[FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY says-Damn Democracy.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always wondered why the TMorg never had a suggestion box or ever even ask for input from its teachers in the field. I think they sacrificed a valuable resource, I had some suggestions that may have been very useful. Yes. The intelligence of the people in the TMO is a valuable resource which hasn't been used. That's why authoritarian regimes are ultimately less successful than open societies, they don't harness the intelligence of their people. So the sum total of intelligence used is less than in a society which allows people to have a wide variety of opinions. That's why the free and easy non-TM spiritual development sector is so vibrant. People are allowed to have their own ideas about how to organize things, they take responsibility for their own actions, and keep the rewards. In contrast in the TMO people are reduced to automatons carrying out orders from above and never allowed to use their own intelligence. Which means that the sum total of intelligence used in the TMO is a lot less than it could be. With consequences we can all see. Since authoritarian regimes can keep themselves going for a long time and then collapse spectacularly, we can speculate on the long term development of the TMO. You know I would like to hear from these Rajas for once, just to hear what state of consciousness they think they are in? There is so much gesturing but no real honest to goodness, heart to heart open talking. Dollars to donuts not one, no not one has achieved anything near CC, but they keep up the appearances, pretty soon you'd think that'd get kinda old. There are sure to be more defectors before long, I mean, how long can you go on kidding yourself and others? Don't get me wrong, TM works, but lets get real, not in a few years and some believe it may even take a few or more lifetimes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A giant (literally and figuratively) dies
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: State of Fear was a terrible book. An anti-global warming screed poorly wrapped in a thin narrative. Characters where always giving one another these long lectures about the falsehoods of global warming. I bailed about halfway through! I was a fan of Michael Crichton's early novels, because they were page turners. I gave up with the medieval-time travel novel because he had obviously stopped *writing* novels. Instead, since he knew that almost anything he wrote was going to be turned into a movie, he wrote novelizations of screenplays instead. Characterization was bad or non-existent, there was no internal dialog, only what could be spoken onscreen, and there was no depth. I didn't bother with the book being discussed, but given his history of lazy writing, what Peter says not only sounds plausible, it sounds like the very reason Shemp liked it. Crichton, once he got successful and got a taste of Hollywood under his belt, stopped writing novels for adults and set about writing the B movie scripts that he thought would sell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't disturb the trolls! They're already super touchy after having to share their bridges with hordes of illegal aliens... Seriously, maybe if we can get the trolls to go back whence they came, we could lift the terrible censorship that over a thousand people have had to endure because their antisocial behaviors, digital terrorism and karmic crapola. The trolls here serve an important spiritual function. They teach other posters what they still have to work on. If the trolls can push your buttons and cause you to react to them, then that's a hot button that still owns you. If you can not react, or react only with humor, it owns you less.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Early Kool-Aid Drinker'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Greene On July 27, 2004 I sat in The Fleet Center and watched State Senator Barack Obama give his 16 minute Keynote Address at The Democratic Convention in Boston. After it was finished I knew that I had seen Words That Shook The World, as impressive in every way as the others included in my book. Interestingly, that is the very moment at which I first noticed Barack Obama, too, and the moment at which I knew he would be President. Simply put, there had not been a better orator or a person from whom the oratory came from as deep a place in decades. Yes, he stood out because of his charisma and command of the spoken language, but more he stood out because of the lack of charisma and the mediocrity of the spoken lang- uage in the other politicians around him. This campaign -- the most effective and profes- sionally run in American history -- has proved that those two factors are not all that he brings to the table. As many have said, it may be his oratory and his charisma that first capture your attention, but it's his hard Yankee pragmatism, his love of reason, and his reserve in the face of unconscion- able provocation and attacks that holds it. May all of these qualities serve him -- and us -- well in the next 8 years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: , authfriend jstein@ wrote: Oh, geez, now Vaj has gone over the edge. What is it about Obama that makes his supporters grandiose, paranoid, and hallucinatory? What a second. What a second. Do we have a grammatical error here.? Should it be make, instead of makes? Why a plural verb?? The subject is What, singular: What makes his supporters... Perhaps lurk expected, for some peculiar reason, the present subjunctive verb form? But a more likely reason might be that the object (supporters) is in plural...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level.
[FairfieldLife] Animator vs. Animation
For all of you God freaks here, vindication of your fear of the Big Guy. For all of us atheists, a celebration of the Good Try. :-) http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs13/f/2007/077/2/e/Animator_vs__Animation_by_alanbecker.swf or http://tinyurl.com/37s6xo
[FairfieldLife] What Obama has that his critics do not -- self awareness
Audio Catches Obama Analyzing His Own Debate Performance Obama was something unusual in a politician: genuinely self-aware. In late May 2007, he had stumbled through a couple of early debates and was feeling uncertain about what he called his uneven performance. Part of it is psychological, he told his aides. I'm still wrapping my head around doing this in a way that I think the other candidates just aren't. There's a certain ambivalence in my character that I like about myself. It's part of what makes me a good writer, you know? It's not necessarily useful in a presidential campaign. These candid remarks were taped at a debate-prep session at a law firm in Washington. The tape of Obama's back-and-forth with his advisers, provided to NEWSWEEK by an attendee, is a remarkably frank and revealing record of what the candidate was really thinking when he took the stage with his opponents. On the tape, after Obama's rueful remark about the mixed blessings of his detached nature, there is cross talk and laughter, and then Axelrod cracks, You can save that for your next memoir. Obama continues: When you have to be cheerful all the time and try to perform and act like [the tape is unclear; Obama appears to be poking fun at his opponents], I'm sure that some of it has to do with nerves or anxiety and not having done this before, I'm sure. And in my own head, you know, there's--I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. When you're going into something thinking, 'This is not my best ...' I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me ... answer it.' Instead of being appropriately [the tape is garbled]. So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'.
[FairfieldLife] Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
[ From Newsweek, via HuffPost. Note that the first (greeting staffers wearing only a towel) is probably why she was picked in the first place...Republicans are too uptight to go out and buy porn, so they're hoping for a glimpse of nudity closer to home. :-) Also note the timing of the second point, that Sarah Palin initiated the Obama-linked-to-Ayers attack on her own, going rogue before the camp author- ized her to do so, exactly as I said, and was pooh-poohed for saying here. There's more on her...uh...clothing budget and why she didn't speak on election night, too. Link to the full Newsweek story at the end. ] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-once-greeted-mccain_n_141394.html Palin Once Greeted McCain Staff Wearing Only A Towel From Newsweek's Special Election Project comes the real Sarah Palin. She met staff members in a towel: At the GOP convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys' club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. I'll be just a minute, she said. She raised William Ayers before the campaign signed off on it: Palin launched her attack on Obama's association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain's advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting. And she spent far more on clothes than was reported: NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family--clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent tens of thousands more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast, and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books. Finally, Steve Schmidt (who reportedly picked Palin as VP) would not let her speak on election night. McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request. Read the whole story at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY says-Damn Democracy.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, the Family chats aren't really heart to hearts are they. A full blown Family argument would do the TMO a world of good. It seems MMY was/is trying to graft Vedic culture onto modern society, I don't think it can be done. The structure is fine but unless the actual leaders are indeed established in the home of all the laws of nature it won't be very effective and probably just degenerate into a dictatorship. I believe the height of Vedic culture evolved over a large period of time in which the leaders (Rajas) were (at least at its height) truly enlightened and thereby giving enlightened leadership. This mere shell of an organization, (the shadow government) I believe MMY meant to be a model for the World, although I think some of the Rajas don't realize that and think they really are Rajas, and not just being used by MMY to further Vedic culture...?! Raja Janaka was a good example of the real thing, supposedly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janaka
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY says-Damn Democracy.
You know I would like to hear from these Rajas for once, just to hear what state of consciousness they think they are in? There is so much gesturing but no real honest to goodness, heart to heart open talking. Dollars to donuts not one, no not one has achieved anything near CC, but they keep up the appearances, pretty soon you'd think that'd get kinda old. There are sure to be more defectors before long, I mean, how long can you go on kidding yourself and others? Don't get me wrong, TM works, but lets get real, not in a few years and some believe it may even take a few or more lifetimes. The TMO has such a large appetite for ready cash that the idea has grown that because rich people can move natural law they are more in tune with nature, and therefore more enlightened. Wealth has become a proxy for enlightenment. You can't be enlightened if you're not rich is the idea hanging in the background influencing TMO strategies. I think that the rajas believe they have a right to rule simply because they are wealthy and therefore more in tune with natural law. I'll bet that someone has suggested doing EEGs to try to prove the point. In my experience there's no relationship between wealth and spiritual evolution. I know people who aren't very well off and have seriously advanced experiences of higher states. The interesting thing I did find in my time teaching is that if I taught someone wealthy then everyone and their pet vultures would gather round to do presentations to them in the hope of extracting cash. But if I taught someone who had CC, GC, UC type experiences no one wanted to know. Which sums up where the priorities are. There is so much gesturing but no real honest to goodness, heart to heart open talking. Yes, the Family chats aren't really heart to hearts are they. A full blown Family argument would do the TMO a world of good.
[FairfieldLife] Terrorist fist-bump
You've got to train those wannabe terrorists from an early age: http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/obama_11_05/obama27_16804595.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/5tbtqv
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:09 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't disturb the trolls! They're already super touchy after having to share their bridges with hordes of illegal aliens... Seriously, maybe if we can get the trolls to go back whence they came, we could lift the terrible censorship that over a thousand people have had to endure because their antisocial behaviors, digital terrorism and karmic crapola. The trolls here serve an important spiritual function. They teach other posters what they still have to work on. If the trolls can push your buttons and cause you to react to them, then that's a hot button that still owns you. If you can not react, or react only with humor, it owns you less. That's what psychologists are for.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Terrorist fist-bump
What's he doing reading the Wall Street Journal? A dem that reads the journal? What is the world coming too? --- On Thu, 11/6/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Terrorist fist-bump To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 5:51 AM You've got to train those wannabe terrorists from an early age: http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/obama_11_05/obama27_16804595.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/5tbtqv 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
[FairfieldLife] Dog training and its relationship to FFL
Recently a friend who was visiting from Paris stayed at my house, and accompanied me when I was walking my dogs. Since she trains dogs for a living, when she offered some useful criticism, I paid attention. And *attention* was the nature of the advice she gave me. She pointed out that I tended to pay the most atten- tion to the dogs when they were doing something wrong (what she called Bad dog! syndrome), whereas I often didn't pay as much attention to them and stoke them when they were doing something right. I've been paying...uh... attention to her advice ever since, and it has made a remarkable difference in the overall comportment of my furry friends. So I might pass along the same advice to readers of FFL who find themselves troubled by the Troll Factor. What are trolls *after*? What are they *looking for*? Duh. Attention. And when you give it to them by overreacting to one of their posts that are calculated *to* elicit an overreac- tion response, you are in effect REINFORCING that bad dog behavior. They poke and prod, you react, they get the attention they were looking for. Therefore they repeat the behavior. Another approach, for those who feel that those amongst us that they have decided are trolls, but who still feel that there might be someone in there to communicate with, is to reply to them ONLY when they do something right, something that deserves to be reinforced. If, instead of being insulting, they actually post some- thing of value, something that strikes a resonance with you, reply and attempt to pursue that thread, *in the spirit in which it was started*. The minute that the troll tries to turn things nasty or personally insulting, end your participation in the thread, and don't reply to them again until they post something else of a positive nature. Heck, it's worth a try. Nothing else has worked.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What Obama has that his critics do not -- self awareness
On Nov 6, 2008, at 3:53 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Audio Catches Obama Analyzing His Own Debate Performance Beautiful--someone who actually thinks as President. Let's see if Americans are big enough to rally behind someone who is actually smarter than they are. I'm still not entirely convinced. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Buddhists with strange hats
That is bizarre. Almost looks like a little clipboard. On Nov 6, 2008, at 8:38 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote: Makes the Raja Crowns look civilized
Re: [FairfieldLife] Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:00 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Finally, Steve Schmidt (who reportedly picked Palin as VP) Thank god for Steve Schmidt--he's my new hero! And here's to Palin in 2012! Run, Sarah, run! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with strange hats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Makes the Raja Crowns look civilized Nabby, your attempt to include a photo failed. Perhaps you were looking to include something like this: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1165/1071524095_2689b34c2f.jpg?v=0 If so, I should correct an erroneous impression shared by the photographer and, seemingly, your- self. This isn't a hat. This is what a crown chakra looks like when it is fully opened. You should be thankful that the Buddhists from this sect have wisely withheld photos of what happens when they've fully opened their second chakra. Prudes like John would faint. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with strange hats
http://boligfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4010303_Zp2eM#411232292_xJgyX http://boligfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4010303_Zp2eM#411232292_xJgyX Makes the Raja Crowns look civilized
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with strange hats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://boligfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4010303_Zp2eM#411232292_xJgyX http://boligfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4010303_Zp2eM#411232292_xJgyX http://boligfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4010303_Zp2eM#411232292_xJgyX http://boligfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4010303_Zp2eM#411232292_xJgyX Makes the Raja Crowns look civilized It worked. Nice hat. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:09 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Please don't disturb the trolls! They're already super touchy after having to share their bridges with hordes of illegal aliens... Seriously, maybe if we can get the trolls to go back whence they came, we could lift the terrible censorship that over a thousand people have had to endure because their antisocial behaviors, digital terrorism and karmic crapola. The trolls here serve an important spiritual function. They teach other posters what they still have to work on. If the trolls can push your buttons and cause you to react to them, then that's a hot button that still owns you. If you can not react, or react only with humor, it owns you less. That's what psychologists are for. Yeah, but the trolls won't go to the psychologists. They don't think there is anything wrong with them. :-) And they're not going away, because frankly they have nothing else going on in their lives. So that leaves us with figuring out a way to live with them. Mine is to notice when (and these days it's a rare occurrence) something one of them says pushes some residual attachment button in me. My guideline is that if a post from one of the known trolls causes me to instantly reach for the Reply button, I shouldn't. So I don't. Pretty much the only posts I instantly reach for the Reply button on now are the ones that provide me with an opportunity to say something funny or silly. That may be another kind of attachment or samskara on my part, but that one I can live with. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
