[FairfieldLife] 'Parallel Universes: Obama/Clinton'
Obama, Clinton Spin Past Each OtherMarc Ambinder 01 May 2008 Listening to the Clinton and Obama campaign conference calls today was like dipping into two parallel, universes. THE OBAMA UNIVERSE is governed by the reality that every night, when the Clinton campaign turns out the lights in Arlington, Clinton is not really any close to winning the nomination that when the first intern trudged in at the crack of dawn. The math hasn't changed. Obama is 283 delegates away from declaring victory. Obama is winning two superdelegates for every one she wins; every additional superdelegate he receives equals at least 1.X more superdelegates that Clinton must pick up. Not a single pledged delegate has switched to Clinton -- indeed, when was the last time a pledged delegate ever switched sides; not a single superdelegate has switched to Clinton; a few superdelegates who've counseled patience (like freshman Bruce Braley of Iowa) say they now support Obama. The progressive media establishment -- the Olbermanns and Chris Matthews of the world -- are regularly inveighing against Clinton's decision to stay in the race. Obama has way more money to spend, the support of the party's most reliable constituencies, the ability to expand the map. His divorce with Rev. Wright takes a general election hot pot off the table. He is much more likeable and seen as much more honest than Clinton; Republicans and independents still have warmer feelings for him than they do with Clinton. Clinton's embrace of a gas tax pause shows that her campaign isn't serious about policy and voters perceive that. Oh, and voters in Indiana and North Carolina aren't watching cable news and aren't really paying attention to Rev. Wright. And besides, they're tired of all of this: tired of the noise, tired of the distractions, tired of old politics, and ready for change. This long race is hurting the party; superdelegates know this, and the tipping point has been reached. IN THE CLINTON UNIVERSE, Clinton has all the green cards. Victory, (enough) money, momentum in the national polls, the public acknowledgment of Republicans that she'd be the tougher candidate, the fact of undecided superdelegates, and the testicular fortitude that impresses white working class voters... A month of scrutiny has noticeably eroded reduced Obama's standing with critical constituencies, and in many critical states, Clinton's brand is a winner: according to three new telephone surveys by Quinnipiac, in Florida, Clinton leads McCain by eight points; Obama and McCain are tied. In Ohio, Clinton leads by ten points; Obama and McCain are tied. Both Clinton and Obama lead McCain in Pennsylvania; Clinton's margin is twice that of Obama's. Most of the remaining superdelegates represent white working class districts (about 75% of them, in the estimation of one Clinton strategist.) They haven't come out for Obama when was winning; they surely won't support him when he's losing. They'll wait for information to see who'll beat John McCain, and right now, that evidence points to Clinton. After Indiana (and depending on the margin in North Carolina), it will point even more to Clinton. Obama has proven himself out of touch and unable to dent Clinton's standing with a critical swing constituency; even if African American turnout exceeds 100 percent, Obama would not be able to win Ohio with a double-digit deficit among white, working class voters. Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania precipitated a change in the fundamental dynamic of the race. Obama no longer appeals to independents; Clinton and Obama now have roughly the same appeal to independents. In a (near) recession, with expensive gas and good prices, with foreclosed homes and rising health care premiums, Clinton has the knowledge and leadership to turn this economy around, and that explains why she's done so well. Finally, she's an underdog, and Democrats root for the underdog. This long race is helping the party; Democrats are excited; Superdelegates perceive this, and the tipping point is coming soon. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[FairfieldLife] '60's Radical Now Clinton Chief Stategist'
Geoff Garin, Clinton Chief Strategist, Once Called For Violent Revolution The Huffington Post | April 30, 2008 With 60s-era radicalism now a hot topic in the Democratic primary, it's worth noting the (amusing, ironic) history of Sen. Hillary Clinton's co-chief strategist Geoff Garin. Philip Weiss, who attended Harvard with Garin more than 30 years ago, recalls that he was a special guy -- softspoken, funny, brilliant. He was also a radical. In 1973, on an anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Garin called for violent revolution in the United States in the student paper, the Crimson: ...America and much of the world is living dangerously close to oppression. ... Whether Americans will soon become steadfast in their resistance to oppression depends on their coming to understand what resistance is all about. The way we celebrate the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party will gauge thedepth of that understanding Freedom is on the wane in this country and repression is on the rise all over the world. We canno longer sit back and swap stories about the good old revolution. We have to start worrying about the present. On this anniversary we must recognize that the patriots of Boston acted wisely in overthrowing their oppressors and the time is come to express our confidence in what our forefathers did by doing it ourselves. [my emphasis] Following Agnew's resignation in 1973, Garin again spoke of revolution: The government in Washington can not survive under these circumstances, and under these circumstances the government should not survive America will be governed in any case, but the question is by whom. If not by the people, then by a strong executive. These are revolutionary times, and we must decide now whom we want to win the revolution. Of course, Garin was 20 years old when he wrote the pieces above. But as Weiss notes, It is helpful to read his writings because they demonstrate: how much people grow, how common revolutionary statements have been in the left (even in the Jewish meritocracy, of which Garin and I are members). But mostly because they show that the continuum of left-center ideas, which are now coming back into American life, includes Wright, Garin, and Obama. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[FairfieldLife] selfishness - altruism 's unexpected ally
http://urel.binghamton.edu/PressReleases/2008/May-Jun%2008/5-2% 20Selfish.html Binghamton, N.Y. -- Just as religions dwell upon the eternal battle between good and evil, angels and devils, evolutionary theorists dwell upon the eternal battle between altruistic and selfish behaviors in the Darwinian struggle for existence. In a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), evolutionary theorists at Binghamton University suggest that selfishness might not be such a villain after all. Omar Tonsi Eldakar and David Sloan Wilson propose a novel solution to this problem in their article, which is available in the online Early Edition of PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/papbyrecent.shtml). They point out that selfish individuals have their own incentive to get rid of other selfish individuals within their own group. Eldakar and Wilson consider a behavioral strategy called Selfish Punisher, which exploits altruists and punishes other selfish individuals, including other selfish punishers. This strategy might seem hypocritical in moral terms but it is highly successful in Darwinian terms, according to their theoretical model published in PNAS and a computer simulation model published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. Selfish punishers can invade the population when rare but then limit each other, preventing the altruists from being completely eliminated. Individuals who behave altruistically are vulnerable to exploitation by more selfish individuals within their own group, but groups of altruists can robustly out-compete more selfish groups. Altruism can therefore evolve by natural selection as long as its collective advantage outweighs its more local disadvantage. All evolutionary theories of altruism reflect this basic conflict between levels of selection. It might seem that the local advantage of selfishness can be eliminated by punishment, but punishment is itself a form of altruism. For instance, if you pay to put a criminal in jail, all law- abiding citizens benefit but you paid the cost. If someone else pays you to put the criminal in jail, this action costs those individuals something that other law-abiding citizens didn't have to pay. Economists call this the higher-order public goods problem. Rewards and punishments that enforce good behavior are themselves forms of good behavior that are vulnerable to subversion from within. Eldakar and Wilson first began thinking about selfish punishment on the basis of a study on humans, which indeed showed that the individuals most likely to cheat were also most likely to punish other cheaters. Similar examples appear to exist in non-human species, including worker bees that prevent other workers from laying eggs while laying a few of their own. Is selfish punishment really so hypocritical in moral terms? According to Eldakar and Wilson, it can be looked at another way - as a division of labor. Altruists `pay' the selfish punishers by allowing themselves to be exploited, while the selfish punishers return the favor with their second-order altruism. That way, no one needs to pay the double cost required of an altruist who also punishes others, says Eldakar. If so, then the best groups might be those that include a few devils along with the angels.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax?
I agree with your basic pts below about payroll taxes. I'm not opposed to the idea of a flat tax across all income groups, but it seems the macroeconomic and politic situation has been biased against the middle class in favor of the upper 1% for about 25 yrs now, all the numbers show this growing disparity within the country which I think is starting to have deeper social and cultural impacts as well as economic, so I'd like to see tax rates change for maybe 2 administrations to even the playing field in favor or the majority middle class, and then talk about a flat tax. But I would not raise capital gains taxes, which the rich hate even more, but would close all offshore corporate loopholes tightly. This may be all moot as I see no way the US ever gets close to a balanced budget again, so we'll keep adding on the $9 trillion in debt and someday soon, the credit karma will hit bigtime. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives boo_lives@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: If elected, both Hillary and Barack say they'll put up the income tax rates for the rich. Yet, according to the statistics at the following site http://tinyurl.com/3cquum http://tinyurl.com/3cquum the rich are, by ANY objective standard of measurement, already paying far more than their share. Take a look at Table 1 (which, hopefully, I am successful in reproducing here, below) and look under the column Group's share of income tax. The top 1% of taxpayers pay almost 40% of ALL income taxes collected! The top 10% pay over 70% and the bottom 50% about 3%. People not familiar with working with numbers and percentages will be impressed by the above, but obviously a percentage of an extremely high number will be much higher than a percentage of a low number. The key is the percentage. The chart shows the top 1% paying a tax rate of 23% compared to an average tax rate of 12.5%. Actually that's not fair either, as the chart does not take into the highly regressive payroll tax and 4 out of 5 taxpayers now pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. Yes, you are correct that the reproduced chart is limited to income taxes and not payroll taxes (i.e. FICA, of which the employee pays 50% and the employer pays the other 50%...or if you're like me and self-employed you pay 100% of FICA). The payroll tax is a flat rate of 7.65% for the first approximately $85,000 of adjusted gross income (the figure is probably off somewhat because I'm too lazy to look up the exact figure). So, as boo_lives correctly points out, the payroll tax is REGRESSIVE because after you reach the ceiling of $85,000 in AGI, there is no more payroll tax to pay, no matter how much income you have in a year. So, as a percentage of income, the person earning $10 million a year will pay LESS than his secretary earning $50,000 a year in payroll taxes. Indeed, this is the very example that Warren Buffet used to support his contention that the AGI ceiling for payroll taxes should be raised. But here's the thing: the payroll tax works differently from the way income taxes work in a very, very important way: how one benefits from it. Unlike all other expenditures by the government, the payroll tax (of which about 80% is a contribution to Social Security and about 20% to Medicare), what you get back in benefits is tied in to what you pay in to the system. For Social Security, the more you pay in, the more you get back in your retirement years. For Medicare, once you reach a certain number of quarters that you have at least contributed 1 cent, you get the full Medicare benefits once you reach the age of, I think, 62 or 65. It's an on/off type of benefit system. Payroll tax, therefore, SHOULD be kept separate from considerations of statistics, as reproduced as discussed here, because the way it is taxed and the way the benefits are given out are completely different than regular income taxes. With regular income taxes, all beneficiaries (i.e., everyone living in the United States) are equal and benefit equally. Not the case with payroll taxes and, hense, why we examine and treat their respective statistics separately. Their discussion should NOT be combined without this caveat. So the difference is tax rates paid by the richest 1% (whom obama and clinton intend to raise) is somewhere around 5% higher than average. First point: when you are talking about tax rates, you are talking about the average rate an invidual or demographic group pays that is an average of ALL the 6 federal marginal tax rates that that individual or group is paying. Secondly, as I point out above, it simply is not right or fair to combine payroll taxes and income taxes into a
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Shemp
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is her nose covering his willie? So you are not only ignorant on so many levels, but art also? A loin cloth serves that puropose in this Dali painting. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp, MDixon WillyTex' Dumbass War
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For someone who is so against war and killing you sure have alot of bile and hatred in your system, Off.Kilter... Your hatred is the biggest on FFL life by far and everyone sees it. Your heart has become the heart of a vile old man, which were it ever touched with the slightest compassion would convulse as if poison had entered it. This hatred of yours is eating away at your flesh as we speak and you know it. When this process is complete the world will be able to shake off your useless remnant, and evolve at full capacity. This is not a judgement of you - for the ignorant must pass into their lonely oblivion. But it is the truth. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: McCrazy: wife a c*nt
On May 1, 2008, at 7:32 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Bob wrote: http://tinyurl.com/48r4ar Bob, in the grand scheme of things, do you not think that this is really of no consequence? What would you expect from a drug addled clown like Bob? Hey, be nice. Someone probably slipped him some garlic. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one on this forum that is offended when the n-word is used? Are you offended because it stems from a French word for 'black' that your forefathers used. Your forefathers, who chose to fight, at all costs, to be able to keep their slaves, at a time when they were completely aware that Britain was having successful court cases outlawing slavery on British soil? That is not offense you have sir, that is guilt. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: McCrazy: wife a c*nt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: It's not an internet rumor. It's from a book called The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't by Cliff Schecter. Here's the passage from the book: Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, You're getting a little thin up there. McCain's face reddened, and he responded, At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c---. McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days. http://tinyurl.com/48r4ar I'm not a big fan of McCain's but I gotta tell ya that if that's the worst they can come up with to show the guy's downside Unfortunately, McInsane is also a complete idiot. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] is inequality a good thing?
