[FairfieldLife] American's Chemically Modified 21st Century Soldiers (article)
America's Chemically Modified 21st Century Soldiers By Clayton Dach Adbusters Saturday 03 May 2008 Armed with potent drugs and new technology, a dangerous breed of soldiers are being trained to fight America's future wars. Amphetamines and the military first met somewhere in the fog of WWII, when axis and allied forces alike were issued speed tablets to head off fatigue on the battlefield. More than 60 years later, the U.S. Air Force still doles out dextro-amphetamine to pilots whose duties do not afford them the luxury of sleep. Through it all, it seems, the human body and its fleshy weaknesses keep getting in the way of warfare. Just as in the health clinics of the nation, the first waypoint in the military effort to redress these foibles is a pharmaceutical one. The catch is, we're really not that great at it. In the case of speed, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency itself notes a few unwanted snags like addiction, anxiety, aggression, paranoia and hallucinations. For side-effects like insomnia, the Air Force issues no-go pills like temazepam alongside its go pills. Psychosis, though, is a wee bit trickier. Far from getting discouraged, the working consensus appears to be that we just haven't gotten the drugs right yet. In recent years, the U.S., the UK and France - among others - have reportedly been funding investigations into a new line-up of military performance enhancers. The bulk of these drugs are already familiar to us from the lists of substances banned by international sporting bodies, including the stimulant ephedrine, non-stimulant wakefulness promoting agents like modafinil (aka Provigil) and erythropoietin, used to improve endurance by boosting the production of red blood cells. As the chemical interventions grow bolder and more sophisticated, we should not be surprised that some are beginning to cast their eyes beyond droopy eyelids and sore muscles. Chief among the new horizons is the alluring notion of psychological prophylactics: drugs used to pre-empt the often nasty effects of combat stress on soldiers, particularly that perennial veteran's bugaboo known as post-traumatic stress disorder syndrome. In the U.S., where roughly two-fifths of troops returning from combat deployments are presenting serious mental health problems, PTSD has gone political in form of the Psychological Kevlar Act, which would direct the Secretary of Defense to implement preventive and early-intervention measures to protect troops against stress-related psychopathologies. Proponents of the Psychological Kevlar approach to PTSD may have found a silver bullet in the form of propranolol, a 50-year-old beta-blocker used on-label to treat high blood pressure, and off- label as a stress-buster for performers and exam-takers. Ongoing psychiatric research has intriguingly suggested that a dose of propranolol, taken soon after a harrowing event, can suppress the victim's stress response and effectively block the physiological process that makes certain memories intense and intrusive. That the drug is cheap and well tolerated is icing on the cake. Propranolol has already been dubbed the mourning after pill, largely by those who argue that its military use amounts to medicating away pangs of conscience. For the time being, though, we can set aside our dystopian visions of zombies with guns, since the tranquilizing effects of beta-blockers are unlikely to permit their widespread use on the battlefield. But pharmacology moves more swiftly with each passing year - especially when helped along by defense-research dollars - and we may need to revive those visions sooner than we think. THE MEDIATED SOLDIER In the new model army, brute force and viscera are out. Cutting edge gadgetry, omniscient surveillance and precision long-distance termination is in. What motivates it all is the type of war we fear we'll be fighting. On this, the strategists have spoken: with Iraq and Afghanistan as the testing grounds, the conflicts of the future will be guerrilla wars, open-ended, with no battle lines, no rules of engagement and ambivalent or openly hostile civilian populations in which any man, woman or child can turn combatant. In breeding a future soldier for these future wars, we will inevitably leave behind the mere rectification of human weakness and enter into the realm of the superhuman. Glimpses of this realm have already become commonplace in the form of ceramic-Kevlar body armor and night-vision goggles - wizardry that transforms squishy pink men into bullet-proof creatures of the night. Such magic will continue apace under the auspices of dozens of military development initiatives across the globe, creating a species known variously as the Future Force Warrior by the U.S., FIST by the British Army, Félin by the French. All are merely the human components of broader visionary projects for what
[FairfieldLife] Men of the Cloth, by Katha Pollitt, The Nation (article)
Men of the Cloth By Katha Pollitt The Nation Monday 12 May 2008 Issue Child abuse. Sexual abuse. Women raised to be baby machines controlled by powerful older men in the name of God. These shockers - and many more - are flagrantly on offer in the spectacle unfolding around the 139 women and 437 children removed by Texas authorities from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado. The YFZ is an outpost of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a breakaway Mormon cult presided over by Warren Jeffs, convicted in Utah as an accomplice to rape and awaiting trial in Arizona for incest and conspiracy. The visuals are riveting: women in pastel prairie dresses and identical pompadour-cum-french-braid hairstyles weeping for their children in state custody; skinny-necked middle-aged men insisting they had no idea it was illegal to marry and impregnate multiple 15-year-olds. There's a feminist angle, a child-protection angle and a civil liberties angle - it isn't clear that the children were in immediate danger, and this drastic and clumsy sweep might well cause cultists to isolate themselves even more. The original impetus for the raid - a desperate phone call from someone claiming to be a 16-year-old girl raped and abused by her 50- year-old