If she campaigned wearing only a towel, she might have some success. Actually, I think she is deluded. Who would want this woman? Perhaps she could emerge as the leader of a rump GOP Christian fascist party, but that's about all. I think she will be like Dan Quayle, who tried to run as a conservative in 2000 but no one took him seriously. So in my opinion it's bye bye Sarah, and good riddance too. No knowledge, no class, no nothing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:00 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Finally, Steve Schmidt (who reportedly picked Palin as VP) Thank god for Steve Schmidt--he's my new hero! And here's to Palin in 2012! Run, Sarah, run! Sal
[FairfieldLife] The Monster Years
Last night wasn't just a victory for tolerance; it wasn't just a mandate for progressive change; it was also, I hope, the end of the monster years. What I mean by that is that for the past 14 years America's political life has been largely dominated by, well, monsters. Monsters like Tom DeLay, who suggested that the shootings at Columbine happened because schools teach students the theory of evolution. Monsters like Karl Rove, who declared that liberals wanted to offer therapy and understanding to terrorists. Monsters like Dick Cheney, who saw 9/11 as an opportunity to start torturing people. And in our national discourse, we pretended that these monsters were reasonable, respectable people. To point out that the monsters were, in fact, monsters, was shrill. Four years ago it seemed as if the monsters would dominate American politics for a long time to come. But for now, at least, they've been banished to the wilderness. ~~ Paul Krugman http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/the-monster-years/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Terrorist fist-bump
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's he doing reading the Wall Street Journal? A dem that reads the journal? What is the world coming too? He's merely using it to conceal a pipe bomb. Clever, these terrorists. Who would expect a pipe bomb inside a rolled-up Wall St. Journal? --- On Thu, 11/6/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Terrorist fist-bump To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 5:51 AM You've got to train those wannabe terrorists from an early age: http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/obama_11_05/obama27_16804595.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/5tbtqv 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
[FairfieldLife] Palin thought Africa was a Country
FOX News' Carl Cameron reported some damning leaks from the McCain camp on Sarah Palin. 1. According to McCain aides, she had to be told which nations were part of NAFTA (hint: there are only three and we're all neighbors...) 2. According to her debate prep team, she had to be reminded that Africa was a CONTINENT, not a country. 3. She refused any preparation for the Katie Couric interview and in general, never thought she needed to be briefed. And she wanted to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?! Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
[FairfieldLife] Buddhists with strange hats
Makes the Raja Crowns look civilized
[FairfieldLife] Re: Buddhists with strange hats
now -that's- a faux-hawk! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Makes the Raja Crowns look civilized Nabby, your attempt to include a photo failed. Perhaps you were looking to include something like this: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1165/1071524095_2689b34c2f.jpg?v=0 If so, I should correct an erroneous impression shared by the photographer and, seemingly, your- self. This isn't a hat. This is what a crown chakra looks like when it is fully opened. You should be thankful that the Buddhists from this sect have wisely withheld photos of what happens when they've fully opened their second chakra. Prudes like John would faint. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
On Nov 6, 2008, at 8:06 AM, feste37 wrote: If she campaigned wearing only a towel, she might have some success. Actually, I think she is deluded. Who would want this woman? Perhaps she could emerge as the leader of a rump GOP Christian fascist party, but that's about all. I think she will be like Dan Quayle, who tried to run as a conservative in 2000 but no one took him seriously. So in my opinion it's bye bye Sarah, and good riddance too. No knowledge, no class, no nothing. Exactly--which is why she's the perfect Republican candidate. I can't think of a better statement of Republican values, such as they are...from aging, angry old white guys who love war, to aging bimbos who love piece! You gotta, well, love it. And that's why I'm all for a Palin candidacy--she's the best reason I can think of to keep a permanent Democratic majority. So I'm with shemp on this one--go Sarah! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Election day hangover
I sincerely hope the future is brighter, but I'm not as much of an optimist as many of you are. I think Obama is an arrogant sleazy scumbag, an empty suit on the same order as Bush, but Black and a Democrat...so perhaps there will be changes. As for Big Brother, that scenario will only expand, although the eye watching us will be of a different hue. Re-read Orwell, especially 1984. I used to teach that novel, and the echoes still reverberate in my head. Orwell believed that if you keep the lower classes content with enough gin and mindless entertainment, they will be totally complacent and maleable...I see this same strand of thought emanating from level-the- income-field Obamabots. And I wonder if I will live long enough to see history re-written. Time will tell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
Good morning, raunchy! Cynical as ever, I see. I think you need a stiff drink. I do wonder why your perception of Obama is so at odds with how the nation sees him. A wave of hope and optimism is sweeping this country, and yet you choose to wallow in the lowest possible view. I wonder what your problem is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bitingbirdie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sincerely hope the future is brighter, but I'm not as much of an optimist as many of you are. I think Obama is an arrogant sleazy scumbag, an empty suit on the same order as Bush, but Black and a Democrat...so perhaps there will be changes. As for Big Brother, that scenario will only expand, although the eye watching us will be of a different hue. Re-read Orwell, especially 1984. I used to teach that novel, and the echoes still reverberate in my head. Orwell believed that if you keep the lower classes content with enough gin and mindless entertainment, they will be totally complacent and maleable...I see this same strand of thought emanating from level-the- income-field Obamabots. And I wonder if I will live long enough to see history re-written. Time will tell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:00 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Finally, Steve Schmidt (who reportedly picked Palin as VP) Thank god for Steve Schmidt--he's my new hero! And here's to Palin in 2012! Run, Sarah, run! Sal Wickedly funny! Palin in 2012! Nice one Sal. Here is some more fun from Ms. 15-Minutes-are-up. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html http://tinyurl.com/6kma8y I will be looking forward to the cascading revelations from her handlers. (OH yeah, I'm deep like that!)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:28 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 8:06 AM, feste37 wrote: If she campaigned wearing only a towel, she might have some success. Actually, I think she is deluded. Who would want this woman? Perhaps she could emerge as the leader of a rump GOP Christian fascist party, but that's about all. I think she will be like Dan Quayle, who tried to run as a conservative in 2000 but no one took him seriously. So in my opinion it's bye bye Sarah, and good riddance too. No knowledge, no class, no nothing. Exactly--which is why she's the perfect Republican candidate. I can't think of a better statement of Republican values, such as they are...from aging, angry old white guys who love war, to aging bimbos who love piece! You gotta, well, love it. And that's why I'm all for a Palin candidacy--she's the best reason I can think of to keep a permanent Democratic majority. So I'm with shemp on this one--go Sarah! Amazingly, I've heard a lot of people, esp. the Pro-Gun folks, say the same thing...and these were intelligent people. I remember thinking 'this could really play out in our favor!' So I happily support Sarah 2012. Then all you have to do is find some subservient male Republican dweeb to run with her. That shouldn't be too hard. Maybe Lindsey Graham?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bitingbirdie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sincerely hope the future is brighter, but I'm not as much of an optimist as many of you are. I think Obama is an arrogant sleazy scumbag, an empty suit on the same order as Bush, but Black and a Democrat...so perhaps there will be changes. As for Big Brother, that scenario will only expand, although the eye watching us will be of a different hue. Re-read Orwell, especially 1984. I used to teach that novel, and the echoes still reverberate in my head. Orwell believed that if you keep the lower classes content with enough gin and mindless entertainment, they will be totally complacent and maleable...I see this same strand of thought emanating from level-the-income-field Obamabots. And I wonder if I will live long enough to see history re-written. Time will tell. Interesting phraseology in the next-to-last sentence, because just yesterday on another forum that has been infested by PUMA types, someone suggested that in her opinion the PUMAs were primarily old women whose primary motivation was the fear that they would die without ever seeing a woman as President. Interesting also that one would consider rewriting history instead of doing things well enough that you write it in the first place. The latter is what grownups who live in the present do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bitingbirdie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sincerely hope the future is brighter, but I'm not as much of an optimist as many of you are. I think Obama is an arrogant sleazy scumbag, an empty suit on the same order as Bush, but Black and a Democrat...so perhaps there will be changes. As for Big Brother, that scenario will only expand, although the eye watching us will be of a different hue. Re-read Orwell, especially 1984. I used to teach that novel, and the echoes still reverberate in my head. Orwell believed that if you keep the lower classes content with enough gin and mindless entertainment, they will be totally complacent and maleable...I see this same strand of thought emanating from level-the- income-field Obamabots. And I wonder if I will live long enough to see history re-written. Time will tell. Raunchy Dog's twin?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Early Kool-Aid Drinker'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: Richard Greene On July 27, 2004 I sat in The Fleet Center and watched State Senator Barack Obama give his 16 minute Keynote Address at The Democratic Convention in Boston. After it was finished I knew that I had seen Words That Shook The World, as impressive in every way as the others included in my book. Interestingly, that is the very moment at which I first noticed Barack Obama, too, and the moment at which I knew he would be President. Not that interestingly, actually. That's what almost every lefty was thinking that night. Just for kicks, I looked up my email to my sister about the convention. I wrote, in part: - I seem to be the only lefty in the U.S. who wasn't swept off his/her feet by Obama--and I was all geared up to be. He was fine, very good, a promising young state senator clearly on his way to better things--but hardly the promised blockbuster, as far as I was concerned. The blog commenters were just out of their minds with joy. Best speech ever! Better than Clinton! Future president of the United States! That last meme has been out there, but a lot of the commenters seemed to have come up with it entirely on their own, which I find astonishing (When he launched into the jobs for the jobless, homes for the homeless line, I was afraid he was going to segue to George Hamilton's hilarious riff from The Gay Blade--to help the helpless, befriend the friendless, defeat the defeatless) The substance of the speech was fine, some nice phrases, but the arc wasn't all that compelling, not organic, not inevitable, a little choppy. Don't get me wrong, I thought he was swell. But I was expecting to be blown away, and I wasn't. Maybe if I *hadn't* been expecting to be blown away, I would have been. - My sister responded, in part: - Like you, I'm just a teeny bit baffled about the over-the-top evaluations of this guy. I think he's great, but I've yet to be convinced he's automatic presidential material. It would be nice, indeed, to have a genuinely credible black presidential candidate some day, and he could well be the first. But it would take a fair amount to convince me I wanted him as president over, say, John Edwards, or even Hillary, for that matter. -
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good morning, raunchy! This post was from bitingbirdie, actually. Cynical as ever, I see. I think you need a stiff drink. I do wonder why your perception of Obama is so at odds with how the nation sees him. Believe me, those who share her perception of Obama wonder the same thing. A wave of hope and optimism is sweeping this country, and yet you choose to wallow in the lowest possible view. I wonder what your problem is. Yes, whenever a person is out of step with whatever wave happens to be sweeping the country, it must be because there's something wrong with him or her. The masses are, after all, always right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
I'm a fan of keeping all elected officials under the gun. I don't completely trust any of them. So I don't view Obama as a miracle worker. I do believe he is as sincere as any politician in wanting to do good. Hell, even Bush cleared that bar. He wanted to do what he thought was right. The problem was that he was wrong so much of the time. But comparing the intellectual capacity of Bush to Obama, if that is what you meant by empty suit, is completely ridiculous. Not that I think Bush was a dummy, I do not. But I never saw evidence that his ability to entertain concepts rose above the canned phrases and slogans that he peppered us with for 8 years. In Obama's speech I hear a more honestly thoughtful man. As far as the level the income field goes, that is a simplistic phrase to sum up a very complicated economic reality. Our government has become so corrupted by special interests lobbying Washington that we have created systems that are not in the public's best interest. It has always been this way to some degree, but now it has gotten more light shed on it. We need to take a hard look at how whose interests our government is looking out for. Don't worry about the populist tide turning things around completely. The rich and powerful will still pull most of the strings in government. But I hope they will do it with a bit more transparency, we know more about what is really going on with decisions that effect our lives. Obama will enter the Washington DC political grinder, just as the once idealistic Bush did 8 years ago. We will see his optimism and slogans hit the wall of entrenched power players who know how to crush change. I am not looking for miracles from the guy. But I do expect him to tell us in more honest language the complexity of the challenges he faces, and not start peppering us with slogans meant to bypass our critical thinking. I am optimistic from hearing Obama so far, that he has the cognitive and linguistic skills to speak to us in a more realistic, nuanced way that more closely matches the way things really are. His speech on the complexities of race issues, in answer to the whole Rev. Wright challenge, was a model for how I want our president to communicate with us. Obama may not be Jesus H. Christ, but he is no Bush, and I am very grateful for that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bitingbirdie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sincerely hope the future is brighter, but I'm not as much of an optimist as many of you are. I think Obama is an arrogant sleazy scumbag, an empty suit on the same order as Bush, but Black and a Democrat...so perhaps there will be changes. As for Big Brother, that scenario will only expand, although the eye watching us will be of a different hue. Re-read Orwell, especially 1984. I used to teach that novel, and the echoes still reverberate in my head. Orwell believed that if you keep the lower classes content with enough gin and mindless entertainment, they will be totally complacent and maleable...I see this same strand of thought emanating from level-the- income-field Obamabots. And I wonder if I will live long enough to see history re-written. Time will tell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
I would not presume to write for Raunchy. She is perfectly capable of articulating her own thoughts. Oddly enough, there are more of us like-minded souls out here than you could possibly imagine; though I don't always agree with Raunchy, we are mostly on the same page. And consider this: 48% of the population in the U.S. did not vote for Obama. My problem, if any, is one of perspective. As I have already said, I sincerely hope the future is brighter. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good morning, raunchy! Cynical as ever, I see. I think you need a stiff drink. I do wonder why your perception of Obama is so at odds with how the nation sees him. A wave of hope and optimism is sweeping this country, and yet you choose to wallow in the lowest possible view. I wonder what your problem is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bitingbirdie bitingbirdie@ wrote: I sincerely hope the future is brighter, but I'm not as much of an optimist as many of you are. I think Obama is an arrogant sleazy scumbag, an empty suit on the same order as Bush, but Black and a Democrat...so perhaps there will be changes. As for Big Brother, that scenario will only expand, although the eye watching us will be of a different hue. Re-read Orwell, especially 1984. I used to teach that novel, and the echoes still reverberate in my head. Orwell believed that if you keep the lower classes content with enough gin and mindless entertainment, they will be totally complacent and maleable...I see this same strand of thought emanating from level- the- income-field Obamabots. And I wonder if I will live long enough to see history re-written. Time will tell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY says-Damn Democracy.