A new perspective on this from two physicists their computer model http://www.newstatesman.com/200209020014 NS Essay - The science of inequality Mark Buchanan,Published 02 September 2002 You always knew that the rich got richer through no merit of their own, didn't you? Now, with the aid of computers, scientists think they have proved it Why is wealth so unevenly distributed among individuals? This is perhaps the most controversial and inflammatory of all topics in economics. As J K Galbraith noted, the attempt to explain and rationalise inequality has commanded some of the greatest, or in any case some of the most ingenious, talent in the economics profession. We all know that a few people are very rich and that most of us have far less. But inequality in the distribution of wealth has a surprisingly universal character. You might expect the distribution to vary widely from country to country, depending not only on politics and culture but also, for example, on whether a nation relies on agriculture or heavy industry. Towards the end of the 19th century, however, an Italian engineer-turned-economist named Vilfredo Pareto discovered a pattern in the distribution of wealth that appears to be every bit as universal as the laws of thermodynamics or chemistry. Suppose that, in Britain, China, the United States or any other country, you count the number of people worth, say, $10,000. Suppose you then count the number worth $20,000, $30,000 and so on, and finally plot the results on a graph. You would find, as Pareto did, many individuals at the poorer end of the scale and progressively fewer at the wealthy end. This is hardly surprising. But Pareto discovered that the numbers dwindle in a very special way: towards the wealthy end, each time you double the amount of wealth, the number of people falls by a constant factor. Big deal? It is. Mathematically, a Pareto distribution implies that a small fraction of the wealthiest people always possess a lion's share of a country's riches. It is quite easy to imagine a country where the bulk of people in the middle of the distribution would own most of the wealth. But that is never so. In the United States, something approaching 80 per cent of the wealth is held by 20 per cent of the people, and the numbers are similar in Chile, Bolivia, Japan, South Africa and the nations of western Europe. It may be 10 per cent owning 90 per cent, 5 per cent owning 85 per cent, or 3 per cent owning 96 per cent, but in all cases, wealth seems to migrate naturally into the hands of the few. Indeed, although good data are sadly lacking, studies in the mid-1970s, based on interviews with Soviet emigrants, suggested that wealth inequality in the Soviet Union was then comparable to that in the UK. What causes this striking regularity across nations? The question is all the more urgent now that inequality seems to be growing. In the US, according to the economist Paul Krugman: The standard of living of the poorest 10 per cent of American families is significantly lower today than it was a generation ago. Families in the middle are, at best, slightly better off. Only the wealthiest 20 per cent of Americans have achieved income growth anything like the rates nearly everyone experienced between the 1940s and early 1970s. Meanwhile the income of families high in the distribution has risen dramatically, with something like a doubling of real incomes of the top 1 per cent. Something similar is taking place on the global stage. Globalisation is frequently touted - especially by those with vested economic interests, such as multinational corporations and investment banks - as a process that will inevitably help the poor of the world. To be sure, greater technological and economic global integration ought to have the potential to do so. Yet as Joseph Stiglitz, the former chief economist of the World Bank, notes in his recent book Globalization and Its Discontents: Despite repeated promises of poverty reduction made over the last decade of the 20th century, the actual number of people living in poverty has actually increased by almost 100 million. This occurred at the same time that total world income actually increased by an average of 2.5 per cent annually. What is the origin of these distinct but seemingly related trends: the greater inequality within nations (which applies to the UK, and many other countries, especially in eastern Europe, as well as to the US) and the greater inequality between them? We can blame tax cuts, the liberalisation of capital markets, new communication technologies, the policies of the International Monetary Fund and so on. But might there be a general science that could illuminate the basic forces that lead to wealth inequity? Conventional economic theory has never before managed to explain the origin of Pareto's universal pattern. But two physicists, Jean- Philippe Bouchaud and Marc Mezard of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
On May 2, 2008, at 7:59 AM, off_world_beings wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one on this forum that is offended when the n-word is used? Are you offended because it stems from a French word for 'black' that your forefathers used. Your forefathers, who chose to fight, at all costs, to be able to keep their slaves, at a time when they were completely aware that Britain was having successful court cases outlawing slavery on British soil? That is not "offense" you have sir, that is guilt. Shemp is from Canada.From the post earlier this week on Obama's Afrocentric roots.MORAL STAINS: SLAVERY AND REALITYIf there is one subject which vexes the Afrocentrists, it is slavery. Since it provides the fuel for their wrathful approach to history, they understandably have tunnel-vision on the subject. What they see at the other end of their tunnel is Western culture, which they blame for the institution of slavery and the subsequent degradation it brought to blacks. Afrocentrists never acknowledge the fact that slavery was a universal institution in ancient times since such acknowledgment would lessen the victim status of blacks in America. (The virtual slavery of serfs in places such as Russia and England is quietly ignored, even though the term slave came from the word Slavic.)Having adopted a position of selective amnesia, Afrocentrists conclude that a culture responsible for an institution as heinous as slavery is morally corrupt, and that all political systems which sprang from it are irredeemable. Blacks, they conclude, should turn elsewhere for political inspiration and moral nurturing. Often they turn to the third world and to Islam, as the former is free from contamination by Western ways and the latter is associated with Africa, and thus perceived as free from the moral stain of slavery. The fact that throwing away Western principles undermines the political platform they speak from doesn’t seem to register with them. The methods of protest blacks have occasioned to use in seeking redress are not African principles – they are solidly Western in origin. But this matters not to the multiculturalists and the Afrocentrists, whose critical faculties seem to be in suspension regarding all subjects related to slavery. Arthur Schlesinger points out: “It is a sad fact that both European and African political traditions approved slavery, as did almost all the traditions we know about. It was the European political culture, however, that first called for the abolition of slavery. Neither racism nor the subjection of women is an Occidental invention, but political antiracism and feminism are.” Though the West was not responsible for the origin of slavery, it was responsible for its decline.Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, agrees with Schlesinger that the West is not responsible for the creation of the institution of slavery; further, he believes that if Western culture is abolished the institution of chattel slavery would certainly return. It is a singular and indisputable fact that, before the development of European civilization, most ancient cultures operated largely on a slave-driven economy, including Greece, where Democratic ideals were born. But it was Western principles and the resulting consciousness they generated that led to the dissolution of slavery not only in Europe and in the New World, but in Asia and Africa. America poet Ralph Waldo Emerson noted that the dissolution of slavery in the New World was the first instance where a revolution was not the result of insurrection of the oppressed, but due to the repentance of the tyrants. The significance of this seems lost to the Afro-centric community.Since one of the primary goals of Afrocentrism is to vilify European culture, the Afrocentric movement, with little regard for truth, magnifies the shortcomings of European culture and overlooks those of non-European cultures. Arthur Schlesinger calls this “Europhobia” and says that it makes for very bad history. This is evident in Afrocentric writings on slavery, which portray it as the result of a white conspiracy. To do this they disregard the fact that African slaves were captured by other Africans and delivered to Arab slave traders. There are exceptions to this in the black community. An official publication of The Nation of Islam, entitled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, asserts that Jewish merchants played a major role in the foundation and running of the black African slave trade. Refutations of such propaganda by historians make no dent in the black community. The leader of the Nation of Islam, Minister Louis Farrakhan, has publicly made disparaging remarks against Jews that have been termed anti-Semitic by even the liberal press.Though traditional scholars admit that Afrocentric writings contain corruptions of the truth, many tacitly let them pass unhindered. This is because
[FairfieldLife] Re: Texas Rednecks at it again
off wrote: http://tinyurl.com/5amqxh In addition to forgery, Fuller was charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon and possessing marijuana. Apparently this poor black man was born in Nigeria and was in the United States illegally. Jesus, banks nowadays can be so picky! So, maybe they didn't have $360,000,000,000.00 on hand. But, Bob, is that any reason to call the police and have the drug addled clown arrested?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax?
Barry2 wrote: Yes, we should tax the very rich out of existence. Give me one good reason why I should pay your income taxes, subsidize your rent, pay for your food, or provide for your medical care while you waste your money (what little you have) on toys made in China or Japan and lay around on your couch watching TV. The foul their nests anyway and have royally screwed up the planet. Who needs an estate worth any more than twelve million dollars anyway? Insane greedy bastards, that's who? That leaves plenty of room in the economy for anyone who worships wealth to achieve some of it but not uber wealth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: McCrazy: wife a c*nt
Bob, in the grand scheme of things, do you not think that this is really of no consequence? What would you expect from a drug addled clown like Bob? Vaj wrote: Hey, be nice. Someone probably slipped him some garlic. :-) From what I've read of your posts, you worship a fish-monger. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Why are you posting these notes? Everything I've read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is not news or some radical understanding. What impact would any of this have on any ru meditating more than 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who is assuming the guru role in expressing these ideas? Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? --- dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other notes, forward: You are a Divine Being. Everything you are learning in this class is the opposite of the way you lived as a limited being. I want you to be who you truly are: Infinite, Whole, Divine. You are learning how to proceed as an Infinite, Divine Being. You must proceed with new skills for living. Learning the use of intention and attention, letting go, allowing, trusting are some of the skills that move the universe. You are now capable of moving the universe skillfully for healing, for building beauty, for releasing pain. Today we have been practicing with these skills and releasing the pain of the past, so that when you leave this class today you can live skillfully on this planet and help others live without fear. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chakras? hummm, I wonder where he got that idea? Do you think MMY has some 'secret teachings' stashed somewhere? Good grief, the next thing you're gonna hear is 'kundalini'...yikes! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: We're going to talk about parallel reality. When I've talked to you in the past about dimensions, we've said here's one dimension and here's another dimension, and they're living side by side with one another. But there's also a fabric of consciousness that bleeds back and forth from one dimension to the other. They're not just standing there like soldiers unrelated to each other. There's a gate or fabric of consciousness that's flowing into one, flowing back to the other, flowing here and there. On a practical level, the point at which something splits off, a choice point at which one dimension goes this way and one dimension goes that way, where we are in the world right now we're coming to a major choice point. with possibility going this way and one possibility going that way and one possibility going another way, you really get the feeling of how you can have a fountainhead and things can sprout out of that and each possible parallel reality has an interrelationship with the other ones and they're in a flow together. When you have choice points that are very close like this, there's such a small gap between these three people, essentially what's happening is that the dimensions are closing in on one another. They're collapsing. Whereas before perhaps our experience was that the dimensions were very discrete, so you had a big gap. Now the gap is closing and it's a very small gap. That's why there's a feeling that the depth of difference between these three possibilities actually isn't that big. A dimension is kind of like a membrane. That's why when we work with the chakras, they're such a good example of what a dimension feels like because you can feel these subtle membranes in the chakras moving back and forth. A dimension is like that. It has a certain edge to it, a circumference, and that circumference is very fine. You can move from one edge of that circumference to the next edge and a whole other possible reality opens up. Normally, we are protected from experiencing a parallel reality in any clear way because we're locked into a framework of our dimension. We can only experience what is right here. We don't have the capacity to see outside that bubble. We're kind of locked away in that bubble. There are a lot of good reasons for that. For one thing, it keeps you focused. It keeps you connected to what's going on so you don't bleed out into some other possibility. But as time and consciousness are moving in the way that they are right now, the possibility of perceiving parallel connectivity is much more pronounced, so you can have the capacity to move out into this other level of awareness and still maintain your own. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[FairfieldLife] Who's killed more: Al Gore or George Bush?