spiritual husband - is looking more and more like a hoax. I've written before about the evils of fundamentalist Mormon polygyny, which is thought to have some 10,000 followers in closed communities in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, South Dakota and Texas. I will never understand why the people who attack Islam as oppressive to women have nothing to say about the FLDS. The cultural relativist arguments they reject when applied to foreign countries are even less applicable here: everyone in the story is American, supposedly living under American law. Yet for decades state and local authorities have looked the other way when girls are pulled out of school to be home- schooled, i.e., prepared for marriage to their uncles, and teenage boys are kicked out of the community so as not to compete with the elder men. Indeed, in areas near FLDS communities, public services have been infiltrated by their members: the public schools teach their religious doctrines; the police are on the lookout for girls and women who try to escape. Still, appalling as is FLDS's extreme male dominance, there was another news story unfolding at the same time that had certain affinities but got a very different slant: Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States. What a lovefest! We heard endlessly about Benedict's intellect, charm and elegant red shoes. Cat Lovers Appreciate Soul Mate in Vatican made the New York Times most e- mailed list. How little the Pope had to do to win applause as a wise conciliator: having begun his reign trying to suppress the priestly pedophilia scandal, he met with the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and reminded Catholics that homosexuals and pedophiles, while both bad, are not the same. Having kept in the liturgy a prayer for the Jews so that God might enlighten their hearts, he visited New York's Park East synagogue, where the rabbi did not similarly call on Catholics to give up their worship of Christ. But what about women? Oh, them and their messy bodies! As blogger Dana Goldstein pointed out, only Barbara Boxer said boo when Republican Senator Sam Brownback, who supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion, proposed a resolution welcoming the Pope in coded antichoice language and asserting that religion, not the Constitution, was the foundation of our government. (Boxer led a movement that held up the vote for three days until the wording was changed.) Where were the tough questions about the church's absolute ban on contraception, condoms, divorce and abortion - even to save a woman's life? If it was up to Benedict, we might be more stylish than the plural wives of the FLDS, but we'd be trapped in marriage and have fifteen children just like them. In the United States the Catholic church has lost some of its moral authority - thank you, pedophile priests - but it has more temporal power than you might think. Around 12 percent of US hospitals are church-affiliated, which entitles them to refuse modern reproductive healthcare to women. The church is the major opponent of the drive to make health insurance plans cover birth control, forcing women to pay up to $600 out of pocket every year for contraceptives. Along with evangelical Protestants, it is the main force behind every attempt to restrict abortion, defeat prochoice politicians, make contraception and the morning-after pill harder to get, promote false and sexist abstinence-only education and discourage the use of condoms to prevent HIV by spreading unfounded doubts about their effectiveness. Catholic charities do a lot of good, but the Vatican is a major
[FairfieldLife] Funny Math, Part I, The Obama-Clinton Story (article)
Funny Math, Part I, The Obama-Clinton Story http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/33110 By David Swanson Obama has 1,491 pledged delegates. Clinton has 1,332 pledged delegates. There remain 408 delegates to be pledged, plus 19 that have been pledged to Edwards. Clinton would need to win by a gap of 39 percent to catch up to Obama - not the huge win of 9 percent that she had in Pennsylvania. These numbers are based on leaving out Florida and Michigan, which are being left out. These numbers do not include Super Delegates. But these are the indisputable numbers of delegates assigned to candidates by actual voters and caucus-goers. Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party. So, why did we see Clinton Wins headlines all over the nation following her pick-up of 20 delegates in Pennsylvania? When has any other candidate been kept on life-support by media corporations in this way? Hasn't the standard for dropping out always been - for every other candidate - the impossibility of winning, not actually having lost? What can Clinton hope to gain from staying in other than hurting Obama's chances in order to avoid his running as an incumbent in 4 years? And why is it so difficult for people to think for themselves and let the media and the Super Delegates and the Democratic Party know that WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH? Don't believe me? Don't know how to do addition? Don't own a calculator? Here's a video of Chris Matthews admitting the media's role in this farce: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32937 Here's how you can contact the DNC: 877-336-7200 or http://www.democrats.org/contact.html
[FairfieldLife] Hillary and Obama have no plans to end the Iraq war (interview)