all of them including the Maharishi, the Buddhist Lamas, and the Hindu Gurus are all pawns-- even Brahmananda Saraswati and the other saint who was like a mountain- can't recall his name- all helpless pawns. there is a vast universal conspiracy afoot, designed to incorporate us all, eventually, willingly and consciously into the cosmic flow; establish us as merged with the universe itself. very insidious, as we are given individual identities first, in order to gain the ability to measure our emotions and thoughts and feelings. we are also given senses, in order to enjoy our temporary existences. this is particularly sneaky, since the benefit of the senses seems to be twofold- to have us enjoy our lives fully, and yet also learn that sense pleasures are temporary. this then leads us after a long while to search for true meaning-- if everything keeps ending or we keep dying after a relatively brief life, then why are we here? we then seek meaning. all part of the universal conspiracy. some of us get pretty good at figuring out the meaning of it all- to serve the universe itself. suffering is less, in direct proportion to our ability to merge with the flow of the universe. why? because that's the way our cosmos wants it. sneaky cosmos! so, some become teachers of how to get into the flow. they and their students, because of the relief their egos experience, see this as particularly special and call the teachers all kinds of special names. even see this inevitable process in which they engage as pawns as special, and call the universe god, and those who teach about god, saints. each of them, the seekers and the teachers feeling as if they are enlightened about god. when actually all of them are just fulfilling the purpose the universe had for them all along, to merge with It,to consciously serve It, and to play and explore and learn about It. nothing special or profound or great about it- and at the same time, to experience such an awakening and transformation and union with the universe is so fulfilling, kind of like an eternal slo mo orgasm, that it compels those who have merged with the universe and willingly, selflessly and consciously do its bidding, to tell others, spread the word. they cannot help it, anymore than we can prevent procreation, because sex feels so good. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 guyfawkes91@ wrote: Yes, the Family chats aren't really heart to hearts are they. A full blown Family argument would do the TMO a world of good. It seems MMY was/is trying to graft Vedic culture onto modern society, I don't think it can be done. The structure is fine but unless the actual leaders are indeed established in the home of all the laws of nature it won't be very effective and probably just degenerate into a dictatorship. I believe the height of Vedic culture evolved over a large period of time in which the leaders (Rajas) were (at least at its height) truly enlightened and thereby giving enlightened leadership. This mere shell of an organization, (the shadow government) I believe MMY meant to be a model for the World, although I think some of the Rajas don't realize that and think they really are Rajas, and not just being used by MMY to further Vedic culture...?! Raja Janaka was a good example of the real thing, supposedly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janaka
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why MMY says-Damn Democracy.
all of them including the Maharishi, the Buddhist Lamas, and the Hindu Gurus are all pawns-- even Brahmananda Saraswati and the other saint who was like a mountain- can't recall his name- all helpless pawns. there is a vast universal conspiracy afoot, designed to incorporate us all, eventually, willingly and consciously into the cosmic flow; establish us as merged with the universe itself. very insidious, as we are given individual identities first, in order to gain the ability to measure our emotions and thoughts and feelings. we are also given senses, in order to enjoy our temporary existences. this is particularly sneaky, since the benefit of the senses seems to be twofold- to have us enjoy our lives fully, and yet also learn that sense pleasures are temporary. this then leads us after a long while to search for true meaning-- if everything keeps ending or we keep dying after a relatively brief life, then why are we here? we then seek meaning. all part of the universal conspiracy. some of us get pretty good at figuring out the meaning of it all- to serve the universe itself. suffering is less, in direct proportion to our ability to merge with the flow of the universe. why? because that's the way our cosmos wants it. sneaky cosmos! so, some become teachers of how to get into the flow. they and their students, because of the relief their egos experience, see this as particularly special and call the teachers all kinds of special names. even see this inevitable process in which they engage as pawns as special, and call the universe god, and those who teach about god, saints. each of them, the seekers and the teachers feeling as if they are enlightened about god. when actually all of them are just fulfilling the purpose the universe had for them all along, to merge with It,to consciously serve It, and to play and explore and learn about It. nothing special or profound or great about it- and at the same time, to experience such an awakening and transformation and union with the universe is so fulfilling, kind of like an eternal slo mo orgasm, that it compels those who have merged with the universe and willingly, selflessly and consciously do its bidding, to tell others, spread the word. they cannot help it, anymore than we can prevent procreation, because sex feels so good. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 guyfawkes91@ wrote: Yes, the Family chats aren't really heart to hearts are they. A full blown Family argument would do the TMO a world of good. It seems MMY was/is trying to graft Vedic culture onto modern society, I don't think it can be done. The structure is fine but unless the actual leaders are indeed established in the home of all the laws of nature it won't be very effective and probably just degenerate into a dictatorship. I believe the height of Vedic culture evolved over a large period of time in which the leaders (Rajas) were (at least at its height) truly enlightened and thereby giving enlightened leadership. This mere shell of an organization, (the shadow government) I believe MMY meant to be a model for the World, although I think some of the Rajas don't realize that and think they really are Rajas, and not just being used by MMY to further Vedic culture...?! Raja Janaka was a good example of the real thing, supposedly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janaka
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
On Nov 6, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Vaj wrote: Exactly--which is why she's the perfect Republican candidate. I can't think of a better statement of Republican values, such as they are...from aging, angry old white guys who love war, to aging bimbos who love piece! You gotta, well, love it. And that's why I'm all for a Palin candidacy--she's the best reason I can think of to keep a permanent Democratic majority. So I'm with shemp on this one--go Sarah! Amazingly, I've heard a lot of people, esp. the Pro-Gun folks, say the same thing...and these were intelligent people. For Republicans, anyway. Which usually means being able to speak in complete sentences. I remember thinking 'this could really play out in our favor!' No joke. So I happily support Sarah 2012. Then all you have to do is find some subservient male Republican dweeb to run with her. That shouldn't be too hard. Maybe Lindsey Graham? Not bad, but why not go for the gold and try and recruit old Dan himself? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip But comparing the intellectual capacity of Bush to Obama, if that is what you meant by empty suit, is completely ridiculous. Not that I think Bush was a dummy, I do not. But I never saw evidence that his ability to entertain concepts rose above the canned phrases and slogans that he peppered us with for 8 years. In Obama's speech I hear a more honestly thoughtful man. I agree, but there are other meanings of empty suit. Not sure which one bitingbirdie had in mind. For me, it's been the sense that he's been wrapped up in contemplation of his own wonderfulness. That's why I was so struck by his demeanor on election night. As Patrick suggested, I think he was having an Oh, shit! moment, realizing that even this wonderfulness might not be enough to fulfill the hopes he had encouraged people to invest in him. If so, such self-doubt is probably a *good* thing, as long as he doesn't allow it to paralyze him. snip Obama will enter the Washington DC political grinder, just as the once idealistic Bush did 8 years ago. We will see his optimism and slogans hit the wall of entrenched power players who know how to crush change. Which is one big reason why some of us favored Hillary: She had a much better idea of what she'd be facing in this regard, and a lot more savvy as to how to go about countering it. I am not looking for miracles from the guy. But I do expect him to tell us in more honest language the complexity of the challenges he faces, and not start peppering us with slogans meant to bypass our critical thinking. I am optimistic from hearing Obama so far, that he has the cognitive and linguistic skills to speak to us in a more realistic, nuanced way that more closely matches the way things really are. If only.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dog training and its relationship to FFL
Allow me to reinforce Barry's suggestion with this amusing and relevant article that was very popular in the New York Times not long ago: http://tinyurl.com/6d6cjb What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage By AMY SUTHERLAND Published: June 25, 2006 AS I wash dishes at the kitchen sink, my husband paces behind me, irritated. Have you seen my keys? he snarls, then huffs out a loud sigh and stomps from the room with our dog, Dixie, at his heels, anxious over her favorite human's upset. In the past I would have been right behind Dixie. I would have turned off the faucet and joined the hunt while trying to soothe my husband with bromides like, Don't worry, they'll turn up. But that only made him angrier, and a simple case of missing keys soon would become a full-blown angst-ridden drama starring the two of us and our poor nervous dog. Now, I focus on the wet dish in my hands. I don't turn around. I don't say a word. I'm using a technique I learned from a dolphin trainer. Read the rest at http://tinyurl.com/6d6cjb . It's a classic! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recently a friend who was visiting from Paris stayed at my house, and accompanied me when I was walking my dogs. Since she trains dogs for a living, when she offered some useful criticism, I paid attention. And *attention* was the nature of the advice she gave me. She pointed out that I tended to pay the most atten- tion to the dogs when they were doing something wrong (what she called Bad dog! syndrome), whereas I often didn't pay as much attention to them and stoke them when they were doing something right. I've been paying...uh... attention to her advice ever since, and it has made a remarkable difference in the overall comportment of my furry friends. So I might pass along the same advice to readers of FFL who find themselves troubled by the Troll Factor. What are trolls *after*? What are they *looking for*? Duh. Attention. And when you give it to them by overreacting to one of their posts that are calculated *to* elicit an overreac- tion response, you are in effect REINFORCING that bad dog behavior. They poke and prod, you react, they get the attention they were looking for. Therefore they repeat the behavior. Another approach, for those who feel that those amongst us that they have decided are trolls, but who still feel that there might be someone in there to communicate with, is to reply to them ONLY when they do something right, something that deserves to be reinforced. If, instead of being insulting, they actually post some- thing of value, something that strikes a resonance with you, reply and attempt to pursue that thread, *in the spirit in which it was started*. The minute that the troll tries to turn things nasty or personally insulting, end your participation in the thread, and don't reply to them again until they post something else of a positive nature. Heck, it's worth a try. Nothing else has worked.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ From Newsweek, via HuffPost. Note that the first (greeting staffers wearing only a towel) is probably why she was picked in the first place...Republicans are too uptight to go out and buy porn, so they're hoping for a glimpse of nudity closer to home. :-) Also note the timing of the second point, that Sarah Palin initiated the Obama-linked-to-Ayers attack on her own, going rogue before the camp author- ized her to do so, exactly as I said, and was pooh-poohed for saying here. Goodness gracious me, Barry is lying. Quel surprise! Even more surprising, he's told the same lie before, and been corrected on it then. No, that isn't what Barry was pooh-poohed for saying. He was pooh-poohed for citing as the first sign she was going rogue her use of the smear that Obama had criticized U.S. troops for bombing civilians in Afghanistan (when what he'd actually been criticizing was the lack of troops to carry out ground operations). According to Barry, this was something she'd come up with on her own after perusing anti-Obama Web sites, an old crapola smear not even the McCain campaign would have approved of her using. In fact, it was a smear the McCain campaign had revived in a press release just six weeks previously. It wasn't Palin going rogue in that instance, it was Palin citing a McCain talking point. This information, BTW, was in the very article Barry cited as support for his thesis. He just hadn't bothered to read it to the end. Bottom line: Barry goofed. And not only has he never acknowledged his error, he's *lied* about it in two different posts, using it in an attempt to smear the person who corrected him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
I feel sorry for Palin. Here's a woman who is not stupid, but she's not intellectually curious nor oriented. She's a rube. Probably doesn't read very much and her jobs as Mayor of a small Alaskan town and then Governor of Alaska which is an amazingly underpopulated state, under 7000,000 people, did not force her to expand her intellectual horizons very far. She gets thrown onto the national stage in the media spotlight and she tries to skate by on charisma instead of knowledge and she humiliates herself. So she becomes defensive and refuses help. She might have fantasies of running in 2012, but there has got to be a paradigm change in her orientation to the job, or she'll just humiliate herself again. Some one smart and close to her needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with her to let her know the facts of political life. And you Republicans out there, you really want to waste your energy by trying to promote this rube? --- On Thu, 11/6/08, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 9:48 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:00 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Finally, Steve Schmidt (who reportedly picked Palin as VP) Thank god for Steve Schmidt--he's my new hero! And here's to Palin in 2012! Run, Sarah, run! Sal Wickedly funny! Palin in 2012! Nice one Sal. Here is some more fun from Ms. 15-Minutes-are-up. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html http://tinyurl.com/6kma8y I will be looking forward to the cascading revelations from her handlers. (OH yeah, I'm deep like that!) 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dog training and its relationship to FFL
On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Patrick Gillam wrote: What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage By AMY SUTHERLAND Published: June 25, 2006 AS I wash dishes at the kitchen sink, my husband paces behind me, irritated. Have you seen my keys? he snarls, then huffs out a loud sigh and stomps from the room with our dog, Dixie, at his heels, anxious over her favorite human's upset. In the past I would have been right behind Dixie. I would have turned off the faucet and joined the hunt while trying to soothe my husband with bromides like, Don't worry, they'll turn up. But that only made him angrier, and a simple case of missing keys soon would become a full-blown angst-ridden drama starring the two of us and our poor nervous dog. Now, I focus on the wet dish in my hands. I don't turn around. I don't say a word. I'm using a technique I learned from a dolphin trainer. I thought Shamu was the killer-whale from Sea World. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Peter wrote: I feel sorry for Palin. Here's a woman who is not stupid, but she's not intellectually curious nor oriented. She's a rube. Probably doesn't read very much and her jobs as Mayor of a small Alaskan town and then Governor of Alaska which is an amazingly underpopulated state, under 7000,000 people, did not force her to expand her intellectual horizons very far. She gets thrown onto the national stage Not from what I've heard--supposedly she had been campaigning for the job, which, if true, makes her position much less sympathetic. in the media spotlight and she tries to skate by on charisma instead of knowledge and she humiliates herself. Well, nobody forced her either onto the national stage or into the media spotlight. So she becomes defensive and refuses help. She might have fantasies of running in 2012, but there has got to be a paradigm change in her orientation to the job, or she'll just humiliate herself again. Some one smart and close to her needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with her to let her know the facts of political life. And you Republicans out there, you really want to waste your energy by trying to promote this rube? She's definitely Peter-principled out on this one. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dog training and its relationship to FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought Shamu was the killer-whale from Sea World. No, no. A sham-mu is the way that a sham Zen Master (you know, a member of that international religious conspiracy ED's always talking about) replies to a koan. Real Zen Masters just say Mu! and leave it up to the student to figure out what the hell that means, or if it means anything at all. Fake Zen Masters say Mu! and then explain the hell out of it so that the students think they actually understand something that can't be understood. You know, the way that teachers in NeoAdvaita satsangs convince a few 'tards that they're enlightened and can now go around talk- ing about enlightenment knowledgeably when they've merely had a purely intellectual realization. Followers of such sham Zen Masters are called Mu-makers.