Al Gore's and the enviro-nazi lobby's promotion of their man-made catastrophic global warming fantasy has already started to kill humans in third world countries. Ethanol policies that have resulted as a direct result of eco-nonsense has pushed the price of basic foods out of reach of many poor people and has turned agricultural land that otherwise would be reserved for use for food into crops to fuel Al Gore's, Leonardo DiCaprio's, and Arianna Huffington's private jets. So: who has killed more, Al Gore through his genocidal global warming policies or George Bush through his Iraq War policies? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: Why are you posting these notes? Everything I've read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is not news or some radical understanding. What impact would any of this have on any ru meditating more than 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who is assuming the guru role in expressing these ideas? Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the spiritual decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems to be the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly not limited to FF!). It's great to have this stuff documented.
[FairfieldLife] Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History CNN Posted: 2008-05-02 10:31:19 Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News WASHINGTON (May 1) - A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. President George W. Bush Highest Disapproval Rating: 71 percent (CNN) | 69 percent (Gallup) Dates of polls: April 29-30, 2008 (CNN) | April 18-20, 2008 (Gallup) Well, he *did* want to make history...
[FairfieldLife] Re: McCrazy: wife a c*nt
off wrote: Unfortunately, McInsane is also a complete idiot. Yeah, compared to you, he's a complete idiot. Its a proud day for you drug addled clowns as you focus on the real issues, instead of the distractions. You probably figured this one out just from the post subject line. Congratulations. Very impressive! After Barack repudiated Pastor Wright, Obama's double-digit lead over Clinton in national polls vanished. At the same time, John McCain shot up in the polls. Read more: 'Washington Insider' By Ronald Kessler Newsmax, Monday, April 28, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/4x5fuq
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
I am not a student of Afrocentrism, nor am I expert in the mainstream history of the slave trade on this planet. That said, however, there are several red flags that go up for me in reading the piece Moral Stains: Slavery and Reality. 1. The two paragraphs preceding the last one blatantly ignore white complicity in Africa's plight. 2. It may seem like a small thing, but one does expect a scholar to know the difference between the words sighted and cited. This author uses sighted when he means cited. 3. The documentation is a bit shoddy throughout. 4. It is fact, not fiction, that the African point of view has been given short shrift in main stream historical studies. There are more issues one could raise, but these are sufficient to alert an alert reader that the point of view in this piece is far balanced. This is not to say, of course, that Afrocentrism is not without serious problems and flaws. --- Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 7:59 AM, off_world_beings wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one on this forum that is offended when the n-word is used? Are you offended because it stems from a French word for 'black' that your forefathers used. Your forefathers, who chose to fight, at all costs, to be able to keep their slaves, at a time when they were completely aware that Britain was having successful court cases outlawing slavery on British soil? That is not offense you have sir, that is guilt. Shemp is from Canada. From the post earlier this week on Obama's Afrocentric roots. MORAL STAINS: SLAVERY AND REALITY If there is one subject which vexes the Afrocentrists, it is slavery. Since it provides the fuel for their wrathful approach to history, they understandably have tunnel-vision on the subject. What they see at the other end of their tunnel is Western culture, which they blame for the institution of slavery and the subsequent degradation it brought to blacks. Afrocentrists never acknowledge the fact that slavery was a universal institution in ancient times since such acknowledgment would lessen the victim status of blacks in America. (The virtual slavery of serfs in places such as Russia and England is quietly ignored, even though the term slave came from the word Slavic.) Having adopted a position of selective amnesia, Afrocentrists conclude that a culture responsible for an institution as heinous as slavery is morally corrupt, and that all political systems which sprang from it are irredeemable. Blacks, they conclude, should turn elsewhere for political inspiration and moral nurturing. Often they turn to the third world and to Islam, as the former is free from contamination by Western ways and the latter is associated with Africa, and thus perceived as free from the moral stain of slavery. The fact that throwing away Western principles undermines the political platform they speak from doesnât seem to register with them. The methods of protest blacks have occasioned to use in seeking redress are not African principles â they are solidly Western in origin. But this matters not to the multiculturalists and the Afrocentrists, whose critical faculties seem to be in suspension regarding all subjects related to slavery. Arthur Schlesinger points out: âIt is a sad fact that both European and African political traditions approved slavery, as did almost all the traditions we know about. It was the European political culture, however, that first called for the abolition of slavery. Neither racism nor the subjection of women is an Occidental invention, but political antiracism and feminism are.â Though the West was not responsible for the origin of slavery, it was responsible for its decline. Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, agrees with Schlesinger that the West is not responsible for the creation of the institution of slavery; further, he believes that if Western culture is abolished the institution of chattel slavery would certainly return. It is a singular and indisputable fact that, before the development of European civilization, most ancient cultures operated largely on a slave-driven economy, including Greece, where Democratic ideals were born. But it was Western principles and the resulting consciousness they generated that led to the dissolution of slavery not only in Europe and in the New World, but in Asia and Africa. America poet Ralph Waldo Emerson noted that the dissolution of slavery in the New World was the first instance where a revolution was not the result of insurrection of the oppressed, but due to the repentance of the tyrants. The significance of this seems lost to the Afro-centric community. Since one of the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not a student of Afrocentrism, nor am I expert in the mainstream history of the slave trade on this planet. That said, however, there are several red flags that go up for me in reading the piece Moral Stains: Slavery and Reality. Don't encourage the feeble-minded idiot, Angela. He's just yanking your chain. He realized sometime yesterday that he was well over the posting limit (about 25 over, by my guess) and that as a result he won't be around for a few weeks (hopefully more than two weeks this time after his...what is it... fourth time going seriously over the limit?), and decided to spew as much controversial crap as he possibly could until Rick caught on. In other words, the guy who can't count to 50 threw another one of his periodic terrible two's tantrums. It's good to remember that Shemp was *the* primary cause of the posting limits in the first place. He consistently posted more than even Judy and sparaig, and cate- gorically *refused* to consider cutting back voluntarily. But now that some teeth have been put into the posting limit thang, we won't have to deal with any of his unhappy crap for some weeks. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: McCrazy: wife a c*nt
On May 2, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Bob, in the grand scheme of things, do you not think that this is really of no consequence? What would you expect from a drug addled clown like Bob? Vaj wrote: Hey, be nice. Someone probably slipped him some garlic. :-) From what I've read of your posts, you worship a fish-monger. :-) The fishmonger Minapa/Minanath/Matsyendranath/Luipa? http://keithdowman.net/books/mm.htm#LUIPA,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
Angela Mailander wrote: There are more issues one could raise... Not to mention that most anthropologists have abandoned the claim that there are any biologically distinct races with distinct linguistic, cultural and social groupings.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of boo_lives Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 6:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax? This may be all moot as I see no way the US ever gets close to a balanced budget again, so we'll keep adding on the $9 trillion in debt and someday soon, the credit karma will hit bigtime. And what will that look like? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1409 - Release Date: 5/1/2008 8:39 AM
[FairfieldLife] Bye-Bye Shemp
Shemp is up to 70 posts, so he’s out again, this time for 3 weeks. Thanks to Judy, Barry, and New Morning for carefully counting their posts and stopping at 50. Several others are getting close. I hope you’re keeping track. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1409 - Release Date: 5/1/2008 8:39 AM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
On May 2, 2008, at 9:52 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: He realized sometime yesterday that he was well over the posting limit (about 25 over, by my guess) and that as a result he won't be around for a few weeks (hopefully more than two weeks this time after his...what is it... fourth time going seriously over the limit?), and decided to spew as much controversial crap as he possibly could until Rick caught on. Not to mention he can hold a grudge longer than anybody I've seen in a while, at least online. There's obviously some serious stuff going on. For however long he's gone, hallelujah. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
On May 2, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Angela Mailander wrote: I am not a student of Afrocentrism, nor am I expert in the mainstream history of the slave trade on this planet. That said, however, there are several red flags that go up for me in reading the piece Moral Stains: Slavery and Reality. It's actually a small part of part 2 of a considerably longer article. 1. The two paragraphs preceding the last one blatantly ignore white complicity in Africa's plight. The white complicity is a given IMO as they're the ones who brought them over here! What he's addressing is the incorrect history so common in Afrocentrist writings. Such bad history is often used to support Black acceptance of Islam over white religion (and a number of other falsehoods). I believe that is what he's responding to. 2. It may seem like a small thing, but one does expect a scholar to know the difference between the words sighted and cited. This author uses sighted when he means cited. I don't know that this guy is a scholar. 3. The documentation is a bit shoddy throughout. The article actually has a long list of references, which you can see in the original. 4. It is fact, not fiction, that the African point of view has been given short shrift in main stream historical studies. His point however is quite different, what they're claiming is just bad history.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
True, he is addressing a point that should be made, namely that Afrocentrism is often guilty of shoddy scholarship, but if you're guilty of the same thing in making your point, you're obviously doing yourself a disservice. --- Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Angela Mailander wrote: I am not a student of Afrocentrism, nor am I expert in the mainstream history of the slave trade on this planet. That said, however, there are several red flags that go up for me in reading the piece Moral Stains: Slavery and Reality. It's actually a small part of part 2 of a considerably longer article. 1. The two paragraphs preceding the last one blatantly ignore white complicity in Africa's plight. The white complicity is a given IMO as they're the ones who brought them over here! What he's addressing is the incorrect history so common in Afrocentrist writings. Such bad history is often used to support Black acceptance of Islam over white religion (and a number of other falsehoods). I believe that is what he's responding to. 2. It may seem like a small thing, but one does expect a scholar to know the difference between the words sighted and cited. This author uses sighted when he means cited. I don't know that this guy is a scholar. 3. The documentation is a bit shoddy throughout. The article actually has a long list of references, which you can see in the original. 4. It is fact, not fiction, that the African point of view has been given short shrift in main stream historical studies. His point however is quite different, what they're claiming is just bad history. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
Afrocentrism is no more or less ignorant than any of the beliefs of every religion on Earthincluding the secular religions of democracy, I'm a good guy, and What me worry. Talk about the blind leading the blind is, well, spurious, when in fact every group of humans will use delusions for the social glue. Because of denial being the very fabric of all ideologies, I'm inclined to largely forgive Afrocentrism's motivations and take a step back before I chide its conclusions which are simply as skewed as, say, Fox News. Listen to CNN's priests intone the mantras of the establishment -- see the great gods of finance talk about the miracle of wealth trikling down -- one need go no further to espy delusion, dogma and the derth of truth. Why single out Afrocentrism? I suspect a hidden agenda of the critics who do so. Racism? Youbetcha. When the world is suffering as much as it is, this issue is, like most that are attended to by BigMedia, a purposefully chosen diversion from the actual ills of humanity -- don't want the masses to be thinking about those -- nosireebob! Nope, the nightly news is for trotting out anything that'll glom up the viewers with angst and confusions and let the leaders handle this-cuz-it's-way-too-hard-for-me-to-solve-ism. Watching the nightly news is a simple mental technique, right? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Angela Mailander wrote: I am not a student of Afrocentrism, nor am I expert in the mainstream history of the slave trade on this planet. That said, however, there are several red flags that go up for me in reading the piece Moral Stains: Slavery and Reality. It's actually a small part of part 2 of a considerably longer article. 1. The two paragraphs preceding the last one blatantly ignore white complicity in Africa's plight. The white complicity is a given IMO as they're the ones who brought them over here! What he's addressing is the incorrect history so common in Afrocentrist writings. Such bad history is often used to support Black acceptance of Islam over white religion (and a number of other falsehoods). I believe that is what he's responding to. 2. It may seem like a small thing, but one does expect a scholar to know the difference between the words sighted and cited. This author uses sighted when he means cited. I don't know that this guy is a scholar. 3. The documentation is a bit shoddy throughout. The article actually has a long list of references, which you can see in the original. 4. It is fact, not fiction, that the African point of view has been given short shrift in main stream historical studies. His point however is quite different, what they're claiming is just bad history.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of boo_lives Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 6:16 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax? This may be all moot as I see no way the US ever gets close to a balanced budget again, so we'll keep adding on the $9 trillion in debt and someday soon, the credit karma will hit bigtime. And what will that look like? U.S. will probably have to raise interest rates significantly to attract foreign money to buy its debt which will slow down economy, plus dollar will continue to fall despite higher interest rates, keeping prices of oil and food up. No telling when asians and middle easterners will start balking at buying our debt though - they have so many dollars to get rid of they keep plouging them back into the US.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
George Washington is called the father of our country in history books whereas George W. Bush will be known as the murderer of our country. Sal Sunshine wrote: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History CNN Posted: 2008-05-02 10:31:19 Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News WASHINGTON (May 1) - A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. President George W. Bush Highest Disapproval Rating: 71 percent (CNN) | 69 percent (Gallup) Dates of polls: April 29-30, 2008 (CNN) | April 18-20, 2008 (Gallup) Well, he *did* want to make history...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax?
