilized, and he is set cleaning tables. At first the task is impossible, then slowly the bad arm remembers its skills. He learns to write again, he plays tennis again: the functions of the brain areas killed in the stroke have transferred themselves to healthy regions. An amputee has a bizarre itch in his missing hand: unscratchable, it torments him. A neuroscientist finds that the brain cells that once received input from the hand are now devoted to the man's face; a good scratch on the cheek relieves the itch. Another amputee has 10 years of excruciating phantom pain in his missing elbow. When he puts his good arm into a box lined with mirrors he seems to recognize his missing arm, and he can finally stretch the cramped elbow out. Within a month his brain reorganizes its damaged circuits, and the illusion of the arm and its pain vanish. Research into the malleability of the normal brain has been no less amazing. Subjects who learn to play a sequence of notes on the piano develop characteristic changes in the brain's electric activity; when other subjects sit in front of a piano and just think about playing the same notes, the same changes
[FairfieldLife] Re: Giant Skeletons Found in India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 5/28/07 7:18:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: _http://fourwinds10.http://fourwindhttp://fourwindshttp://fourwindsh ttp_ (http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.ph p?) Articl eID=15307 Click on the photos for a larger view, then click on the article again to return to it. Totally awesome. They must have been very popular with they ladies. Its a hoax, first reported in 2004.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Giant Skeletons Found in India
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 5/28/07 7:18:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, steve.sundur@ writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: _http://fourwinds10.http://fourwindhttp://fourwindshttp://fourwindsh ttp_ (http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.ph p?) Articl eID=15307 Click on the photos for a larger view, then click on the article again to return to it. Totally awesome. They must have been very popular with they ladies. Its a hoax, first reported in 2004. C'mon, don't spoil his fantasies!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ramanand Shastri, Vedic Astrologer.
qntmpkt wrote: http://www.expertvedicastrology.com Has a Jyotish and Yagya program. CD's and DVD's available too. As a US headquarters base in Hawaii, you can send US $ to their HQ and not bother with converting $ to rupees. cool, these guys are also doing TM, wonder why the TMO doesnt recommend them ?? from their website: Question: What are remedial measures? Answer: Each graha (planet) has both good influences and bad influences in our lives. Remedial measures enhance the positive influences and neutralize the negative influences. These include in order of effectiveness: 1. Transcendental Meditation TM Sidhis Program practiced twice daily 2. Yagya -Vedic performances to create specific influences in life. (click on What is Yagya) 3. Jyotish gemstones - superior quality natural gemstones with proper shape, size and setting capable is altering the influences of each planet in a beneficial way. (click on Jyotish gemstones in menu) 4. Herbs - special herbal preparations from Ayurveda which help restore balance in the mind and body. Mental and physical imbalance can result from malefic planetary influences. http://www.expertvedicastrology.com/index.php?pr=About