[FairfieldLife] Kneecapping Sarah Palin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel sorry for Palin. Here's a woman who is not stupid, but she's not intellectually curious nor oriented. She's a rube. Probably doesn't read very much and her jobs as Mayor of a small Alaskan town and then Governor of Alaska which is an amazingly underpopulated state, under 7000,000 people, did not force her to expand her intellectual horizons very far. She gets thrown onto the national stage in the media spotlight and she tries to skate by on charisma instead of knowledge and she humiliates herself. So she becomes defensive and refuses help. She might have fantasies of running in 2012, but there has got to be a paradigm change in her orientation to the job, or she'll just humiliate herself again. Some one smart and close to her needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with her to let her know the facts of political life. And you Republicans out there, you really want to waste your energy by trying to promote this rube? Here Comes the Bus! Beep Beep! by dcmediagirl 11/6/08 Let's face it: John McCain had a hard row to hoe. Conservatives never really warmed up to him. At times he appeared to be phoning it in. His staff's strategy, particularly with regards to advertising and message shaping, was pathetic. The press was overwhelmingly biased in favor of his opponent. He was outspent 8-1 by the Obama people. Overall, the campaign was limp, confused and disorganized. John McCain had the class and dignity to accept responsibility for his loss. His staff, however, is a different story. Unable to take any blame for any of the poor decisions made by overpaid and incompetent campaign aides, former staffers are feverishly trying to stay hireable and politically viable by engaging in hysterical finger-pointing. So who is REALLY to blame for McCain's defeat? Of course! Sarah Palin. Never mind that McCain needed Sarah Palin more than she needed McCain. He needed her to gain much needed street cred among conservatives. She routinely outdrew him at campaign rally after campaign rally. Say what you will about her agree with her or not, respect her or not in a few short weeks Sarah Palin, the most popular governor in America and one of the most viciously vilified women in politics next to Hillary Clinton, became a bona fide political and pop culture icon. If McCain had been crazy enough to choose Mitt Romney instead he would have lost not only the northeast but the South as well. So let's give the lady some credit for breathing life into a moribund campaign. But no. It was her shopping sprees that finished McCain off. Right. Never mind that the clothes were paid for by the party. Message to McCain staffers engaging in this anonymous sniping: I hope that the press suspends their practice of hiding your identities and exposes you for the cheap shot artists you are. May you never work on another campaign again, not that you deserve to - you didn't exactly knock the country's socks off with your mad political skillz. On another note, a friend of mine texted me this morning bellyaching about how if John Kerry had run a campaign like Obama's we would have been spared another 4 years of Bush. I had to remind her that Kerry couldn't have run this sort of campaign. He didn't have Obama's natural advantage of a press corps that did a swan dive into the tank for him. That aside, Kerry had another major weakness - he was being advised by Bob Schrum, an overpriced hack who came to the Kerry campaign having lost every presidential campaign he ever worked on. Going back, Al Gore had Donna Brazile. Dukakis had Susan Estrich. Mondale had Bob Beckel. Not coincidentally, all these political geniuses with their stropng records of failure are now employed as contributors by cable networks. On the other hand, Bill Clinton had James Carville and Paul Begala. And Bill Clinton was a sensational campaigner, better than anyone I've seen in my lifetime. One could argue that his campaign was run with more skill than Obama's; after all, Obama didn't have a Gennifer Flowers holding a press conference before the New Hampshire primary. The press corps declared Clinton's candidacy dead and buried. We all know how that turned out. To return to the original topic of this blog men fuck up most egregiously. A female sacrficial lamb is trotted out to take it in the neck. Enough already.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
That's why I was so struck by his demeanor on election night. As Patrick suggested, I think he was having an Oh, shit! moment, realizing that even this wonderfulness might not be enough to fulfill the hopes he had encouraged people to invest in him. I re-listened to sections of his speech to try to detect what you felt about it. I still don't think it reflected self doubt. If I were to guess, I would say that his slightly subdued demeanor was graciousness in winning. Not gloating over the fact that he just crushed McCain. I think it came from his instinct in where and when to turn on the charm. He underplayed it just a bit. It avoided the backlash of rubbing the republican's nose in their loss. The same republicans that he is going to have to work with to get anything done when he takes office. Most politicians can turn it on at will with a big beaming smile. Biden, McCain, Palin, and even Hillery can project an image that doesn't always match what seems reasonable that they are feeling. They can look ecstatic even when giving a speech after losing. I haven't seen this from Obama yet. He seems to smile when he is happy inside, and it gives me less of a sense of cognitive dissonance that I feel when I watch a lot of politicians. The makes him come across as genuine to me. Bush was also pretty transparent with his emotions to me. I felt some congruity. The worst example was when Palin would put on the delighted Cheshire Cat grin while spewing out the most ridiculous attacks on Obama. That creeped me out. I don't really know if Hillary's record supports the idea that she was better at dealing with the Washington grinder. She often seemed to get in her own way and stir up insane levels of opposition. If that were not the case we might have universal health care today. I have plenty of respect for her, but I think the Democratic party got this one right. Obama will learn his own style in dealing with his opposition. I'm not sure anyone comes in with the real skills needed. No one escapes the Washington grinder completely. I just hope he gets some things done that improve our desperate situation. Your criticism seems to be a bit self-contradictory. Obaman on one hand being carried away with his wonderfulness, and on the other self doubting. Perhaps both are true, which seems kinda human. As he said, he has as much as a healthy ego as any politician seeking the highest office. You have to believe in yourself to an almost ridiculous degree to take it on. I hope his self confidence is based on this reasoning ability to tackle hard problems in detail. One of Bush's biggest problems was that he actively avoided differing opinions. Obama's best compliment came from Bill Clinton, when he said that Obama has the intellectual curiosity necessary for this job. Obama seems to relish intellectual complexity as much as Bush eschewed it. We are both gunna have plenty of time to study the guy and see whose view holds up best. Black people showing joyful exuberance in him winning are gunna be tempered by his inability to transform their economic situation. I hope their realization of the reality of how much power the president really has doesn't turn them against Obama. My black GF told me about the crabs in a barrel syndrome that holds back black culture. When one crab tries to escape the barrel, the others grab him and hold him in. We have already seen a bit of this from Jessie Jackson with his little castration mime for Obama for what he claimed was Obama talking down to black people. Black people are gunna learn that Obama was not brought up in black culture, and his views are not going to be a complete match. He crosses race lines in a way that will either bridge them or alienate both sides. The guy has been handed a freaking incredible challenge. So whether he was having an oh shit moment during his acceptance speech or not, he had better put on his waders for the shit storm he is stepping into! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But comparing the intellectual capacity of Bush to Obama, if that is what you meant by empty suit, is completely ridiculous. Not that I think Bush was a dummy, I do not. But I never saw evidence that his ability to entertain concepts rose above the canned phrases and slogans that he peppered us with for 8 years. In Obama's speech I hear a more honestly thoughtful man. I agree, but there are other meanings of empty suit. Not sure which one bitingbirdie had in mind. For me, it's been the sense that he's been wrapped up in contemplation of his own wonderfulness. That's why I was so struck by his demeanor on election night. As Patrick suggested, I think he was having an Oh, shit! moment, realizing that even this wonderfulness might not be enough to fulfill the hopes he had encouraged
[FairfieldLife] Nice Bluegrass Show
If you like bluegrass music, go to Fairfield's local station right now http://kruufm.com/ and listen over the internet wherever you are. They're playing some great stuff. Every Thursday from 10-12am Iowa time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dog training and its relationship to FFL
On Nov 6, 2008, at 10:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought Shamu was the killer-whale from Sea World. No, no. A sham-mu is the way that a sham Zen Master (you know, a member of that international religious conspiracy ED's always talking about) replies to a koan. Sam Cohen? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Monsters on TV
Paul Krugman, among my favorite political commentators, has spoken forthrightly of how during the past few years we have had 'monsters' in office, naming Tom Delay, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. He complains that until recently, if an observer simply called them what they are, he or she was termed 'shrill.' I could not agree more. But I'd like to take this discussion out of the realm of commentary and into that of action. It is unacceptable that television news brings Tom Delay and Karl Rove on as bona fide political commentators, when both are criminals. The same thing goes for Oliver North. Delay has been indicted on corruption charges and had to step down from his seat in Congress. Rove led a campaign to have the press out a covert CIA operative who was attempting to stop Iranian nuclear proliferation, essentially blowing her cover and that of her contacts to Tehran (i.e. he is a traitor). There was a time when individuals so tainted with crime made themselves unacceptable in polite society, including on television. Instead, these monsters are being given air time. CNN brought Delay on to accuse Barack Obama of being a 'Marxist.' To have that shameless embezzler given a platform to smear an honorable man just made my blood boil. Folks, we need an organization that can blanket the corporate media with emails of complaint every time they bring on a criminal and parade him as a legitimate commentator. If they blow us off, it would be time to get up some advertiser boycotts. Full article at: http://www.juancole.com/2008/11/monsters-on-television.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
On Nov 6, 2008, at 8:48 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:00 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Finally, Steve Schmidt (who reportedly picked Palin as VP) Thank god for Steve Schmidt--he's my new hero! And here's to Palin in 2012! Run, Sarah, run! Sal Wickedly funny! Palin in 2012! Nice one Sal. Yep, Steve Schmidt--a repug even I can love. Here is some more fun from Ms. 15-Minutes-are-up. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html http://tinyurl.com/6kma8y I will be looking forward to the cascading revelations from her handlers. (OH yeah, I'm deep like that!) Yeah, really, shame on you, Curtis... Sarah Palin--god's gift to the Democrats! The gift that (hopefully) keeps on giving. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
biting birdie is either raunchy herself under another alias or her twin sister. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good morning, raunchy! This post was from bitingbirdie, actually. Cynical as ever, I see. I think you need a stiff drink. I do wonder why your perception of Obama is so at odds with how the nation sees him. Believe me, those who share her perception of Obama wonder the same thing. A wave of hope and optimism is sweeping this country, and yet you choose to wallow in the lowest possible view. I wonder what your problem is. Yes, whenever a person is out of step with whatever wave happens to be sweeping the country, it must be because there's something wrong with him or her. The masses are, after all, always right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kneecapping Sarah Palin
It begins: Palin didn't know Africa was a continent, claims Fox News by Allahpundit 11/5/08 Via Ace, a tasty pile of shinola straight from the stovetop of disgruntled McCain staffers. It's too cute by half, as is the detail about NAFTA; they might as well have tossed in a story about her having to guess who's buried in Grant's tomb. To believe it, you have to believe she figured out a way to become governor of Alaska while somehow lacking the mental power to piece together which three nations might be involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Diehard `Cuda-haters like Sullivan will, of course, be more than happy to oblige. You'll find another clip from Fox that aired earlier today below the Carl Cameron video. See if you can figure out the thematic link. Exit question: If she's really this much of an abject imbecile, how did that detail manage to escape the attention of Newsweek? http://tinyurl.com/6ydkj8 There's no sign of it in their highlight reel of the dishiest dirt they learned about the campaign, a piece which actually includes a quote from another aide about Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast as if to prove that they're not holding back on the `Cuda. Update: The plot thickens. http://tinyurl.com/6ab7na Video Fox News: Palin didn't know Africa was a continent http://tinyurl.com/6lmrk3 Video Palin on the media coverage http://tinyurl.com/6qs3em
[FairfieldLife] Anybody want to donate to send flowers to Steve Schmidt?