Richard J. Williams wrote: Barry2 wrote: Yes, we should tax the very rich out of existence. Give me one good reason why I should pay your income taxes, subsidize your rent, pay for your food, or provide for your medical care while you waste your money (what little you have) on toys made in China or Japan and lay around on your couch watching TV. What has that to do with my statement? Or is this just some random synapses (the few you apparently have left) firing off in your brain (if you actually still have one of those). :D :D :D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Vaj wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: Why are you posting these notes? Everything I've read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is not news or some radical understanding. What impact would any of this have on any ru meditating more than 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who is assuming the guru role in expressing these ideas? Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the spiritual decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems to be the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly not limited to FF!). It's great to have this stuff documented. And it says that Fairfielders are still seekers. IOW, they haven't found yet, not even with TM. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: Why are you posting these notes? Everything I've read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is not news or some radical understanding. What impact would any of this have on any ru meditating more than 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who is assuming the guru role in expressing these ideas? Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the spiritual decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems to be the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly not limited to FF!). It's great to have this stuff documented. I wouldn't even give it neoadvaita status. I don't want my skepticism to wander into cynicism, but these notes are just silly. If someone is having some experience, great, fine, more power to them. But nothing I've read in these notes has any relevance to Realization. All mind stuff. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax?
The other issue to consider with the pure numbers game on taxes is what percentage of income goes for basic living expenses? Although someone at the poverty line pays no taxes, the amount they make doesn't cover basic expenses. Even the middle class spends most of its income on basic living expenses. So those that argue that the rich pay more income tax are in a sense lying with numbers-- someone with an income of $10M per year, will have plenty left over after food, shelter, transportation, and discretionary spending. And the reality that the rich get richer is the foundation of capitalism. So there doesn't appear to be a quick fix for this. How would that work anyway? Even here in the US, if the rich were taxed more, they would just hire more lawyers to find more loopholes, or fund more lobbyists to pass more loophole laden legislation. It is baked into the system that people here can make as much as they want. No check on the income growth. Is this a bad thing? Since I can't suggest a workable alternative here in the US, I can't say that it is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: If elected, both Hillary and Barack say they'll put up the income tax rates for the rich. Yet, according to the statistics at the following site http://tinyurl.com/3cquum http://tinyurl.com/3cquum the rich are, by ANY objective standard of measurement, already paying far more than their share. Take a look at Table 1 (which, hopefully, I am successful in reproducing here, below) and look under the column Group's share of income tax. The top 1% of taxpayers pay almost 40% of ALL income taxes collected! The top 10% pay over 70% and the bottom 50% about 3%. People not familiar with working with numbers and percentages will be impressed by the above, but obviously a percentage of an extremely high number will be much higher than a percentage of a low number. The key is the percentage. The chart shows the top 1% paying a tax rate of 23% compared to an average tax rate of 12.5%. Actually that's not fair either, as the chart does not take into the highly regressive payroll tax and 4 out of 5 taxpayers now pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. So the difference is tax rates paid by the richest 1% (whom obama and clinton intend to raise) is somewhere around 5% higher than average. That isn't much difference. Plus keep in mind that wealth disparity has been increasing rapidly in the US since the middle 1970s, and now the top 1% own about 40% of all wealth in the country, so their share of taxes seems about right. Wealth disparity is a social issue as well. CEOs used to make about 40 times more than the average worker in the 70s but it's close to 400 times more. Wealth disparity is highest in the US compared to all other industrialized countries. Finally there's the issue of the gov't actually paying for what it spends. The federal debt is over $9 trillion and clearly going higher. The 3 republican presidents of Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 have increased the federal debt by about $6.5 trillion dollars. I'm fine with giving republicans their tax cuts as long as they don't just shift the burden of ultimately paying for them to our children. Of course I remember my discussion with a fairly high reagan appointee in the 80s - I told him my concerns about lowering taxes while increasing spending and the problem of ultimately bankrupting the country. He smiled and replied - bankrupting the govt is not a problem, it's our goal!
[FairfieldLife] Re: McCrazy: wife a c*nt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: It's not an internet rumor. It's from a book called The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't by Cliff Schecter. Here's the passage from the book: Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, You're getting a little thin up there. McCain's face reddened, and he responded, At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c---. McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days. http://tinyurl.com/48r4ar I'm not a big fan of McCain's but I gotta tell ya that if that's the worst they can come up with to show the guy's downside Unfortunately, McInsane is also a complete idiot. OffWorld In my opinion, if we think Bush's view of permanent war is disturbing, it is nothing when seen against what McCain has in mind- we are currently looking at nothing but a skirmish or two in comparison.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Deniers
Vaj says: I like some of what Christy says: You won't like this! More Carbon Dioxide, Please http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWJlODMxYmUzYWNmZGZiM2NhNmExYTYyNDUzYmViZjQ= If that doesn't make you choke on your toast, I'm a Dutchman...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- It's not a matter of Ahhhaa! fluffy, cute mental insights. Those are the results. It's a matter of working your butt off. (I'm an anti-Neo-Advaitin). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vaj wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: Why are you posting these notes? Everything I've read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is not news or some radical understanding. What impact would any of this have on any ru meditating more than 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who is assuming the guru role in expressing these ideas? Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the spiritual decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems to be the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly not limited to FF!). It's great to have this stuff documented. And it says that Fairfielders are still seekers. IOW, they haven't found yet, not even with TM. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
My guess is that Bush will be an accessory before the fact; the next prez, whoever he is, will deliver the coup de grace--unless we go to war with Iran before the next election or the bush declares martial law or both. --- Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Washington is called the father of our country in history books whereas George W. Bush will be known as the murderer of our country. Sal Sunshine wrote: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History CNN Posted: 2008-05-02 10:31:19 Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News WASHINGTON (May 1) - A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. President George W. Bush Highest Disapproval Rating: 71 percent (CNN) | 69 percent (Gallup) Dates of polls: April 29-30, 2008 (CNN) | April 18-20, 2008 (Gallup) Well, he *did* want to make history... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
On May 2, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Bhairitu wrote: George Washington is called the father of our country in history books whereas George W. Bush will be known as the murderer of our country. No doubt. But I think an even more fitting epitaph for this whole disaster would be to write him out of the history books entirely. Just Poof! And he's gone. The next president could help that by reversing every disastrous decision they've made, (which has been pretty much all of them) but I'm not holding out for that. Sal
[FairfieldLife] How they turned John McCain into a BushCo zombie
Animation: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=89822
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
I doubt he will be seen as that notorious-- probably will be thought of more as a minor embarrassment in a decade or so, and a real pain in the butt for us that lived through it...after all, except for the neocons for whom he is a defacto saint, who even cares about ronald what day is it? reagan anymore? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Washington is called the father of our country in history books whereas George W. Bush will be known as the murderer of our country. Sal Sunshine wrote: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History CNN Posted: 2008-05-02 10:31:19 Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News WASHINGTON (May 1) - A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. President George W. Bush Highest Disapproval Rating: 71 percent (CNN) | 69 percent (Gallup) Dates of polls: April 29-30, 2008 (CNN) | April 18-20, 2008 (Gallup) Well, he *did* want to make history...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that language is being used can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely egoic presence -- are seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed retching that the expression of that POV signals a major dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be slightly off message/dogma? And who cares? If the technique is not used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily worthless. Hey, there's a meeting in the community room of First National Bank of Fairfield -- a leading expert in global finance will tell it like it is. Anyone believe that? Anyone think any expert at any discipline cannot be gainsaid by peers for illogical nuancing? No one knows Jack -- even Jack doesn't know Jack. Even Tolle's words can be found to be less than perfectly consistently used, but he's probably the clearest proponent of Advaita today -- I wouldn't label him neo-Advaitan because he's very close to perfect, and he doesn't deserve much criticism for his message. I doubt that Tolle is enlightened, but I think he can sling the lingo goodly. The long time TMers who quit the practice have a lot more clout when it comes to having an anti-TM POV than, say, well, anyone who has not put decades into closing the eyes. Walk a mile in a man's shoes before you tell him he's wrong. Why? Because then, when you tell him, you're a mile away and have his shoes! A nice head start! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- It's not a matter of Ahhhaa! fluffy, cute mental insights. Those are the results. It's a matter of working your butt off. (I'm an anti-Neo-Advaitin). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Vaj wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: Why are you posting these notes? Everything I've read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is not news or some radical understanding. What impact would any of this have on any ru meditating more than 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who is assuming the guru role in expressing these ideas? Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the spiritual decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems to be the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly not limited to FF!). It's great to have this stuff documented. And it says that Fairfielders are still seekers. IOW, they haven't found yet, not even with TM. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..the rich are, by ANY objective standard of measurement, already paying far more than their share. i don't have the answers, but some questions and some random thoughts: where does all the wealth come from, anyway? say, a billionaire has his marketing geniuses come up with some useless product which his advertising people convince 1 million poor people( who don't know any better ) to buy the product and the billionaire makes $1 profit on each item? The billionaire just made one more million from the poor people without any redeeming benefit for mankind. Competition, better products? All nonsense? or what about the federal reserve just printing money and giving it to the wealthy bankers who mismanaged the money and misled many people( again, who don't know any better ) just believing in the illusory American Dream. All the prices go up and ordinary retired people on fixed incomes, are now in a fix. Why can't you or I just print some $ up when we mismanage our finances? Another point. From history, it doesn't seem to work, making/forcing the rich to give more of their money away; or taking all of their money away as in a revolution. But, the only solution that would work, it seems, in my mind is that, if VOLUNTARILY the rich( including the Vatican ), say, would use 90% of their wealth for the benefit of mankind and use 10% or less for themselves. But, unfortunately it's the other way around. The wealthy philanthropists may use 10%( or less ) for charities etc and usually with tax break motives and supporting questionable self-interests; but make sure they hoard 90% for themselves which still doesn't bring them any REAL HAPPINESS. That's why they need more and more at everyone's expense. It's obvious why the latter doesn't work. Karmically, making millions of others poor and miserable cannot make you happy. So, like the movie zeigheist points out in an extreme way, it's all illusion based on fear, selfishness and violence and only TRUE LOVE in the NOW can set us free. So, taking everything into consideration, including MMY's Dream going down the drain, maybe it's time for the human race to be recycled as was pointed out as a real possibility by Amma, Tolle and others. Unless, the Self decides to Awaken in many millions of ordinary people just for the heck of it. thanks for listening and Amma Bless, anatol
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .. Walk a mile in a man's shoes before you tell him he's wrong. Why? Because then, when you tell him, you're a mile away and have his shoes! A nice head start! Edg very profound made me chuckle thanks Edg, anatol
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
I'm not a Dubya fan but, he can say, It all depends on how you look at it. That, at least, he was not impeached by Congress, and is not likely to be so. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History CNN Posted: 2008-05-02 10:31:19 Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News WASHINGTON (May 1) - A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. President George W. Bush Highest Disapproval Rating: 71 percent (CNN) | 69 percent (Gallup) Dates of polls: April 29-30, 2008 (CNN) | April 18-20, 2008 (Gallup) Well, he *did* want to make history...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