Journalist and author Jeremy Scahill dispels the myth that Obama or Hillary plan to end the war in Iraq. On the contrary, by reading the fine print contained within their stated positions on Iraq, both Hillary and Obama intend to increase U.S. involvement once elected president: (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_despite_anti_war _rhetoric) -- Welcome to Democracy Now! So, what did you find out, Jeremy? JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I started looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's Iraq plans, and one of the things that I discovered is that both of them intend to keep the Green Zone intact. Both of them intend to keep the current US embassy project, which is slated to be the largest embassy in the history of the world. I mean, I think it's 500 CIA operatives alone, a thousand personnel. And they're also going to keep open the Baghdad airport indefinitely. And what that means is that even though the rhetoric of withdrawal is everywhere in the Democratic campaign, we're talking about a pretty substantial level of US forces and personnel remaining in Iraq indefinitely. In the case of Barack Obama, I wanted to focus in on what his position is on private military contractors, particularly armed ones like those that work for Blackwater. And the reason I focus on Obama instead of Hillary on this is because Barack Obama has actually been at the forefront of addressing the mercenary issue in the Congress. In February of 2007this was way before the Nisour Square massacre, where Blackwater forces killed seventeen Iraqis and wounded twenty othersin February of 2007, Barack Obama sponsored legislation in the Senate that sought to expand US law so that JUAN GONZALEZ: This is just after he got into the Senate, right? JEREMY SCAHILL: This was in 2007. This was a year ago. And so, this was a major piece of legislation by Obama, and it was done in concert with Representative David Price from North Carolina in the House, a Democrat. And Obama's legislation basically said we realize that there are loopholes in the law that allow Blackwater and other contractors to essentially get away with murder, and so what we need to do is make it so that US law applies to not only Defense Department contractors, but State Department contractors like Blackwater. If they murder someone in Iraq, we can prosecute them back in the United States. Now, that legislation hasn't passed at this point, and it may never pass. I mean, the fact is that the Bush administration actually issued a statement opposing that legislation, and I want to read to you what Bush said. He said that law would have, quote, intolerable consequences for crucial and necessary national security activities and operations. And so, I started to look at this reality. Obama is saying he wants to keep the embassy. Obama is saying he wants to keep the Green Zone. Obama is saying he wants to keep the Baghdad airport. Who's guarding US diplomats right now at this largest embassy in the history of the world? Well, it's Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp; it's these private security companies. And so, I started talking to some of the Obama campaign people. And it really took days for them to actually get back to me and provide someone to talk to me on the record. I started doing interviews with some of his people, and they said, We can't answer these questions. And so, finally I talked to a senior foreign policy person, who said, yes, the reality is that we can't rule out, we won't rule out, using private security forces. And I said, well, Senator Obama has identified them as unaccountable, and the reality is, his law may not pass before he takes office, if he wins, and so Obama could potentially be using forces that he himself has identified as both unaccountable and above the law. Long pause. Right. And so, the situation right now is that Obama seems to have painted himself into a corner on this issue, because the reality is, Obama's people are saying, well, we're going to increase funding to the State Department's Diplomatic Security division. They say, ideally, the people we want to be guarding US diplomats in Iraq will be fully burdened US government employees who are accountable to US law. But the irony right now is that the war machine is so radically privatized that there are about 1,100 mercenaries doing diplomatic security in Iraq right now. There are only 1,400 diplomatic security agents in the entire world, and only thirty-six of them are in Iraq. JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, let me ask you, in terms of this whole issue of mercenaries in general, I mean, are we facing the possibility that a Democratic president would in essence reduce the troops but increase the mercenaries? JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, Juan, this is a great question, and it was one of the reasons why I started looking at this. I want to
[FairfieldLife] The Most Wanted List: International Terrorism, by Noam Chomsky (article)
The Most Wanted List: International Terrorism By Noam Chomsky TomDispatch.com Tuesday 26 February 2008 On February 13, Imad Moughniyeh, a senior commander of Hizbollah, was assassinated in Damascus. The world is a better place without this man in it, State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said: one way or the other he was brought to justice. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell added that Moughniyeh has been responsible for more deaths of Americans and Israelis than any other terrorist with the exception of Osama bin Laden. Joy was unconstrained in Israel too, as one of the U.S. and Israel's most wanted men was brought to justice, the London Financial Times reported. Under the heading, A militant wanted the world over, an accompanying story reported that he was superseded on the most-wanted list by Osama bin Laden after 9/11 and so ranked only second among the most wanted militants in the world. The terminology is accurate enough, according to the rules of Anglo-American discourse, which defines the world as the political class in Washington and London (and whoever happens to agree with them on specific matters). It is common, for example, to read that the world fully supported George Bush when he ordered the bombing of Afghanistan. That may be true of the world, but hardly of the world, as revealed in an international Gallup Poll after the bombing was announced. Global support was slight. In Latin America, which has some experience with U.S. behavior, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama, and that support was conditional upon the culprits being identified (they still weren't eight months later, the FBI reported), and civilian targets being spared (they were attacked at once). There was an overwhelming preference in the world for diplomatic/judicial measures, rejected out of hand by the world. Following the Terror Trail In the present case, if the world were extended to the world, we might find some other candidates for the honor of most hated arch- criminal. It is instructive to ask why