I'm not kidding--if there's enough interest, I'd be more than happy to take the time and trouble to figure out how to do this. Steve Schmidt--theDemocrats' best friend. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kneecapping Sarah Palin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here Comes the Bus! Beep Beep! by dcmediagirl 11/6/08 To return to the original topic of this blog men fuck up most egregiously. A female sacrficial lamb is trotted out to take it in the neck. Enough already. Hilarious stuff! There was no sexism in the coverage of Palin. The embarrassing truth that her defenders cannot stomach is that Sarah was undone by no one other than herself. She didn't know anything! I remember Dan Quayle taking just as much flak in 1988 as Palin has done, and for the same reason.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: biting birdie is either raunchy herself under another alias or her twin sister. There once was a nice biting bird Accused of faking we have heard When she was exposed For wearing dog clothes She bit the bird-dog on the nose
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dog training and its relationship to FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recently a friend who was visiting from Paris stayed at my house, and accompanied me when I was walking my dogs. Since she trains dogs for a living, when she offered some useful criticism, I paid attention. And *attention* was the nature of the advice she gave me. She pointed out that I tended to pay the most atten- tion to the dogs when they were doing something wrong (what she called Bad dog! syndrome), whereas I often didn't pay as much attention to them and stoke them when they were doing something right. I've been paying...uh... attention to her advice ever since, and it has made a remarkable difference in the overall comportment of my furry friends. So I might pass along the same advice to readers of FFL who find themselves troubled by the Troll Factor. What are trolls *after*? What are they *looking for*? Duh. Attention. And when you give it to them by overreacting to one of their posts that are calculated *to* elicit an overreac- tion response, you are in effect REINFORCING that bad dog behavior. They poke and prod, you react, they get the attention they were looking for. Therefore they repeat the behavior. Another approach, for those who feel that those amongst us that they have decided are trolls, but who still feel that there might be someone in there to communicate with, is to reply to them ONLY when they do something right, something that deserves to be reinforced. If, instead of being insulting, they actually post some- thing of value, something that strikes a resonance with you, reply and attempt to pursue that thread, *in the spirit in which it was started*. The minute that the troll tries to turn things nasty or personally insulting, end your participation in the thread, and don't reply to them again until they post something else of a positive nature. Heck, it's worth a try. Nothing else has worked. Nothing works because not only are the trolls reinforced, those who engage with the trolls are reinforced by the drama of it all. Without the drama would you all be here?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
raunchy, this is called nonsense verse. Now your poems match your political views! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: biting birdie is either raunchy herself under another alias or her twin sister. There once was a nice biting bird Accused of faking we have heard When she was exposed For wearing dog clothes She bit the bird-dog on the nose
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kneecapping Sarah Palin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Here Comes the Bus! Beep Beep! by dcmediagirl 11/6/08 To return to the original topic of this blog men fuck up most egregiously. A female sacrficial lamb is trotted out to take it in the neck. Enough already. Hilarious stuff! There was no sexism in the coverage of Palin. Of course, there's been plenty of sexism in the coverage of Palin. But I don't believe that's what raunchydog was talking about here; funny how you read it that way. The media are just reporting what Republicans are saying about her. But gee, Feste, according to Barry, *any* criticism of Palin by Republicans is automatically misogyny: Now my next prediction. When the Republicans start to do what they intended to do from the very beginning -- blame their loss completely on Sarah Palin -- we won't hear a word of protest from the criers of 'Misogyny!' and the supposed feminists on this forum. (We'll overlook the fact that he was wrong on both counts--that Republicans intended from the very beginning to blame their loss completely on Sarah Palin, and that we wouldn't hear a word of protest from the criers of 'Misogyny' etc.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: biting birdie is either raunchy herself under another alias or her twin sister. I know how distressing it must be, Feste, to think there is more than one individual here who is not an Obama supporter. I mean, raunchydog was even accused of being *my* alter ego at one point. I'll leave in my other points that you weren't able to respond to: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good morning, raunchy! This post was from bitingbirdie, actually. Cynical as ever, I see. I think you need a stiff drink. I do wonder why your perception of Obama is so at odds with how the nation sees him. Believe me, those who share her perception of Obama wonder the same thing. A wave of hope and optimism is sweeping this country, and yet you choose to wallow in the lowest possible view. I wonder what your problem is. Yes, whenever a person is out of step with whatever wave happens to be sweeping the country, it must be because there's something wrong with him or her. The masses are, after all, always right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kneecapping Sarah Palin
snip To believe it, you have to believe she figured out a way to become governor of Alaska while somehow lacking the mental power to piece together which three nations might be involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Very easily. She ran against a very unpopular corrupt incumbent, on a platform of wringing every dime out of the oil companies for payoffs to Alaskan citizens. You can challenge any of the claims of her staffers, and we may never get to the bottom of it all. But if you heard her speak (and I listened to every one of the very few interviews she gave with demented relish) and come away respecting her intellectually...WTF? I don't need staffer to tell me the chick was in over her head. Just as I figured the same thing about Bush before he got in office. Is it too much to ask that our most powerful leaders speak in complete sentences that make sense? That they don't sprinkle absurd malapropisms into speeches that are our only way to look under the hood and see how the car is running? Yeah, you can become governor by promising to fight for the desires of that state's citizens. Bush did it too. But it doesn't mean you know anything about the complexities of our international relationships. And if you think a mother of 5, running the state, with a husband who also works fulltime has one freaking moment to crack a book and expand her perspective by actually READING...double WTF! Shoot the messengers all you want Raunchy, she sank her own ship. Diehard `Cuda-haters like Sullivan will, of course, be more than happy to oblige. You'll find another clip from Fox that aired earlier today below the Carl Cameron video. See if you can figure out the thematic link. Exit question: If she's really this much of an abject imbecile, how did that detail manage to escape the attention of Newsweek? http://tinyurl.com/6ydkj8 There's no sign of it in their highlight reel of the dishiest dirt they learned about the campaign, a piece which actually includes a quote from another aide about Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast as if to prove that they're not holding back on the `Cuda. Update: The plot thickens. http://tinyurl.com/6ab7na Video Fox News: Palin didn't know Africa was a continent http://tinyurl.com/6lmrk3 Video Palin on the media coverage http://tinyurl.com/6qs3em
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dog training and its relationship to FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Recently a friend who was visiting from Paris stayed at my house, and accompanied me when I was walking my dogs. Since she trains dogs for a living, when she offered some useful criticism, I paid attention. And *attention* was the nature of the advice she gave me. She pointed out that I tended to pay the most atten- tion to the dogs when they were doing something wrong (what she called Bad dog! syndrome), whereas I often didn't pay as much attention to them and stoke them when they were doing something right. I've been paying...uh... attention to her advice ever since, and it has made a remarkable difference in the overall comportment of my furry friends. So I might pass along the same advice to readers of FFL who find themselves troubled by the Troll Factor. What are trolls *after*? What are they *looking for*? Duh. Attention. And when you give it to them by overreacting to one of their posts that are calculated *to* elicit an overreac- tion response, you are in effect REINFORCING that bad dog behavior. They poke and prod, you react, they get the attention they were looking for. Therefore they repeat the behavior. Another approach, for those who feel that those amongst us that they have decided are trolls, but who still feel that there might be someone in there to communicate with, is to reply to them ONLY when they do something right, something that deserves to be reinforced. If, instead of being insulting, they actually post some- thing of value, something that strikes a resonance with you, reply and attempt to pursue that thread, *in the spirit in which it was started*. The minute that the troll tries to turn things nasty or personally insulting, end your participation in the thread, and don't reply to them again until they post something else of a positive nature. Heck, it's worth a try. Nothing else has worked. Nothing works because not only are the trolls reinforced, those who engage with the trolls are reinforced by the drama of it all. Without the drama would you all be here? Hey, I didn't say that *I* thought there was anyone in there worth communicating with. I was just passing along advice to those who still do. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's why I was so struck by his demeanor on election night. As Patrick suggested, I think he was having an Oh, shit! moment, realizing that even this wonderfulness might not be enough to fulfill the hopes he had encouraged people to invest in him. I re-listened to sections of his speech to try to detect what you felt about it. Did you just listen to the audio, or did you watch the video? I still don't think it reflected self doubt. If I were to guess, I would say that his slightly subdued demeanor was graciousness in winning. Not gloating over the fact that he just crushed McCain. You might want to take a gander at his victory speeches during the primaries for comparison. It's possible to be exultant and perfectly gracious without gloating. According to Patrick, George Stephanopoulos--who's seen a whole lot of speeches-- said it was the most subdued victory speech he'd ever seen. And what's the matter with a good dose of self- doubt? That's certainly one thing that never bothered George Bush. As I said, I think it was a good sign. (But did you notice that he didn't mention Hillary or Bill once? And that when he was reeling off the pairs of opposites he pledged to be the president of--rich, poor, black, white, abled, disabled, etc.-- he didn't include perhaps the most fundamental pair of opposites, men and women?) snip I haven't seen this from Obama yet. He seems to smile when he is happy inside, and it gives me less of a sense of cognitive dissonance that I feel when I watch a lot of politicians. Well, but doesn't that support my sense that he was not in a totally upbeat state of mind on election night? Because he really didn't smile much at all. snip I don't really know if Hillary's record supports the idea that she was better at dealing with the Washington grinder. She often seemed to get in her own way and stir up insane levels of opposition. If that were not the case we might have universal health care today. Sheesh, the health care debacle was back during her very first year in the White House. By all accounts (I think I've pointed this out to you before), she has learned in the years since how to deal with folks on the other side of the aisle. You won't hear even the most right-wing Republican congresscritters complaining about how she operated in the Senate. snip Your criticism seems to be a bit self-contradictory. Obaman on one hand being carried away with his wonderfulness, and on the other self doubting. Oh, come on, Curtis. I said pretty clearly that the self-doubt is *new*. It seems to have begun a few weeks ago when he first realized he was probably going to win. And you saw the full weight of his awareness of that responsibility on election night. snip Black people showing joyful exuberance in him winning are gunna be tempered by his inability to transform their economic situation. I hope their realization of the reality of how much power the president really has doesn't turn them against Obama. My black GF Your GF is black? Boy, that must have made for some interesting conversations during the campaign! Great to have her perspective. told me about the crabs in a barrel syndrome that holds back black culture. When one crab tries to escape the barrel, the others grab him and hold him in. We have already seen a bit of this from Jessie Jackson with his little castration mime for Obama for what he claimed was Obama talking down to black people. Yeah, I don't think the Jesse incident was an example of that, though. He was pissed at Obama for not being supportive enough of black people, which Obama was in a position to do *because* he had escaped the barrel. It's one thing to grab the crab so it can't escape the barrel. It's quite another to expect the crab who *has* escaped to do whatever it can to help the others escape too. Jesse didn't think Obama was pulling his weight in that regard. But to see the tears pouring down that grizzled face during Obama's speech was incredibly moving. You can barely begin to imagine what must have been going through his mind and churning in his heart. Rebecca Traister had a wonderful piece on Salon yesterday about this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/05/obama/ Money quote: How could Jesse Jackson not cry, standing in that crowd, realizing that whatever hurt time and generational difference might have inflicted on his project and his legacy, he was witnessing the dawn of a world that his work made possible, but that he had not been able to make possible himself. And then he began to wave a small American flag on a wooden stick, like a kid at a Fourth of July parade. I just got all teary myself as I pasted that in. Black people are gunna learn that Obama was not brought up in black culture, and his views are not going to be a complete match. He crosses race lines in a way that will