---Thx...without even resorting to looking at the theology; very first step is to look for (in the statements of Neo-Advaitins).: 1. half-truths 2. outright false statements 3. unworkable courses of action or proposals. 4. subtexts containing self-contradictory statements. 5. and on the whole, worldviews that only remotely match the reality of our world. I know that Eckart Tolle is one of your favorites, so I will get back to you with precise examples of the above, from his latest book. Don't have it here right now. Tolle is definitely a very inspirational person, but his Neo-Advaitin platform is replete with almost countless misadventures into half- truths. But obviously, your mind would say there are no persons, no POV's etc; therefore everything Tolle says must be right. (typical Neo-Advaitin nonsense). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that language is being used can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely egoic presence -- are seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed retching that the expression of that POV signals a major dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be slightly off message/dogma? And who cares? If the technique is not used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily worthless. Hey, there's a meeting in the community room of First National Bank of Fairfield -- a leading expert in global finance will tell it like it is. Anyone believe that? Anyone think any expert at any discipline cannot be gainsaid by peers for illogical nuancing? No one knows Jack -- even Jack doesn't know Jack. Even Tolle's words can be found to be less than perfectly consistently used, but he's probably the clearest proponent of Advaita today -- I wouldn't label him neo-Advaitan because he's very close to perfect, and he doesn't deserve much criticism for his message. I doubt that Tolle is enlightened, but I think he can sling the lingo goodly. The long time TMers who quit the practice have a lot more clout when it comes to having an anti-TM POV than, say, well, anyone who has not put decades into closing the eyes. Walk a mile in a man's shoes before you tell him he's wrong. Why? Because then, when you tell him, you're a mile away and have his shoes! A nice head start! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: --- It's not a matter of Ahhhaa! fluffy, cute mental insights. Those are the results. It's a matter of working your butt off. (I'm an anti-Neo-Advaitin). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Vaj wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: Why are you posting these notes? Everything I've read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is not news or some radical understanding. What impact would any of this have on any ru meditating more than 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who is assuming the guru role in expressing these ideas? Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the spiritual decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems to be the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly not limited to FF!). It's great to have this stuff documented. And it says that Fairfielders are still seekers. IOW, they haven't found yet, not even with TM. :)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
Then, too, we should remember that it took since the fifties or earlier to get us to the point where we would not impeach a bush. As for it all depending on how you look at it, take a look at the movie, Hero. The wise emperor whom it depicts was one of the most ruthlessly cruel bastards the planet has ever known, but, in retrospect, he did unite all of China into one more or less peaceful nation, ending an era of eternally warring small kingdoms. That movie, incidentally, was one I saw in China and then saw again here. The endings were different. It would be more than interesting to compare them and speculate as to the reasons for those differences; unfortunately, I don't remember enough of the details to make that comparison. If depopulation is what it takes to get us to survive and if a one-world government, in the long run, is the best thing that could happen, we'll look back and thank Bush for doing what it took to get it done. Those are big if's, but this moment is not one we have seen in recorded history, though there are rumors in the Vedas that we have bombed ourselves back to the woods many times before this. Even in that case, we do not have a past to learn from at this juncture, so how we should interpret the present moment is necessarily fraught with all kinds of problems. Extinction of our species is not unthinkable. --- John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not a Dubya fan but, he can say, It all depends on how you look at it. That, at least, he was not impeached by Congress, and is not likely to be so. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History CNN Posted: 2008-05-02 10:31:19 Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News WASHINGTON (May 1) - A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. President George W. Bush Highest Disapproval Rating: 71 percent (CNN) | 69 percent (Gallup) Dates of polls: April 29-30, 2008 (CNN) | April 18-20, 2008 (Gallup) Well, he *did* want to make history... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
He doesn't inspire me; in fact, I can't bear to watch that mealy-mouthed weasel. --- matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Thx...without even resorting to looking at the theology; very first step is to look for (in the statements of Neo-Advaitins).: 1. half-truths 2. outright false statements 3. unworkable courses of action or proposals. 4. subtexts containing self-contradictory statements. 5. and on the whole, worldviews that only remotely match the reality of our world. I know that Eckart Tolle is one of your favorites, so I will get back to you with precise examples of the above, from his latest book. Don't have it here right now. Tolle is definitely a very inspirational person, but his Neo-Advaitin platform is replete with almost countless misadventures into half- truths. But obviously, your mind would say there are no persons, no POV's etc; therefore everything Tolle says must be right. (typical Neo-Advaitin nonsense). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that language is being used can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely egoic presence -- are seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed retching that the expression of that POV signals a major dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be slightly off message/dogma? And who cares? If the technique is not used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily worthless. Hey, there's a meeting in the community room of First National Bank of Fairfield -- a leading expert in global finance will tell it like it is. Anyone believe that? Anyone think any expert at any discipline cannot be gainsaid by peers for illogical nuancing? No one knows Jack -- even Jack doesn't know Jack. Even Tolle's words can be found to be less than perfectly consistently used, but he's probably the clearest proponent of Advaita today -- I wouldn't label him neo-Advaitan because he's very close to perfect, and he doesn't deserve much criticism for his message. I doubt that Tolle is enlightened, but I think he can sling the lingo goodly. The long time TMers who quit the practice have a lot more clout when it comes to having an anti-TM POV than, say, well, anyone who has not put decades into closing the eyes. Walk a mile in a man's shoes before you tell him he's wrong. Why? Because then, when you tell him, you're a mile away and have his shoes! A nice head start! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: --- It's not a matter of Ahhhaa! fluffy, cute mental insights. Those are the results. It's a matter of working your butt off. (I'm an anti-Neo-Advaitin). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Vaj wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: Why are you posting these notes? Everything I've read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is not news or some radical understanding. What impact would any of this have on any ru meditating more than 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who is assuming the guru role in expressing these ideas? Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the spiritual decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems to be the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly not limited to FF!). It's great to have this stuff documented. And it says that Fairfielders are still seekers. IOW, they haven't found yet, not even with TM. :) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Angela Mailander wrote: He doesn't inspire me; in fact, I can't bear to watch that mealy-mouthed weasel. So Edg thinks Wayne Liguorman seems 'smarmy' and you think Tolle seems 'mealy-mouthed'. Matrix thinks that Adwaita is a theology. Peter thinks its newbie boiler-plate. And Barry, who claims to have studied dualism for 35 years and to have read over 200 books about dualism doesn't even seem to have a clue about monism: he seems to be saying that there are 'separate' realities, not One. Very impressive. Bring on the drug addled clowns! Titles of interest: 'The Power of Now' A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment by Eckhart Tolle New World Library, 2004 'Consciousness Speaks' Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar by Ramesh S. Balsekar and Wayne Liquorman Advaita Press, 1992 'The Book of One' The Spiritual Path of Advaita by Dennis Waite O Books, 2004 'Dispelling Illusion' Gaudapada's Alatasanti Douglas A. Fox State University of New York Press, 1993
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
Angela, You're going a bit on a limb here, perhaps with a dramatic effect (a la Charleton Heston in the movie, Planet of the Apes). If I could brain storm about the role of the USA in the world, here's one scenario. Given the jyotish chart of the USA, the American declaration of independence is best suited for a world government. It is not good enough to copy it and create a new world government order. It must be signed and ratified at the time and place that the declaration was made. So, guess what? It is possible that the USA could end up to be the united states of Earth. How's that for an action or thriller movie? JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then, too, we should remember that it took since the fifties or earlier to get us to the point where we would not impeach a bush. As for it all depending on how you look at it, take a look at the movie, Hero. The wise emperor whom it depicts was one of the most ruthlessly cruel bastards the planet has ever known, but, in retrospect, he did unite all of China into one more or less peaceful nation, ending an era of eternally warring small kingdoms. That movie, incidentally, was one I saw in China and then saw again here. The endings were different. It would be more than interesting to compare them and speculate as to the reasons for those differences; unfortunately, I don't remember enough of the details to make that comparison. If depopulation is what it takes to get us to survive and if a one-world government, in the long run, is the best thing that could happen, we'll look back and thank Bush for doing what it took to get it done. Those are big if's, but this moment is not one we have seen in recorded history, though there are rumors in the Vedas that we have bombed ourselves back to the woods many times before this. Even in that case, we do not have a past to learn from at this juncture, so how we should interpret the present moment is necessarily fraught with all kinds of problems. Extinction of our species is not unthinkable. --- John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not a Dubya fan but, he can say, It all depends on how you look at it. That, at least, he was not impeached by Congress, and is not likely to be so. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History CNN Posted: 2008-05-02 10:31:19 Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News WASHINGTON (May 1) - A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. President George W. Bush Highest Disapproval Rating: 71 percent (CNN) | 69 percent (Gallup) Dates of polls: April 29-30, 2008 (CNN) | April 18-20, 2008 (Gallup) Well, he *did* want to make history... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] A more global perspective
Here's something to put the relative importance of the Clinton/Obama issues into a more global perspective. WHAT POWER LOOKS LIKE By David Rothkopf Newsweek April 5, 2008 http://www.newsweek.com/id/130637 They ride on Gulfstreams, set the global agenda, and manage the credit crunch in their spare time. They have more in common with each other than their countrymen. Meet the Superclass. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
Yes, John, anything is possible. And I do love movies of that genre. --- John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela, You're going a bit on a limb here, perhaps with a dramatic effect (a la Charleton Heston in the movie, Planet of the Apes). If I could brain storm about the role of the USA in the world, here's one scenario. Given the jyotish chart of the USA, the American declaration of independence is best suited for a world government. It is not good enough to copy it and create a new world government order. It must be signed and ratified at the time and place that the declaration was made. So, guess what? It is possible that the USA could end up to be the united states of Earth. How's that for an action or thriller movie? JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then, too, we should remember that it took since the fifties or earlier to get us to the point where we would not impeach a bush. As for it all depending on how you look at it, take a look at the movie, Hero. The wise emperor whom it depicts was one of the most ruthlessly cruel bastards the planet has ever known, but, in retrospect, he did unite all of China into one more or less peaceful nation, ending an era of eternally warring small kingdoms. That movie, incidentally, was one I saw in China and then saw again here. The endings were different. It would be more than interesting to compare them and speculate as to the reasons for those differences; unfortunately, I don't remember enough of the details to make that comparison. If depopulation is what it takes to get us to survive and if a one-world government, in the long run, is the best thing that could happen, we'll look back and thank Bush for doing what it took to get it done. Those are big if's, but this moment is not one we have seen in recorded history, though there are rumors in the Vedas that we have bombed ourselves back to the woods many times before this. Even in that case, we do not have a past to learn from at this juncture, so how we should interpret the present moment is necessarily fraught with all kinds of problems. Extinction of our species is not unthinkable. --- John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not a Dubya fan but, he can say, It all depends on how you look at it. That, at least, he was not impeached by Congress, and is not likely to be so. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History CNN Posted: 2008-05-02 10:31:19 Filed Under: Nation News, Politics News WASHINGTON (May 1) - A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history. President George W. Bush Highest Disapproval Rating: 71 percent (CNN) | 69 percent (Gallup) Dates of polls: April 29-30, 2008 (CNN) | April 18-20, 2008 (Gallup) Well, he *did* want to make history... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
For once we agree on something, willitex. The only complex thing about philosophical monism is karma. --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duveyoung wrote: The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. There's not much to grok - Adwaita is dirt simple: There is One only. It doesn't take a genius to understand that. It takes far more metaphysical mental gymnastics to understand dualism or qualified dualism. There are three issues that must be understood in order to understand Adwaita: The realization that there are *not two*, the realization that things and events are an *illusion*, and the *dispelling of illusion* by process of experiential pure conciousness. In a nutshell: There is One only. There is no creation; no destruction; no coming to be, and no ceasing to be. Things do not change, neither do they move about or stay the same. Things and events are an illusion, not real, yet not unreal. The Transcendental Conciousness is the only Reality. Liberation is the way to avoid the results of actions and to be free. Simple. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
On May 2, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Duveyoung wrote: Afrocentrism is no more or less ignorant than any of the beliefs of every religion on Earthincluding the secular religions of democracy, I'm a good guy, and What me worry. Well, it's not a religion, but it does sometimes impact it. For example, there are a lot of Egyptian cults in the black community (some which are actually quite interesting). I've met a lot of interesting people through them. Talk about the blind leading the blind is, well, spurious, when in fact every group of humans will use delusions for the social glue. Well, we shouldn't be bringing them into science, history, academia and our schools. It took centuries since the Enlightenment for science to build up the knowledge we have today. Can you imagine the disconnect some hard-working African-American student would have to endure if, for example, they raised their hand in a college biochemistry class and mentioned that melanin actually biochemically gave some people psychic abilities or faster reaction times? Or if they went to Egypt and in talking to Egyptians expressed their belief that Black African-Americans were their descendants? I have seen the latter, and it was not a pretty scene. But OTOH, I've sat in ritual spaces with Black Egyptian priestesses who did know what they doing and they were themselves awakening because of it. That is quite beautiful to see. Because of denial being the very fabric of all ideologies, I'm inclined to largely forgive Afrocentrism's motivations and take a step back before I chide its conclusions which are simply as skewed as, say, Fox News. Well I suggest you pickup Lefkowitz's book if it ever grabs your fancy. If having read that and you still want to see these myths being taught as facts to your kids at the HS or college level, then get back to me.