Re: [FairfieldLife] Dog training and its relationship to FFL
I just place the trolls on block and don't even get their messages. Works for me. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Thu, 11/6/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Dog training and its relationship to FFL To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 8:12 AM Recently a friend who was visiting from Paris stayed at my house, and accompanied me when I was walking my dogs. Since she trains dogs for a living, when she offered some useful criticism, I paid attention. And *attention* was the nature of the advice she gave me. She pointed out that I tended to pay the most atten- tion to the dogs when they were doing something wrong (what she called Bad dog! syndrome), whereas I often didn't pay as much attention to them and stoke them when they were doing something right. I've been paying...uh... attention to her advice ever since, and it has made a remarkable difference in the overall comportment of my furry friends. So I might pass along the same advice to readers of FFL who find themselves troubled by the Troll Factor. What are trolls *after*? What are they *looking for*? Duh. Attention. And when you give it to them by overreacting to one of their posts that are calculated *to* elicit an overreac- tion response, you are in effect REINFORCING that bad dog behavior. They poke and prod, you react, they get the attention they were looking for. Therefore they repeat the behavior. Another approach, for those who feel that those amongst us that they have decided are trolls, but who still feel that there might be someone in there to communicate with, is to reply to them ONLY when they do something right, something that deserves to be reinforced. If, instead of being insulting, they actually post some- thing of value, something that strikes a resonance with you, reply and attempt to pursue that thread, *in the spirit in which it was started*. The minute that the troll tries to turn things nasty or personally insulting, end your participation in the thread, and don't reply to them again until they post something else of a positive nature. Heck, it's worth a try. Nothing else has worked. 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Kneecapping Sarah Palin
I realized that she was a dim bulb, in way over her head, when she tried to argue with Couric that seeing Russia gave her some sort of international experience. That is quadruple WTF? How can anyone, in any argument defend that. --- On Thu, 11/6/08, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Kneecapping Sarah Palin To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 12:20 PM snip To believe it, you have to believe she figured out a way to become governor of Alaska while somehow lacking the mental power to piece together which three nations might be involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Very easily. She ran against a very unpopular corrupt incumbent, on a platform of wringing every dime out of the oil companies for payoffs to Alaskan citizens. You can challenge any of the claims of her staffers, and we may never get to the bottom of it all. But if you heard her speak (and I listened to every one of the very few interviews she gave with demented relish) and come away respecting her intellectually...WTF? I don't need staffer to tell me the chick was in over her head. Just as I figured the same thing about Bush before he got in office. Is it too much to ask that our most powerful leaders speak in complete sentences that make sense? That they don't sprinkle absurd malapropisms into speeches that are our only way to look under the hood and see how the car is running? Yeah, you can become governor by promising to fight for the desires of that state's citizens. Bush did it too. But it doesn't mean you know anything about the complexities of our international relationships. And if you think a mother of 5, running the state, with a husband who also works fulltime has one freaking moment to crack a book and expand her perspective by actually READING...double WTF! Shoot the messengers all you want Raunchy, she sank her own ship. Diehard `Cuda-haters like Sullivan will, of course, be more than happy to oblige. You'll find another clip from Fox that aired earlier today below the Carl Cameron video. See if you can figure out the thematic link. Exit question: If she's really this much of an abject imbecile, how did that detail manage to escape the attention of Newsweek? http://tinyurl.com/6ydkj8 There's no sign of it in their highlight reel of the dishiest dirt they learned about the campaign, a piece which actually includes a quote from another aide about Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast as if to prove that they're not holding back on the `Cuda. Update: The plot thickens. http://tinyurl.com/6ab7na Video Fox News: Palin didn't know Africa was a continent http://tinyurl.com/6lmrk3 Video Palin on the media coverage http://tinyurl.com/6qs3em 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
snip Did you just listen to the audio, or did you watch the video? Yes, I should have said, watched. I still don't think it reflected self doubt. If I were to guess, I would say that his slightly subdued demeanor was graciousness in winning. Not gloating over the fact that he just crushed McCain. You might want to take a gander at his victory speeches during the primaries for comparison. He might have learned something from that. It's possible to be exultant and perfectly gracious without gloating. According to Patrick, George Stephanopoulos--who's seen a whole lot of speeches-- said it was the most subdued victory speech he'd ever seen. Agreed. Since we are just guessing he did appeal very serious and that flies in the face of characterizations that he is just s big speech guy. And what's the matter with a good dose of self- doubt? That's certainly one thing that never bothered George Bush. As I said, I think it was a good sign. Right on. (But did you notice that he didn't mention Hillary or Bill once? And that when he was reeling off the pairs of opposites he pledged to be the president of--rich, poor, black, white, abled, disabled, etc.-- he didn't include perhaps the most fundamental pair of opposites, men and women?) I didn't notice. I wonder if it was a slight. It will be interesting to see how they work together. I also didn't notice the men and women omission. Given his background with his mom and grandmom, I am not ready to read anything into that omission. snip I haven't seen this from Obama yet. He seems to smile when he is happy inside, and it gives me less of a sense of cognitive dissonance that I feel when I watch a lot of politicians. Well, but doesn't that support my sense that he was not in a totally upbeat state of mind on election night? Because he really didn't smile much at all. I don't think we can underestimate the depression that lingers when a parental family member dies. I think it took me a full year to really shake off the feeling when I lost a parent. This will be a good interview question for him. Since you are not the only person who noticed it, I would like to hear what he felt. snip I don't really know if Hillary's record supports the idea that she was better at dealing with the Washington grinder. She often seemed to get in her own way and stir up insane levels of opposition. If that were not the case we might have universal health care today. Sheesh, the health care debacle was back during her very first year in the White House. By all accounts (I think I've pointed this out to you before), she has learned in the years since how to deal with folks on the other side of the aisle. You won't hear even the most right-wing Republican congresscritters complaining about how she operated in the Senate. Fair enough. snip Your criticism seems to be a bit self-contradictory. Obaman on one hand being carried away with his wonderfulness, and on the other self doubting. Oh, come on, Curtis. I said pretty clearly that the self-doubt is *new*. It seems to have begun a few weeks ago when he first realized he was probably going to win. And you saw the full weight of his awareness of that responsibility on election night. I thought he was grinning like a fool in most of his appearances when he knew he was ahead. The press even noted it. The difference seemed to me to come after visiting his dying grandmom. I was not trying to say that the contradiction was not valid through time, but that it doesn't mean he was self doubting. He might just feel different at different times like the rest of us and he doesn't hide it. It had to be a bittersweet victory to not have either his mom or grandmom share it. For all we know he could have been trying not to freak'n cry like a baby like Halley Barry when she got her Oscar. snip Black people showing joyful exuberance in him winning are gunna be tempered by his inability to transform their economic situation. I hope their realization of the reality of how much power the president really has doesn't turn them against Obama. My black GF Your GF is black? Boy, that must have made for some interesting conversations during the campaign! Great to have her perspective. Actually it was prior GF. She opened my eyes in so many ways. She wasn't the first black woman I had dated, but she was the first I fell in love with. I was the first white person she had dated. We both noticed how our perceptions changed over time, from noticing vivid differences, (I'm so white I practicality glow) to having our brains stop paying attention. It changed my life and hers as well. told me about the crabs in a barrel syndrome that holds back black culture. When one crab tries to escape the barrel, the others grab him and hold him in. We have already seen a bit of this from Jessie Jackson with his little
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: That's why I was so struck by his demeanor on election night. As Patrick suggested, I think he was having an Oh, shit! moment, realizing that even this wonderfulness might not be enough to fulfill the hopes he had encouraged people to invest in him. I re-listened to sections of his speech to try to detect what you felt about it. Did you just listen to the audio, or did you watch the video? I still don't think it reflected self doubt. If I were to guess, I would say that his slightly subdued demeanor was graciousness in winning. Not gloating over the fact that he just crushed McCain. You might want to take a gander at his victory speeches during the primaries for comparison. You can't compare primary speeches and election speeches. Primary speeches are to keep pumped up for the next stop. Victory speeches on election night are never boisterous affairs, it's considered bad form. He was subdued -- his last campaign stop was that afternoon in indiana after which he was finally able to take time to process his emotions over his grandmother's death, plus the transition team meets the next day to start on that process. I can't imagine being elected president at this time in the country and not feeling the weight of the task unless you're a total lightweight like bush or palin who'd certainly view as an opportunity to celebrate ME ME ME.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: That's why I was so struck by his demeanor on election night. As Patrick suggested, I think he was having an Oh, shit! moment, realizing that even this wonderfulness might not be enough to fulfill the hopes he had encouraged people to invest in him. I re-listened to sections of his speech to try to detect what you felt about it. Did you just listen to the audio, or did you watch the video? I still don't think it reflected self doubt. If I were to guess, I would say that his slightly subdued demeanor was graciousness in winning. Not gloating over the fact that he just crushed McCain. You might want to take a gander at his victory speeches during the primaries for comparison. You can't compare primary speeches and election speeches. Primary speeches are to keep pumped up for the next stop. Victory speeches on election night are never boisterous affairs, it's considered bad form. Hmm. I don't believe I said anything about the speech needing to be *boisterous*, did I? Usually they're a lot more *exuberant* than Obama's was, though. As I noted, even George Stephanopoulos said he'd never seen one that subdued. You might want to compare this one to Clinton's victory speech on election night in 1992. snip I can't imagine being elected president at this time in the country and not feeling the weight of the task unless you're a total lightweight like bush or palin who'd certainly view as an opportunity to celebrate ME ME ME. Boo apparently believes he's correcting my perception of Obama's demeanor, when in fact he's just restating what I had said using slightly different words. Maybe if he actually *read what I wrote* before commenting, he wouldn't get so mixed up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting post-election revelations about Sarah Palin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel sorry for Palin. Here's a woman who is not stupid, but she's not intellectually curious nor oriented. She's a rube. Probably doesn't read very much and her jobs as Mayor of a small Alaskan town and then Governor of Alaska which is an amazingly underpopulated state, under 7000,000 people, did not force her to expand her intellectual horizons very far. She gets thrown onto the national stage in the media spotlight and she tries to skate by on charisma instead of knowledge and she humiliates herself. So she becomes defensive and refuses help. She might have fantasies of running in 2012, but there has got to be a paradigm change in her orientation to the job, or she'll just humiliate herself again. Some one smart and close to her needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with her to let her know the facts of political life. And you Republicans out there, you really want to waste your energy by trying to promote this rube? I get where you're coming from, but I don't see her as being thrown onto the national stage, she leaped onto it herself with smiles and winks and an enthusiasm only the truly narcissistic can understand. She could have said no thanks. Her former chief of staff in alaska has said she was way over her head as governor but she thought she could handle VP. You can only have a come to Jesus meeting like you suggest with someone open to facing the truth about their abilities and I don't see that happening here. Also I can't feel sorry for someone who's spent the past few months calling me an anti-american, terrorist loving, godless socialist -- her rallies were like a traveling salvation show for the rest in america. Thank God she's not going to go away anytime soon, and republicans may even run her in 4 yrs which means they'll further solidify the appalachian vote.