[FairfieldLife] Yoga Celebration
From: Dana Brekke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:30:45 -0500 Dear Yoga Teachers, Students and Friends, On the Spring Equinox this year an idea that has been percolating in my mind for several years finally bubbled up with so much joyful energy that I need to share it with my Fairfield family. I call it Free Spirit Yoga. I haven't taught yoga since living in San Diego 5 years ago, but have been practicing on my own, putting together all the aspects of mind/body/spirit healing and expression that given me relief, healing and joy. I hope to share a new form of yoga that will light the fire of love in the hearts, minds and bodies of those who practice it, opening the door to full bodied prayer, a devotional hatha yoga practice, that invokes divine assistance for healing ourselves and our planet. This is putting the truth that is revealed in The Secret into active practice. It is the power of prayer that comes from the heart. I believe that in healing ourselves, we will heal our planet. Free Spirit Yoga will give us a place to envision a beautiful life for ourselves and all sentient beings. It will provide an opportunity for our spirits to soar, our bodies to heal, and our hearts to celebrate life. My hope is that enough of you will be interested that we can have an interdisciplinary yoga celebration on the Solstice, June 20th. This is my hearts desire. I am happy to teach for free and trust that we can create something beautiful together. Ultimately I hope to capture the Fairfield magic in a yoga DVD that will inspire people everywhere. Our first meeting will be Monday, May 12th at 7:30pm at my house, 201 Highland. Please RSVP at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] or phone 641-469-5233 Nervous, excited, and happy, Dana Brekke PS Please forward this to anyone you think would be interested. The only requirement is the ability to do sun salutations. Christine Pappas has volunteered to teach us all how to do sun salutations safely with awareness. She does a fantastic job at this!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Angela Mailander wrote: The only complex thing about philosophical monism is karma. The Buddhist teaching on karma is entailed in the Buddha's sermon on the Second Watch of the Night when the Buddha described his attainment of enlightenment. In the First Watch of the Night Buddha had attained knowledge of rebirth, but in the second he attained a different kind of knowledge, the knowledge of karma. According to the Buddhist scriptures translated by H.W. Schumann in 'The Historical Buddha', The Enlightened One is supposed to have said to his disciples: With the heavenly eye, purified and beyond the range of human vision, I saw how beings vanish and come to be again. I saw high and low, brilliant and insignificant, and how each obtained according to his karma, a favorable or painful rebirth (55). According to Sogyal Rinpoche, author of 'The Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying', the word karma literally means action. It is the driving force behind rebirth. Karma means action, both the power latent within actions, and the results our actions bring (97). By beyond the range of human vision the Buddha meant that there is a 'Transcendental' state of consciousness that is beyond our ordinary range of perception. Works cited: 'The Historical Buddha' By H.W. Shumann Arkana, 1989 'The Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying' Chapter Six - Evolution, Karma, and Rebirth By Sogyal Rinpoche HarperCollins Books, 2002 Other interesting comments: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Willytex Date: Tues, Jan 10 2006 4:05 pm Subject: Jamgon Kongtrul's The Torch of Certainty http://tinyurl.com/5vqcnf
[FairfieldLife] Yoga Celebration
From: Dana Brekke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:30:45 -0500 Dear Yoga Teachers, Students and Friends, On the Spring Equinox this year an idea that has been percolating in my mind for several years finally bubbled up with so much joyful energy that I need to share it with my Fairfield family. I call it Free Spirit Yoga. I haven't taught yoga since living in San Diego 5 years ago, but have been practicing on my own, putting together all the aspects of mind/body/spirit healing and expression that given me relief, healing and joy. I hope to share a new form of yoga that will light the fire of love in the hearts, minds and bodies of those who practice it, opening the door to full bodied prayer, a devotional hatha yoga practice, that invokes divine assistance for healing ourselves and our planet. This is putting the truth that is revealed in The Secret into active practice. It is the power of prayer that comes from the heart. I believe that in healing ourselves, we will heal our planet. Free Spirit Yoga will give us a place to envision a beautiful life for ourselves and all sentient beings. It will provide an opportunity for our spirits to soar, our bodies to heal, and our hearts to celebrate life. My hope is that enough of you will be interested that we can have an interdisciplinary yoga celebration on the Solstice, June 20th. This is my hearts desire. I am happy to teach for free and trust that we can create something beautiful together. Ultimately I hope to capture the Fairfield magic in a yoga DVD that will inspire people everywhere. Our first meeting will be Monday, May 12th at 7:30pm at my house, 201 Highland. Please RSVP at HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] or phone 641-469-5233 Nervous, excited, and happy, Dana Brekke PS Please forward this to anyone you think would be interested. The only requirement is the ability to do sun salutations. Christine Pappas has volunteered to teach us all how to do sun salutations safely with awareness. She does a fantastic job at this! No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1409 - Release Date: 5/1/2008 8:39 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Angela, Sorry, but I must dissent. And, since words are my tools, I'll be wrong, but dissent I must. There is no one -- also no non-one, and no no's. That's three negations in a row, but it would take an infinite amount of them to even begin to cover what THAT isn't, and then all you'd be left with is a bunch of wrong concepts that can be comfortably dismissed, and you'd still be bereft of any positive statement to make. Language fails us completely, and even a heartfelt dogma of neti neti neti is merely a technique for gaining intellectual clarity in the relative and not going beyond intellect -- and from this lesson we must surmise that the mind too will fail to encompass -- with the intellect -- THAT. For this reason, no one -- including too: no one -- is at fault when erroneously speaking of Advaita -- everyone is necessarily wrong -- a great loop hole for neo-Ads, eh? To me the above words schmords is seldom consistently presented by neo-Ads, (nor would it increase the amounts in their collection plates to make such clear to the followers, eh?) The War Monger, below, shows clearly that he doesn't get it when he says, The Transcendental Conciousness is the only Reality -- as if he knew what even those words meantor knew how to spell consciousness for that matter. The Absolute is not conscious or non-conscious. Consciousness is conscious, but note that it hasn't been conscious eternally, for that happy-pairing is not primal -- as we have been instructed in the SBAL wherein it advises us that at some point, consciousness becomes conscious. What became conscious? We merely label it with the word consciousness or the phrase universal consciousness, and that immediately asserts a reality to it that the Absolute is VASTLY BEYOND. After all, remember that Brahma could hardly be bothered to manifest creation -- that was a tell, eh? Must be something beyond creation that cannot be created, eh? Something that Brahma thought was enough. Something that can't be some thing, eh? It turns out that someness itself must be taken off the mind like shoes before entering a Japanese house. When Ramana speaks of silence, he's not talking about noise, he's talking about no-mind, or consciousness before it bothered to be conscious; silence is that which would be presented in George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form as prior to null set. Nisargadatta always harped again and again about what were you prior to consciousness? Try answering that! And guess what, THAT'S THE TECHNIQUE! For any attempt to look at the self directly, immediately, now ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS finds: NOTHING. That is: no ego, no identity -- and wowwyzowwy, THAT'S THE SELF that passeth all understanding. Consciousness comes and goes with the life of the meat robot. When Ramana died, all his history and wisdom and memories STOPPED RIGHT THERE. He spoke about reincarnation, but if one does a more careful reading of his words one will understand that he knew that the astral and causal planes were as temporary as any corporeal life, and a deeper reading still will reveal that he thought that these realms too were mere addictions that would be best dropped along with the identification with meat. Enlightenment is a divorce. PERIOD. No more hanky panky between the Absolute and Amness. PERIODotherwise, a cheat's afoot! If you're in love with amness, forget ever becoming the Absolute. Residing in amness is like being in the Absolute, but Brahma didn't want it no matter how cool it was as an ersatz placebo, and in fact His first action was to eschew it and try to find out from whence it came. Prior to consciousness. After saying that aloud, add Emeril Lagasse's BAM! at the end of the phrase. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For once we agree on something, willitex. The only complex thing about philosophical monism is karma. --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duveyoung wrote: The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. There's not much to grok - Adwaita is dirt simple: There is One only. It doesn't take a genius to understand that. It takes far more metaphysical mental gymnastics to understand dualism or qualified dualism. There are three issues that must be understood in order to understand Adwaita: The realization that there are *not two*, the realization that things and events are an *illusion*, and the *dispelling of illusion* by process of experiential pure conciousness. In a nutshell: There is One only. There is no creation; no destruction; no coming to be, and no ceasing to be. Things do not change, neither do they move about or stay the same. Things and events are an illusion, not real, yet not unreal. The Transcendental Conciousness is the only Reality.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
On May 2, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Duveyoung wrote: The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that language is being used can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. LOL. Oh really? When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely egoic presence -- are seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed retching that the expression of that POV signals a major dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. I could easily say the same of advaitins and neoadvaitins -- if the constant bickering and infighting on any of their popular Yahoo! lists are any example. Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be slightly off message/dogma? And who cares? If the technique is not used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily worthless. Well if you want 200% you'd have to master BOTH the relative AND the absolute, no? The advaitins I admire master dualistic meditational approaches and the different levels of nondual contemplation AND have a sound grounding in the relative expression of That. Thanks for sharing with us one of the most typical mistakes of modern advaitin talkers and satsangeroos.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
On May 2, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: He doesn't inspire me; in fact, I can't bear to watch that mealy-mouthed weasel. That makes three of us. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Okay Vaj, Tomorrow I'll be blasting back -- with you, it'll only be funzies. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Duveyoung wrote: The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that language is being used can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. LOL. Oh really? When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely egoic presence -- are seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed retching that the expression of that POV signals a major dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. I could easily say the same of advaitins and neoadvaitins -- if the constant bickering and infighting on any of their popular Yahoo! lists are any example. Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be slightly off message/dogma? And who cares? If the technique is not used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily worthless. Well if you want 200% you'd have to master BOTH the relative AND the absolute, no? The advaitins I admire master dualistic meditational approaches and the different levels of nondual contemplation AND have a sound grounding in the relative expression of That. Thanks for sharing with us one of the most typical mistakes of modern advaitin talkers and satsangeroos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who's killed more: Al Gore or George Bush?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Al Gore's and the enviro-nazi lobby's promotion of their man-made catastrophic global warming fantasy has already started to kill humans in third world countries. Ethanol policies that have resulted as a direct result of eco-nonsense has pushed the price of basic foods out of reach of many poor people and has turned agricultural land that otherwise would be reserved for use for food into crops to fuel Al Gore's, Leonardo DiCaprio's, and Arianna Huffington's private jets. So: who has killed more, Al Gore through his genocidal global warming policies or George Bush through his Iraq War policies? Discuss amongst yourselves. It was the corn lobby that pushed ethanol (while taxing efficient ethanol from Brazil made from sugar cane), not environmentalists, and that policy has been realized to be a failure, and environ leaders are seeking changes. As opposed to Bush's war machine, which continues to promote failed policies, saying success is just around the corner, or as McCrazy says, another 100 years in Iraq ought to do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Should the rich pay MORE income tax?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If elected, both Hillary and Barack say they'll put up the income tax rates for the rich. Yet, according to the statistics at the following site http://tinyurl.com/3cquum http://tinyurl.com/3cquum the rich are, by ANY objective standard of measurement, already paying far more than their share. Take a look at Table 1 (which, hopefully, I am successful in reproducing here, below) and look under the column Group's share of income tax. The top 1% of taxpayers pay almost 40% of ALL income taxes collected! The top 10% pay over 70% and the bottom 50% about 3%. Responsible rich people, like Warren Buffett, don't think they pay too much -- it's only the greedy and their lapdogs like the bush baby who think this way: http://tinyurl.com/4e6n7q
[FairfieldLife] Zogby Predicts...
Released: May 02, 2008Zogby Poll: Obama Holds Big Lead Over Clinton in NC; Pair tied in Indiana UTICA, New York—Five days before the important Democratic presidential primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Barack Obama of Illinois enjoys a substantial lead in one state and remains tied with Hillary Clinton of New York in the other, a new Zogby daily tracking poll shows. Obama leads by a 50% to 34% margin over Clinton in North Carolina, while the two are tied at 42% support each in Indiana. The telephone surveys, conducted over two days, began on April 30 and were completed May 1. They comprise the first of Zogby's daily tracking surveys that will continue until Tuesday. In North Carolina, 668 likely Democratic primary election voters were polled. The survey carries a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points. In Indiana, 680 likely voting Democratic primary voters were surveyed. That poll carries a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points. The telephone surveys were conducted using live operators working out of Zogby's call center in Upstate New York. In North Carolina, Obama dominates all age groups with one exception—those age 70 and older, where the two are essentially tied. Democrats—North Carolina 4-30/5-1 Clinton 34% Obama 50% Someone else 8% Not sure 8% Clinton leads by 10 points among white voters in North Carolina—47% to 37% - but Obama dominates among African American voters, 73% to 10% for Clinton. Among men, Obama leads, 57% to 30%, and he leads among women voters as well—winning 44% support to Clinton's 37% backing. Asked if the statements of controversial Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright made voters more or less likely to support Obama, 15% of North Carolina voters said they were less likely to support him, while 4% said the comments made them more likely to support Obama. In Indiana, the two Democrats were deadlocked at 42% each, with 16% either favoring someone else or yet undecided. Democrats—Indiana 4-30/5-1 Clinton 42% Obama 42% Someone else
[FairfieldLife] Remembering The Legacy
Transcendental Meditation: Remembering The Legacy 2May 2008, 1456 hrs IST,LANEWAGGER His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi referred to the Bhagavad Gita as “the pocketbook edition of the Vedas”. It contains all the wisdom necessary to take us from ignorance to enlightenment. The Gita’s most important verse, Maharishi says, is verse 45 of chapter II. Here Krishna instructs Arjuna: ‘Nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna’ . Be without the three gunas , O Arjuna. Take your mind from the field of excitation and chaos, to the state of inner Unity, perfect orderliness. In his commentary on this verse, Maharishi says, “It is difficult for a man to improve his business affairs while he himself is constantly immersed in all their details. If he leaves them for a little while, he becomes able to see the business as a whole and can then more easily decide what is needed”. Similarly, transcending all mental activity results in great clarity, peace, and broadened awareness, which naturally put life in its proper perspective. “Water the root, to enjoy the fruit” , sums up Maharishi. Just as a strong foundation is necessary for a sturdy structure, so inner silence is the basis of successful activity. By enlivening the “root” of the mind, the “vacuum state” of consciousness, all aspects of life get nourished. Maharishi had the key for this: Transcendental Meditation (TM), a technique of effortless transcending. To understand what TM is, we need only analyse its name. “Transcend” means to go beyond; “meditation” refers to thinking. During TM, the mind goes from the surface, hectic level of thinking, to more quiet, less excited states, until one transcends thought altogether, arriving at the silent oasis of the mind. This is the state of anandam - pure consciousness - where the mind is completely calm and fully awake. For centuries scholars have said that it is very difficult to transcend thought and gain the state of perfect inner peace. Maharishi knew otherwise. Transcending is easy because the mind experiences increasing degrees of happiness at every step of the way. No effort is required. Any force or control actually prevents the mind from transcending. This technique of effortless transcending is validated by verse 40 of chapter 2: “In this (Yoga) no effort is lost and no obstacle exists. Even a little of this dharma delivers from great fear”. Maharishi commented, “The flow of the mind towards this state is natural, for it is a state of absolute bliss, and the mind is always craving for greater happiness. Therefore, as water flows down a slope in a natural way, so the mind flows naturally in the direction of bliss”. By alternating between dipping a white cloth in yellow dye, and then hanging it in the sun, eventually it becomes colourfast. Similarly, the regular alternation of TM and daily activity results in a state where pure consciousness becomes permanent. Then one enjoys inner silence even while engaged in dynamic activity. Besides the personal experience of over 60 lakh people in 140 countries practising TM, nearly 700 scientific research studies validate its effectiveness (e.g. increased alertness and focus, 87 per cent reduction in heart disease, improved memory, reduced stress). Maharishi’s legacy to mankind is a remarkably simple, natural procedure, which nourishes all aspects of life: mental, physical and spiritual. He said, “Life is here to enjoy and no one has the right to suffer”. For over 50 years, Maharishi endeavoured to make the world aware of this. http://
[FairfieldLife] Clinton using Obama's race against him?
Yet what is most troubling — and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement — is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival’s race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior “electability,” she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right — in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country — seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaign’s use of this strategy has many nonwhite and nonmainstream feminists crying foul. We report, you decide. :) http://tinyurl.com/6a56j2
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 7:59 AM, off_world_beings wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Am I the only one on this forum that is offended when the n-word is used? Are you offended because it stems from a French word for 'black' that your forefathers used. Your forefathers, who chose to fight, at all costs, to be able to keep their slaves, at a time when they were completely aware that Britain was having successful court cases outlawing slavery on British soil? That is not offense you have sir, that is guilt. Shemp is from Canada. Shemp is a Jewish American who ran away to Canada during the Vietnam war period. He like Cheney and Bush avoided serving his country when called, and that is why he appears to be from Canada, but he is not originally. Come one Shemp, be honest, we know who you are now. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: McCrazy: wife a c*nt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: off wrote: Unfortunately, McInsane is also a complete idiot. Yeah, compared to you, he's a complete idiot. Its a proud day for you drug addled clowns as you focus on the real issues, instead of the distractions. Being a complete idiot that flies off the handle easily, in charge of the 5th most powerful nation in the world is not an issue for you? You probably figured this one out just from the post subject line. Congratulations. Very impressive! After Barack repudiated Pastor Wright, Obama's double-digit lead over Clinton in national polls vanished. At the same time, John McCain shot up in the polls. Lol, get real, McCain will die of old age before the election, or have a stroke. If he makes it to November, he will not get elected. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] 'LSD and The Magical Mystery Tour'
Albert Hoffman and LSD LSD May Have Been One of the Bigger Medical Brearkthrouth's in the 20th Century. It Did Seem to Help Sgt. Pepper. Albert Hofmann (b.1/11/1906 – d.4/29/2008) died this week. He was a Swiss scientist best known forhaving been the first to discover, actuallyinjest and describe the psychedelic effects of Lysergic AcidDiethylamide (LSD). Hofmann was born in the quiet town ofBaden Switzerland, and studied chemistry at the Univ. of Zurich. Hismain interest was the chemistry of plants and animals, and he laterconducted important research regarding the chemical structure of thecommon animal substance chitin for which he received his Ph.D. Hofmannjoined the pharmaceutical-chemical department of Sandoz Laboratories(now Novartis). He began studying the fungus ergot as part of a programto purify and synthesize active constituents for use aspharmaceuticals. While researching lysergic acid derivatives, Hofmannfirst synthesized LSD-25 in 1938. It was set aside for five years,until April 16, 1943, when Hofmann decided to take another look at it.While re-synthesizing LSD, he accidentally absorbed a small quantitythrough his fingertips and discovered its powerful effects before hisbicycle ride home. Three days later, Hofmann deliberately consumed 250micrograms of LSD. This was followed by a series of self-experimentsconducted by Hofmann and his colleagues. He first wrote about theseexperiments on April 22 of that year. BRAIN/NEUROLOGIC FUNCTION:There are two main neurotransmitters in the brain; Serotonin andDopamine. Interestingly, LSD is similar in chemical structure toSerotonin and in effect, acts as a neurotransmitter once inside thebrain. Oddly, it specifically acts as a Serotonin blocker and reactsmore highly with Dopamine receptors in the brain. LSD, once absorbedfiltrates out of the blood quickly and tends to deposit directly intothe midbrain. The end result of all of this is Hyperactivity andsimulated pyschosis. Often used as a therapeutic remedy, medicine istaking a longer more detailed look at this often demonized drug. It isin this arena, psycho therapy, that LSD may still find a purpose. EFFECTS:LSD has numerous measurable effects on the brain. It produces slightchanges in the EEG, usually with decreased amplitude and increasedfrequency of brainwaves (Stafford 1992). Generally there is also adecrease in the alpha rhythm, though in some cases however, there is anincrease. LSD causes many chemical changes within the brain, most ofthem in the midbrain, which regulates awareness and modulates emotionalresponsiveness. Recent attention has focused on substantialconcentrations of LSD found in the brainstem and in the dopaminereceptor system, both responsible for more complex experiences. Under the influence of LSD, data processing in the brain's cerebral cortex was shifted, from the more analytical left hemisphere to the visuo-spatial right hemisphere. This may explain how apsychedelic like LSD increases the scope of the mind, bringsartistic, creative, rhythmic and problem solving abilities to the foreand evokes phenomena that Freud referred to as manifestations of theunconscious. Increases in mental power may also be attributed to theactivation of spatial centers. LSD and other psychedelics could beconsidered deliberate and unconscious agents of the right lobe in thissense. There is a peculiar effect of LSD on thetransmission of sensory impulses to the brain, which has long beendemonstrated in laboratory experiments on sensory response of animalsunder the influence of LSD (Leicht 1996). Electrical measurements alongthe optic nerve show that an intensified impulse is received from theretina, due to changes in the receptivity of the visual system. Theelectrical impulses produced continue to increase under LSD influenceand to become more distorted as they travel along the optic pathway tothe brain. This is an indication that LSD has a unique physiologicaleffect on the geniculate body and the optic radiation pathway of thevisual system. The character of the impulses received and transmittedby one organ are found to be affected by the impulses to the other.Sights reaching the brain from the eye are changed by sounds, andsounds are changed by what the eye apparently sees. LSD users may see music, hear color, and feel visual images. These mixed messages to the brain exhibit the phenomenon called in psychology commonly called synesthesia. PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS: Thereare many psychological effects of LSD on the mind includinghallucinations, depersonalization, reliving of repressed memories, moodswings, euphoria, megalomania, schizophrenic-like states, reduceddefenses, and subjectivity to the power of suggestion. Thepsychological effects of LSD may be generalized by three categories:changes in sensation and perception; emotionality; effects on thinking.The function of perceiving, organizing, and interpreting senseimpressions from
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kudos to anybody...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...who knows, why exactly /udaanajaya/ causes /utkraanti/ (levitation)! Its not. Its the other way around: utkraanti causes udaanajaya. Evolution leads to the invincible state of levitation. But by the same token the state of invincibility gained in levitation leads to evolution. Which is stated elsewhere in the same teachings, which you will find it if you look. I get the kudos. Thanks OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do Duveyoung and Angela like using the n-word so much?