[FairfieldLife] Negative book on Sri Aurobindo and the Mother taken to court
Another one bites the dust? http://www.peterheehs.com/ http://www.peterheehs.com/lives-sri-aurobindo.htm Negative book on Sri Aurobindo and the Mother taken to court Court stays publication of book on Sri Aurobindo- The Times of India, 6 Nov 2008. Balasore: Orissa High Court on Tuesday stayed the publication and circulation of a book in India that is said to contain objectionable remarks against The Mother and Sri Aurobindo. The book – The lives of Sri Aurobindo – is written by Peter Heehs, an American who is one of the founders of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives in Puducherry. It was published in the US in May this year by Columbia Press and was to be re-printed and sold by Penguin India in November. On Wednesday, in response to a writ petition by Balasore resident Geetanjali Bhattacharya, an HC bench comprising Justice I M Quddasi and B P Ray ordered Penguin India not to publish the book till it got a no-objection certificate from the Union home ministry and ministry of information and broadcasting. In her petition, Bhattacharya has quoted alleged excerpts from Heehs' book and urged the court to ban the publication of the book and take action against the writer. Some of the writings, as mentioned in the petition, are: Aurobindo's character, life, writings and thoughts did not hold integrity; He (Aurobindo) possesses a morally loose character; His claims to spiritual expression and realisation is questionable and irrelevant; and that his spirituality emerges from a streak of inherited madness. The most shocking claim by the writer is that Aurobindo's relationship with The Mother was romantic in nature, the petitioner has said. She quotes the preface of the book: A statement on the politician or poet that rubs the people wrong way will turn into a political or legal issue or possibility cause a riot. Claiming that the book is aimed at tarnishing the images of Sreemaa and Aurobindo, Bhattacharya has called it an invasion on the religious sentiments of Indians. Even Heehs knows that there might be riots in the country after his book is published in India. Bhattacharya told TOI over phone, adding that the book has objectionable descriptions of the relationship between Shreemaa and Aurobindo and derogatory remarks on Mrunalini, Nalini and Meera as well. Peter Heehs, who was a taxi driver, a school dropout and a drug-addict in the US, was rehabilitated in Aurobindo Ashram in Puducherry years ago. He has since left the Ashram. She said. During the hearing, additional Solicitor-general J K Mishra, counsel for the Union Government, approached the court with a request that the Center be asked to find out from the Author the source of his information. the court also has asked both ministries to file affidavits on what action they have taken on the petitioner's representation. The next hearing is on December 15, said Siddhartha Das, Bhattacharya's counsel. The Hindustan Times November 6th 2008 Soumyajit Patnaik Bhubaneswar - November 5th The Scheduled publication of Sri Aurobindo's biography by Penguin India this month has run into trouble with the Orissa High Court on Tuesday asking the Publisher to obtain a no-objection certificate from the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry and Home Ministry. The Lives of Sri Aurobindo is penned by American writer Peter Heehs and has already been published by Columbia University Press in May 2008. In India, it is scheduled for release this month. The court, acting on a petition asked the I and B Ministry to inquire into allegations that the book makes defamatory remarks about Sri Aurobindo, one of India's revered philosophers and freedom fighters, who died in 1950. Gitanjali Devi, in her plea, has mentioned that the book is blasphemous and makes several defamatory remarks on the life and character of the philosopher. Her counsel Mr. Milan Kanungo told HT The court has directed the I and B Ministry to make a thorough inquiry into the contents of the book and ascertain whether it contains any defamatory comments about Sri Aurobindo. The report would be submitted to the court by December 15, which has been fixed as the next day of hearing. Heehs, one of the founders of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives did not respond to an e-mail query from HT. Orissa HC sets condition for release of Sri Aurobindo's biography Cuttack | Wednesday, Nov 5 2008 IST Orissa High Court has directed the publisher of a biography on the life of Sri Aurobindo, penned by Peter Heehs, not to release the book in India without obtaining a no objection certificate from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and Union Home Ministry. Acting on a petition filed by one Geetanjali Devi of Balasore, a division bench of Orissa High Court, comprising Justices I M Quddusi and B P Ray, yesterday instructed Penguin Publishers to get
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. This statement is more dickish than a gay pride parade. The basis of the unions of my gay friends and relatives is LOVE. They love each other, just like good little heterosexual couples do. It is no surprise that gays rights is so slow in coming with attitudes like the one you expressed. Or would you like to amend your statement to include the possibility that gay people might have the exact same depth of emotions as you do? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue-- at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. John, I don't think you're getting the picture. You're replying as if I considered you sane, and wanted to initiate a conversation with you. Neither is true. I wrote you off as a nut case when you persisted in clinging to fairy tales as if they were real. Trying now to cloak your fear and homophobia in religious terms does not make you seem more sane. Fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance is what I said, and fear, bigotry, and religious intol- erance is what I meant. You embody all three in my opinion. It is your right to do so, but please do not imagine for a moment that I con- sider you sane enough to have a conversation with. Are we clear?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. The government has no business addressing the religious beliefs of citizens. That's what churches are for. Allowing same-sex marriages does not mean requiring churches to perform them (although a lot of the promotion for Prop. 8 pretended it would in order to scare people into voting for it). They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. As I've already pointed out, not all straight marriages create children; and gay couples are perfectly able to *nurture* children for the continuation of [hu]mankind and the American [as well as any other] way of life] just as well as straight couples. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union Absolute, total bullshit. Both gays and straights can and do have all the sexual indulgence they want whether they're married or not, so obviously that isn't why they want to get married. Gay people fall in love just like straight people do. They want to marry to make a formal commitment to each other. Sex is no more (and no less) the basis of their unions than it is for straight people. Support for Prop. 8 is grounded in bigotry, and it fosters discrimination. Not allowing gays to marry brands them as second-class citizens--and this is exactly what Prop. 8 proponents want to accomplish. Shame on them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
John wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. We have a little thing in this country called separation of church state. Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Prop 8 was nothing more than trying to turn some outdated religious belief into law. We simply can't have that. If we start instituting religious beliefs as law then its time to burn the country down and start over again.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Kneecapping Sarah Palin
I wonder how soon Alaska will follow California's example and have a gubernatorial recall? We had one here but wound up with another movie star who proved that he couldn't do any better than the governor he replaced. The prison guard's union started to petition for his recall. Wrong union to do that because we see them as part of the Prison Industrial Complex and they need fewer members. Way too many people in prison for victimless crimes. This costs the taxpayers money and often creates an alliance between liberals on rights issues and conservatives on taxes. Peter wrote: I realized that she was a dim bulb, in way over her head, when she tried to argue with Couric that seeing Russia gave her some sort of international experience. That is quadruple WTF? How can anyone, in any argument defend that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. Horseshit. That's plain misinformation and bigotry. Marriage and Gays: The government should keep it strictly as a legal contract and keep religious doctrine or personal bias out of it. Any religious or cultural limitations or requirements should remain separate and within the preference of the parties making the contract. In that way, religionists and/or bigots can define marriage totally as they wish *within their own religious or cultural standards* - and the legal contract itself can apply to the whole citizenry and remain free from any controversy. What's most disturbing is religionists and bigots attempting to legislate *their* doctrines and biases as mandated public policy for everyone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Election day hangover
I watched a Bill Clinton interview about how it felt to win the election. He talked about how the enormity/reality of the job hits you after the win. I'm sure President Elect Obama is feeling that same thing. I can't imagine being elected president at this time in the country and not feeling the weight of the task unless you're a total lightweight like bush or palin who'd certainly view as an opportunity to celebrate ME ME ME.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Dog training and its relationship to FFL
Contrary to Turq's advice which I've also given from time to time, sometimes I feel it fun to hassle the trolls a bit. I notice he does too. Most of the time I ignore their messages. Usually on high traffic days I will just do a search to see if anyone has commented back to me (since you can't always tell from the way the threads are displayed) and then hit the Mark Folder Read on the menu to keep the clutter down (the folder defaults to Unread). Believe it or not I'm on another group that can makes the traffic on FFL look pretty sparse and sometimes I have to do the Mark Folder Read a couple times a day. gullible fool wrote: I just place the trolls on block and don't even get their messages. Works for me. Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Thu, 11/6/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Dog training and its relationship to FFL To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 8:12 AM Recently a friend who was visiting from Paris stayed at my house, and accompanied me when I was walking my dogs. Since she trains dogs for a living, when she offered some useful criticism, I paid attention. And *attention* was the nature of the advice she gave me. She pointed out that I tended to pay the most atten- tion to the dogs when they were doing something wrong (what she called Bad dog! syndrome), whereas I often didn't pay as much attention to them and stoke them when they were doing something right. I've been paying...uh... attention to her advice ever since, and it has made a remarkable difference in the overall comportment of my furry friends. So I might pass along the same advice to readers of FFL who find themselves troubled by the Troll Factor. What are trolls *after*? What are they *looking for*? Duh. Attention. And when you give it to them by overreacting to one of their posts that are calculated *to* elicit an overreac- tion response, you are in effect REINFORCING that bad dog behavior. They poke and prod, you react, they get the attention they were looking for. Therefore they repeat the behavior. Another approach, for those who feel that those amongst us that they have decided are trolls, but who still feel that there might be someone in there to communicate with, is to reply to them ONLY when they do something right, something that deserves to be reinforced. If, instead of being insulting, they actually post some- thing of value, something that strikes a resonance with you, reply and attempt to pursue that thread, *in the spirit in which it was started*. The minute that the troll tries to turn things nasty or personally insulting, end your participation in the thread, and don't reply to them again until they post something else of a positive nature. Heck, it's worth a try. Nothing else has worked. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Taxing churches...me likey. The original intention of their tax exempt status was to keep the government from taxing one out of existence in preference to some state religion, right? It is not really possible for our government to get away with that today. They can exist fine while paying taxes like I do. So I say, Tax em all, tax em good. Why should they not contribute to the infrastructure growth of an area just because they believe in mock-cannibalistic rituals, or that praying to an elephant headed god will improve your ability to overcome obstacles. My crazy beliefs never gets me out of any taxes! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: My prediction: this is going to become a national issue, with a push now by conservatives in every state to make the gay marriage ban a constitutional amendement. And Congress, according to the amending formula, must pass it too in order for it to become part of the constitution (but the president has NO vote in the amending process). You have a tendency to pick the worst case scenario in your predictions. It would be more pragmatic to say that the other states may adopt similar amendments to their state constitutions. There is no need to make it a national issue--at least at this time. By all means, let's keep these initiatives based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance at a local or state level. There is no reason to cause people in other countries to believe that all of America has gone insane by attempting to impose them on a national level. Many people misunderstand the rationale behind Proposition 8. It is not meant to discriminate gays who want to get live together. Gays can essentially get the same rights by other means, such as partnerships and other legal instruments. They can still live as a couple and are not being barred from doing so. They are not being put to jail for practicing sodomy or other sexual methods. IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union, although there may be variations of it to imitate the usual family structure. The basis of gay marriage is unfecundity. We have a little thing in this country called separation of church state. Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Prop 8 was nothing more than trying to turn some outdated religious belief into law. We simply can't have that. If we start instituting religious beliefs as law then its time to burn the country down and start over again.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
On Nov 6, 2008, at 2:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Why should they not contribute to the infrastructure growth of an area just because they believe in mock-cannibalistic rituals, or that praying to an elephant headed god will improve your ability to overcome obstacles. My crazy beliefs never gets me out of any taxes! Start a religion. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a little thing in this country called separation of church state. Lately the churches have been creeping over the line. They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. The tax exempt status of religions needs to be gotten rid of, period. They are clearly *for profit* businesses. They rake in *millions* that are not taxed. WHY? Can anyone present to me a reason why ANY relig- ion deserves to not pay taxes on the millions it extorts from its followers? Please don't claim their good works. Anyone who has ever looked at the financial records of a large religious organization knows how little of that is actually spent on good works. Far more would become available to help society if they just paid their fair share as tax revenues. For the record, I would say the same about ALL supposed non-profit organizations. If they make a profit, they should pay the same taxes on that profit as any corporation or individual. And I've actually known a few spiritual teachers who agree with me on this issue. They *refused* to allow their followers into badgering them into being non-profit or declaring themselves a religion. They kept careful books, and paid every penny of tax that they would owe as a business, because they realized that that's what they were.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Taxing churches...me likey. The original intention of their tax exempt status was to keep the government from taxing one out of existence in preference to some state religion, right? It is not really possible for our government to get away with that today. They can exist fine while paying taxes like I do. So I say, Tax em all, tax em good. [snip] The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention].
[FairfieldLife] Megachurches, Megabusinesses
Since this topic has come up in another thread, I thought I'd post a link to this thoughtful article from Forbes, on churches as business: http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/17/cz_lk_0917megachurch.html I certainly consider them businesses. The argument has been raised that the idea of not taxing churches originated because they wanted to keep them from meddling in the affairs of government. The idea went, We don't tax you, you don't try to convince your followers to elect people to pass laws that impose your church's beliefs on others. But they do that ANYWAY. Big time. Always have. And they do it while paying no taxes on the income of the church, only on payroll and sales of merchandise not directly related to the spreading of the religion. Does this sound FAIR to you? Personally I do not have a strong feeling for Jesus as a spiritual teacher. I've read his bio and some of the stories about him, however, and my take on who and what he was is that he would be *horrified* that churches weren't taxed. He would be horrified to learn that they had a profit *to* be taxed. He would have assumed that they gave it all away.
[FairfieldLife] Obama's Win: A Big Defeat For GOP Militarism And Jingoism
Because of the campaign's relentless focus on the economy, another aspect of yesterday's win has gotten far too little attention: It represented a crushing victory for globalism and true foreign policy realism over GOP militarism, jingoism, and delusions about American power. Consider this: Over the summer, a candidate with no military background went to Berlin and pledged a new era of American cooperation with the rest of the world, and in effect apologized to the world for America's unilateral belligerence. That same candidate then returned to America and decisively defeated an extraordinarily militaristic and jingoistic campaign, one built entirely on a war hero's bio and on the insistence that American military dominance abroad is imperative for our safety. Consider another stark contrast between the two candidates on foreign policy. Over the summer, Obama also said: Iraq is not a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. This was a strikingly gutsy acknowledgment that there are limits to what American military might can accomplish -- the sort of assertion that led one Republican to describe Obama as a true foreign policy realist. Bu contrast, McCain's world view holds, in effect, that there are no limits to what unbridled American power can accomplish if exercised with sufficient will. If we stay long enough in Iraq, McCain repeatedly insisted, our troops would be certain to return with victory and honor. Then there was McCain's POW heroism, featured in his ads and hailed non-stop by his female running mate. And yet Obama won decisively. It's true that the campaign was all about the economy. Yet to the extent that the public focused on foreign affairs, it decisively chose the foreign policy vision articulated by Obama. Polls showed that majorities supported Obama's positions on Iraq and on negotiating with hostile foreign powers. What's more, the electorate soundly rejected McCain's claim that Obama's positions revealed him as too weak and naive to handle crises. The jury is out on what this will mean in the real world. We don't really know yet precisely how Obama will implement his vision. But the moral remains clear: A candidate with no military background who unabashedly embraced liberal internationalism destroyed the most militaristic and jingoistic campaign in memory, if not in American history. ~~ By Greg Sargent http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/obamas_win_a_big_defeat_for_go.php http://tinyurl.com/579zj9
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention]. That is sort of what the cannibalists...I mean Christians have done concerning other religions. They control the show now. It was factions of Christianity that was the problem when the constitution was written. Now with our pluralistic society we have multi-religious issues unimaginable by our founding fathers. Judging by how much hatred was spewed on Obama for being a secret Muslim, I think we have a long way to go. Let's use some of the tax money from religions to support religious education and tolerance. They can write off the amounts they spend on charity just as we do, to avoid taxes. But exempting them from taxes elevates their beliefs above the common good, and I don't buy that. So you have an imaginary friend...you still gotta pitch in like the rest of us. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Lately the churches have been creeping over the line.They need to be pushed back or lose their tax exempt status. Taxing churches...me likey. The original intention of their tax exempt status was to keep the government from taxing one out of existence in preference to some state religion, right? It is not really possible for our government to get away with that today. They can exist fine while paying taxes like I do. So I say, Tax em all, tax em good. [snip] The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention].