On May 2, 2008, at 6:42 PM, off_world_beings wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 7:59 AM, off_world_beings wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Am I the only one on this forum that is offended when the n-word is used? Are you offended because it stems from a French word for 'black' that your forefathers used. Your forefathers, who chose to fight, at all costs, to be able to keep their slaves, at a time when they were completely aware that Britain was having successful court cases outlawing slavery on British soil? That is not offense you have sir, that is guilt. Shemp is from Canada. Shemp is a Jewish American who ran away to Canada during the Vietnam war period. He like Cheney and Bush avoided serving his country when called, and that is why he appears to be from Canada, but he is not originally. Come one Shemp, be honest, we know who you are now. Well I don't know if you are joking or not, but I always thought the name Shemp McGurk would've made a great show name for a standup playin' the Borscht Belt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush Disapproval Rating Makes History
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Washington is called the father of our country On the contrary, George Washington was known as a traitor, thief, and a despotic landowner, and helping the regimes of fascist papists of Europe. whereas George W. Bush will be known as the murderer of our country. True, and also known the President who loved his dog more than his country. Ron Paul is already going down in history with the appelation: Ron Paul - The new founding father. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Dyslexic in English, but not in Italian
Dyslexia, in which the mind scrambles letters or stumbles over text, is twice as prevalent in the U.S., where it affects about 10 million children, as in Italy, where the written word more closely corresponds to its spoken sound. Dyslexia exists only because we invented reading, said Tufts University cognitive neuroscientist Maryanne Wolf, author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. (more) http://tinyurl.com/4s3se3
Re: [FairfieldLife] Clinton using Obama's race against him?
There were rumors that Hillary Clinton is Lesbian she is starting to appear more and more like a Lesbian everyday. Not sure if it is because women lose their femininity in politics or what. She has even gone as far as insituating she is more of man than he is... Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet what is most troubling and what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement is that the Clinton campaign has used her rivals race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior electability, she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right in which swaggering macho cowboys are entrusted to defend the country seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaigns use of this strategy has many nonwhite and nonmainstream feminists crying foul. We report, you decide. :) http://tinyurl.com/6a56j2 - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[FairfieldLife] Men of the Cloth, by Katha Pollitt, The Nation (article)
Men of the Cloth By Katha Pollitt The Nation Monday 12 May 2008 Issue Child abuse. Sexual abuse. Women raised to be baby machines controlled by powerful older men in the name of God. These shockers - and many more - are flagrantly on offer in the spectacle unfolding around the 139 women and 437 children removed by Texas authorities from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado. The YFZ is an outpost of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a breakaway Mormon cult presided over by Warren Jeffs, convicted in Utah as an accomplice to rape and awaiting trial in Arizona for incest and conspiracy. The visuals are riveting: women in pastel prairie dresses and identical pompadour-cum-french-braid hairstyles weeping for their children in state custody; skinny-necked middle-aged men insisting they had no idea it was illegal to marry and impregnate multiple 15-year-olds. There's a feminist angle, a child-protection angle and a civil liberties angle - it isn't clear that the children were in immediate danger, and this drastic and clumsy sweep might well cause cultists to isolate themselves even more. The original impetus for the raid - a desperate phone call from someone claiming to be a 16-year-old girl raped and abused by her 50- year-old spiritual husband - is looking more and more like a hoax. I've written before about the evils of fundamentalist Mormon polygyny, which is thought to have some 10,000 followers in closed communities in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, South Dakota and Texas. I will never understand why the people who attack Islam as oppressive to women have nothing to say about the FLDS. The cultural relativist arguments they reject when applied to foreign countries are even less applicable here: everyone in the story is American, supposedly living under American law. Yet for decades state and local authorities have looked the other way when girls are pulled out of school to be home- schooled, i.e., prepared for marriage to their uncles, and teenage boys are kicked out of the community so as not to compete with the elder men. Indeed, in areas near FLDS communities, public services have been infiltrated by their members: the public schools teach their religious doctrines; the police are on the lookout for girls and women who try to escape. Still, appalling as is FLDS's extreme male dominance, there was another news story unfolding at the same time that had certain affinities but got a very different slant: Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States. What a lovefest! We heard endlessly about Benedict's intellect, charm and elegant red shoes. Cat Lovers Appreciate Soul Mate in Vatican made the New York Times most e- mailed list. How little the Pope had to do to win applause as a wise conciliator: having begun his reign trying to suppress the priestly pedophilia scandal, he met with the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and reminded Catholics that homosexuals and pedophiles, while both bad, are not the same. Having kept in the liturgy a prayer for the Jews so that God might enlighten their hearts, he visited New York's Park East synagogue, where the rabbi did not similarly call on Catholics to give up their worship of Christ. But what about women? Oh, them and their messy bodies! As blogger Dana Goldstein pointed out, only Barbara Boxer said boo when Republican Senator Sam Brownback, who supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion, proposed a resolution welcoming the Pope in coded antichoice language and asserting that religion, not the Constitution, was the foundation of our government. (Boxer led a movement that held up the vote for three days until the wording was changed.) Where were the tough questions about the church's absolute ban on contraception, condoms, divorce and abortion - even to save a woman's life? If it was up to Benedict, we might be more stylish than the plural wives of the FLDS, but we'd be trapped in marriage and have fifteen children just like them. In the United States the Catholic church has lost some of its moral authority - thank you, pedophile priests - but it has more temporal power than you might think. Around 12 percent of US hospitals are church-affiliated, which entitles them to refuse modern reproductive healthcare to women. The church is the major opponent of the drive to make health insurance plans cover birth control, forcing women to pay up to $600 out of pocket every year for contraceptives. Along with evangelical Protestants, it is the main force behind every attempt to restrict abortion, defeat prochoice politicians, make contraception and the morning-after pill harder to get, promote false and sexist abstinence-only education and discourage the use of condoms to prevent HIV by spreading unfounded doubts about their effectiveness. Catholic charities do a lot of good, but the Vatican is a major
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dyslexic in English, but not in Italian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dyslexia, in which the mind scrambles letters or stumbles over text, is twice as prevalent in the U.S., where it affects about 10 million children, as in Italy, where the written word more closely corresponds to its spoken sound. Dyslexia exists only because we invented reading, said Tufts University cognitive neuroscientist Maryanne Wolf, author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. (more) http://tinyurl.com/4s3se3 More to the point, reading, writing and even speaking without comprehension, each different language/writing system, is predicted by scientists quoted in the article to have unique effects on the people who indulge. Shades of MUM Sanskrit lessons. lawson
[FairfieldLife] 'Hillary's Mein Kampf...'
Hillary's declaration:This is her struggle, this is her fight... That she will be nuking Iran, Possibly taking us into a nuclear apocalypse? Do we take this literally... Or, do we go with John McCain who says... 'Stay the Course' Then there is only one candidate who can possibly avoid, Nuclear War with Iran... That is reason enough to take this election seriously, And reason enough to vote for the 'black guy'... After all, we need to take the candidates words seriously... Robert Gimbel Seattle, Washington May 3rd 2008 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Duveyoung wrote: The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that language is being used can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. LOL. Oh really? When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely egoic presence -- are seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed retching that the expression of that POV signals a major dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. I could easily say the same of advaitins and neoadvaitins -- if the constant bickering and infighting on any of their popular Yahoo! lists are any example. Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be slightly off message/dogma? And who cares? If the technique is not used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily worthless. Well if you want 200% you'd have to master BOTH the relative AND the absolute, no? The advaitins I admire master dualistic meditational approaches and the different levels of nondual contemplation AND have a sound grounding in the relative expression of That. Thanks for sharing with us one of the most typical mistakes of modern advaitin talkers and satsangeroos. And to add to the mix: Ramana made it very clear that Atma Vichara is only for a very select few who have done preliminary work (i.e., yoga)and have sattvic intellects. If you attempt atma vichara and you don't awaken, you have to hit the asana mat again! This rather important point seems to be missing from most neoavaitins rap. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[FairfieldLife] Re: is inequality a good thing?
What a great piece of work by these physicists. Thanks for posting this, Claudio. Here's what I got out of it -- from the following paragraph. [begin excerpt] Bouchaud and Mezard formulated a set of equations that could follow wealth as it shifts from person to person, and as each person makes random gains or losses from his or her investments. They also included one further feature to reflect how the value of wealth is relative. A poor single parent might face near-ruin over the loss of a £20 note; in contrast, a very rich person wouldn't flinch after losing a few thousand. In other words, the value of a little more or less wealth depends on how much one already has. This implies that when it comes to investing, wealthy people will tend to invest proportionally more than the less wealthy. [end excerpt] People who want to make the leap have to suck it up and not flinch so much (and I mean that in the nicest way). There is a propensity that I did NOT see covered in their analysis (maybe it's covered in a more in-depth coverage, but not here), and that is the propensity to clutch at what one has and not risk it. The people who clutch the most gain the least -- that's the way I read this study. The lesson is to very tightly draw your circle around your needful things, and gamble the rest in the best way you can. Having lots of stuff is the padded cell that a huge number of people are willing to settle for. I would love to see that study run with a variable on the propensities to risk or clutch. One effect of income redistribution is to take money from risktakers and give it to hoarders, where it disappears into a dead end economically speaking. from Claudio's post: Mark Buchanan's Small World: uncovering nature's hidden networks is published by Weidenfeld Nicolson (£18.99)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay Vaj, Tomorrow I'll be blasting back -- with you, it'll only be funzies. Edg Edg, tomorrow you'll be blasting back, but it will be what it always is with you -- words, words, words, typed by someone who has convinced himself that he understands Advaita, but who obviously has never experienced what it speaks about. I think Vaj made the best point of this whole gaggle of words. Both relative and absolute DO exist. Those who consider only one of them to be the reality have missed out on half of life. I would go further and say that those who have come to believe that only one is reality based on pure intellectual speculation alone have probably missed more than half. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On May 2, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Duveyoung wrote: The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that language is being used can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. LOL. Oh really? When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely egoic presence -- are seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed retching that the expression of that POV signals a major dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. I could easily say the same of advaitins and neoadvaitins -- if the constant bickering and infighting on any of their popular Yahoo! lists are any example. Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be slightly off message/dogma? And who cares? If the technique is not used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily worthless. Well if you want 200% you'd have to master BOTH the relative AND the absolute, no? The advaitins I admire master dualistic meditational approaches and the different levels of nondual contemplation AND have a sound grounding in the relative expression of That. Thanks for sharing with us one of the most typical mistakes of modern advaitin talkers and satsangeroos.