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Win: A Big Defeat For GOP Militarism And Jingoism
Excellent article, John. Sometimes I think we're more sensitive to this than Americans for the simple reason that WE DON'T LIVE THERE. We live among people who look at the United States of America with fear, and speak of it with contempt. They don't WANT to. Spain, for example, played almost as big a part in aiding the American Revo- lution as France did (this is not widely known in the US), and as a result feels a centuries-long kinship with America. They'd really LOVE to believe in the American Myth, because they helped to create it and they have always been inspired by believing it's true. But they watch the News. It isn't true. And as a result, they regard America the same way you'd come to regard a nephew who is basically a nice guy, and family, but is so strung out on drugs that he'd rob your house and rape your daughters if you turned your back on him. They'd LOVE to love him again unconditionally, but they just can't. In this election, one of the candidates said that he wouldn't even consider sitting down and talking with the Spanish. The people I meet here weren't even convinced that he knew where Spain *was*; he seemed to give the impression that it was in Latin or South America. The other candidate got elected, and is the person being talked about in this excellent article. The difference is profound, and the fact that America choose Obama gives the Spanish as much hope as it gives me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because of the campaign's relentless focus on the economy, another aspect of yesterday's win has gotten far too little attention: It represented a crushing victory for globalism and true foreign policy realism over GOP militarism, jingoism, and delusions about American power. Consider this: Over the summer, a candidate with no military background went to Berlin and pledged a new era of American cooperation with the rest of the world, and in effect apologized to the world for America's unilateral belligerence. That same candidate then returned to America and decisively defeated an extraordinarily militaristic and jingoistic campaign, one built entirely on a war hero's bio and on the insistence that American military dominance abroad is imperative for our safety. Consider another stark contrast between the two candidates on foreign policy. Over the summer, Obama also said: Iraq is not a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. This was a strikingly gutsy acknowledgment that there are limits to what American military might can accomplish -- the sort of assertion that led one Republican to describe Obama as a true foreign policy realist. Bu contrast, McCain's world view holds, in effect, that there are no limits to what unbridled American power can accomplish if exercised with sufficient will. If we stay long enough in Iraq, McCain repeatedly insisted, our troops would be certain to return with victory and honor. Then there was McCain's POW heroism, featured in his ads and hailed non-stop by his female running mate. And yet Obama won decisively. It's true that the campaign was all about the economy. Yet to the extent that the public focused on foreign affairs, it decisively chose the foreign policy vision articulated by Obama. Polls showed that majorities supported Obama's positions on Iraq and on negotiating with hostile foreign powers. What's more, the electorate soundly rejected McCain's claim that Obama's positions revealed him as too weak and naive to handle crises. The jury is out on what this will mean in the real world. We don't really know yet precisely how Obama will implement his vision. But the moral remains clear: A candidate with no military background who unabashedly embraced liberal internationalism destroyed the most militaristic and jingoistic campaign in memory, if not in American history. ~~ By Greg Sargent http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/obamas_win_a_big_defeat_for_go.php http://tinyurl.com/579zj9
[FairfieldLife] Man is the master of his own destiny
Here is a Question from Arthur Max, Associated Press reporter who in a February 1st 2006 Press Conference, asked Maharishi this question: QUESTION: Maharishi, so many gurus, people like yourself have given so much thought to the direction of the world and have tried to lead great numbers of people in their direction. But by the very nature of their personalities and their own thinking, one has to wonder what happens to their Movements when they're no longer around. Would you like to speculate on what will happen to the ideas of the Maharishi whenever the day comes when he's not here to give us his own personal thoughts? MAHARISHI: Doesn't matter. There is a phrase; Man is the master of his own destiny. So the destiny of every man doesn't depend on the existence of Maharishi or his absence. Man is the master of his own destiny. Maharishi is showing a way. Who comes on the lighted way, he'll get to the target, he'll get to the goal of the way, those who don't, they don't, that's all. Man has a choice. Education is so very limited today. Whether this generation understands the words of Maharishi or not. Those who will understand will be better off, they'll be the master of their own destiny. Others will remain slaves of circumstances and situations, doesn't matter. Maharishi's message does not remain limited to his physical body. This is the message that was there before the body of Maharishi, and it will remain there when the body of Maharishi will not come up. So these are waste of thoughts, no?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
I don't consider myself very adept at perceiving the underlying motivations of people, but the arguments against gay marriage are so transparently Ick Factor-motivated that I'm surprised the arguments are not laughed off as just that - a bias against sex that makes them squeamish. I guess most heterosexuals get an ick response at the thought of gay sex, so they go along with specious reasoning like that John articulates below. It reminds me of the tortured arguments of the Dred Scott decisions of the 1850s, when all but one of the Justices went to extreme lengths to justify their decision that Africans were not fully human. It's funny to read queers' responses to thoughts of straight sex. They get creeped out just thinking about stuff we heterosexuals love. I think it was Pauline Kael who observed that there are no generally agreed-upon classics in the realm of porno movies - no Casablancas or It Happened One Nights - because sex is too personal and idiosyncratic for a wide swath of society to agree on what turns them on. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip IMO, Proposition 8 is trying to address the religious belief of citizens relating to the institution of marriage. The government has no business addressing the religious beliefs of citizens. That's what churches are for. Allowing same-sex marriages does not mean requiring churches to perform them (although a lot of the promotion for Prop. 8 pretended it would in order to scare people into voting for it). They are attempting to define the essential fabric of society, and that is the family. That starts with the man and the woman who can create children for the continuation of mankind and the American way of life. As I've already pointed out, not all straight marriages create children; and gay couples are perfectly able to *nurture* children for the continuation of [hu]mankind and the American [as well as any other] way of life] just as well as straight couples. Proposition 8 is a repudiation of the concept that marriage is solely for sexual indulgence and sensual gratification. For gays, this is essentially the basis of their union Absolute, total bullshit. Both gays and straights can and do have all the sexual indulgence they want whether they're married or not, so obviously that isn't why they want to get married. Gay people fall in love just like straight people do. They want to marry to make a formal commitment to each other. Sex is no more (and no less) the basis of their unions than it is for straight people. Support for Prop. 8 is grounded in bigotry, and it fosters discrimination. Not allowing gays to marry brands them as second-class citizens--and this is exactly what Prop. 8 proponents want to accomplish. Shame on them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it was Pauline Kael who observed that there are no generally agreed-upon classics in the realm of porno movies - no Casablancas or It Happened One Nights - because sex is too personal and idiosyncratic for a wide swath of society to agree on what turns them on. That is definitely an interesting insight. Thanks for passing it along.
[FairfieldLife] Repealing DOMA
http://tinyurl.com/5mu28x With their newly minted control over the White House and Congress, Democrats can easily provide a vital (if not complete) antidote to Proposition 8: repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (.pdf). Enacted in 1996, DOMA's principal effects are two-fold: (1) it explicitly prohibits the Federal Government and all federal agencies from extending any federal marriage-based benefits, privileges and rights to same-sex couples [Section 3]; and (2) it authorizes states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states [Section 2].
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention]. That is sort of what the cannibalists...I mean Christians have done concerning other religions. They control the show now. It was factions of Christianity that was the problem when the constitution was written. Now with our pluralistic society we have multi-religious issues unimaginable by our founding fathers. Judging by how much hatred was spewed on Obama for being a secret Muslim, I think we have a long way to go. Let's use some of the tax money from religions to support religious education and tolerance. They can write off the amounts they spend on charity just as we do, to avoid taxes. But exempting them from taxes elevates their beliefs above the common good, and I don't buy that. So you have an imaginary friend...you still gotta pitch in like the rest of us. I vehemently disagree, Curtis. Strictly enforcing the separation of church and state [which has been practically done away with lately] is the solution. As I suggested, taxing them gives religious institutions the right to access to directly running the government according to *their* religion and legislating *their* doctrines as public policy for everyone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Win: A Big Defeat For GOP Militarism And Jingoism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent article, John. Sometimes I think we're more sensitive to this than Americans for the simple reason that WE DON'T LIVE THERE. We live among people who look at the United States of America with fear, and speak of it with contempt. They don't WANT to. Spain, for example, played almost as big a part in aiding the American Revo- lution as France did (this is not widely known in the US), and as a result feels a centuries-long kinship with America. They'd really LOVE to believe in the American Myth, because they helped to create it and they have always been inspired by believing it's true. But they watch the News. It isn't true. And as a result, they regard America the same way you'd come to regard a nephew who is basically a nice guy, and family, but is so strung out on drugs that he'd rob your house and rape your daughters if you turned your back on him. They'd LOVE to love him again unconditionally, but they just can't. In this election, one of the candidates said that he wouldn't even consider sitting down and talking with the Spanish. The people I meet here weren't even convinced that he knew where Spain *was*; he seemed to give the impression that it was in Latin or South America. The other candidate got elected, and is the person being talked about in this excellent article. The difference is profound, and the fact that America choose Obama gives the Spanish as much hope as it gives me. It's pretty much openly expressed the same way here in Brazil - as it appears to be around the world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Man is the master of his own destiny
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a Question from Arthur Max, Associated Press reporter who in a February 1st 2006 Press Conference, asked Maharishi this question: QUESTION: Maharishi, so many gurus, people like yourself have given so much thought to the direction of the world and have tried to lead great numbers of people in their direction. But by the very nature of their personalities and their own thinking, one has to wonder what happens to their Movements when they're no longer around. Would you like to speculate on what will happen to the ideas of the Maharishi whenever the day comes when he's not here to give us his own personal thoughts? MAHARISHI: Doesn't matter. There is a phrase; Man is the master of his own destiny. So the destiny of every man doesn't depend on the existence of Maharishi or his absence. Man is the master of his own destiny. Maharishi is showing a way. Who comes on the lighted way, he'll get to the target, he'll get to the goal of the way, those who don't, they don't, that's all. Man has a choice. Education is so very limited today. Whether this generation understands the words of Maharishi or not. Those who will understand will be better off, they'll be the master of their own destiny. Others will remain slaves of circumstances and situations, doesn't matter. Maharishi's message does not remain limited to his physical body. This is the message that was there before the body of Maharishi, and it will remain there when the body of Maharishi will not come up. So these are waste of thoughts, no? ha-ha-- i like the way he ends his response.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dog training and its relationship to FFL
Bhairitu wrote: Contrary to Turq's advice which I've also given from time to time, sometimes I feel it fun to hassle the trolls a bit. If that's what you two are up to then maybe it's you and the Turq that are the trolls. After all, neither you nor Turq seem be be TMers anymore, and it's been years, if ever, since you or the Turq were inside a Marshy Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge. You two haven't contributed anything lately that would help anyone here understand the mechanics of consciousness. You guys seem to like flaming and baiting, lurking, and jamming up the forum with a lot of political propaganda, but other than that, what else have you got to say? You didn't seem to have any comments to make on the Kashmere Shaivism, the Sri Vidya cult, or any of the Tantras. Most of the stuff you and the Turq have posted doesn't even make much sense. Troll - A person who sends duplicitous messages to get angry responses. Note: The term 'Internet Troll' is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied by those who are ignorant of Internet etiquette. AMT Troll FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/2977cj Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Bhairitu Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 Subject: Re: Troll Alert!!! http://tinyurl.com/625u6z
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention]. That is sort of what the cannibalists...I mean Christians have done concerning other religions. They control the show now. It was factions of Christianity that was the problem when the constitution was written. Now with our pluralistic society we have multi-religious issues unimaginable by our founding fathers. Judging by how much hatred was spewed on Obama for being a secret Muslim, I think we have a long way to go. Let's use some of the tax money from religions to support religious education and tolerance. They can write off the amounts they spend on charity just as we do, to avoid taxes. But exempting them from taxes elevates their beliefs above the common good, and I don't buy that. So you have an imaginary friend...you still gotta pitch in like the rest of us. I vehemently disagree, Curtis. Strictly enforcing the separation of church and state [which has been practically done away with lately] is the solution. As I suggested, taxing them gives religious institutions the right to access to directly running the government according to *their* religion and legislating *their* doctrines as public policy for everyone else. Why is it anyone's business who marries who?