this might be true. The Financial Times reports that most of the charges against Moughniyeh are unsubstantiated, but one of the very few times when his involvement can be ascertained with certainty [is in] the hijacking of a TWA plane in 1985 in which a U.S. Navy diver was killed. This was one of two terrorist atrocities that led a poll of newspaper editors to select terrorism in the Middle East as the top story of 1985; the other was the hijacking of the passenger liner Achille Lauro, in which a crippled American, Leon Klinghoffer, was brutally murdered. That reflects the judgment of the world. It may be that the world saw matters somewhat differently. The Achille Lauro hijacking was a retaliation for the bombing of Tunis ordered a week earlier by Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. His air force killed 75 Tunisians and Palestinians with smart bombs that tore them to shreds, among other atrocities, as vividly reported from the scene by the prominent Israeli journalist Amnon Kapeliouk. Washington cooperated by failing to warn its ally Tunisia that the bombers were on the way, though the Sixth Fleet and U.S. intelligence could not have been unaware of the impending attack. Secretary of State George Shultz informed Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir that Washington had considerable sympathy for the Israeli action, which he termed a legitimate response to terrorist attacks, to general approbation. A few days later, the UN Security Council unanimously denounced the bombing as an act of armed aggression (with the U.S. abstaining). Aggression is, of course, a far more serious crime than international terrorism. But giving the United States and Israel the benefit of the doubt, let us keep to the lesser charge against their leadership. A few days after, Peres went to Washington to consult with the leading international terrorist of the day, Ronald Reagan, who denounced the evil scourge of terrorism, again with general acclaim by the world. The terrorist attacks that Shultz and Peres offered as the pretext for the bombing of Tunis were the killings of three Israelis in Larnaca, Cyprus. The killers, as Israel conceded, had nothing to do with Tunis, though they might have had Syrian connections. Tunis was a preferable target, however. It was defenseless, unlike Damascus. And there was an extra pleasure: more exiled Palestinians could be killed there. The Larnaca killings, in turn, were regarded as retaliation by the perpetrators: They were a response to regular Israeli hijackings in international waters in which many victims were killed - and many more kidnapped and sent to prisons in Israel, commonly to be held without charge for long periods. The most notorious of these has been the secret prison/torture chamber Facility 1391. A good deal can be learned about it from
[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier by Earl Ofari Hutch
Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier - by Earl Ofari Hutchinson / Posted January 3, 2008 | 10:57 AM (EST) The scariest thing about no hope GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd ball racial views. It's not that he polls in single digits in all national polls and has zilch of a chance to get the nomination. It's not that at times the GOP candidates sound just as racially isolationist as he does. It's certainly not that he will wow a national audience with his trademark shoot-from-the-lip zingers even if ABC and Fox recants in a moment of compassion and dumps him back in a seat in their January 6 televised GOP New Hampshire presidential debate. The scariest thing about Paul is that even though only a few hard core Paul backers will waste a vote on him, millions more seem to agree that his off beat views, especially on race matters, make sense. They even stand logic as high as it get can go on its head to defend their leader against all comers. That's especially true when it comes to Paul's views on race and ethnic politics. That's not a small point given the open but more often sneaky role that race and ethnicity will increasingly play in the presidential derby. Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have pulled out all stops to woo and court blacks, Latinos and Asian voters. They have made poverty, affordable health care, immigration reform, and job protections the linchpins of their campaigns. Paul and the GOP candidates have done just the opposite. They duck, dodge, and deny racial issues. The only departure from their racial blind eye is to fan anti-immigrant flames. Paul has gone one better. In an ad, he demanded that students from alleged terrorist countries should be denied visas into the U.S. Paul offered not a shred of proof that there are hordes of students pouring into America to commit terrorist acts. The ad was more than just a cheap ploy to fan terrorism fears. This reinforced the worst in racial and religious stereotyping and negative typecasting. The stereotype is that any one in America with a non-white face and is a Muslim is a terrorist. Then there's Paul's now infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn't fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul's historical dumbness would have been laughable except for four things. One, he was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to buy the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed the slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the U.S., did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight a war-- Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the slave revolt there. Two, he's running for president and has a national platform to spout his wrong-headed views (Meet the Press!). Three, he's done and said stuff like this many times before. Among the choice Paulisms are that blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a noted white supremacist. Here's what Paul on his campaign website ronpaul2008.com has to say about race. In fact he even highlights this as Issue: Racism on the site. Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class. Paul's cure for racial bigotry is to change people's hearts. Whew!! The ghosts of Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, the unreconstructed George Wallace, and packs of Southern States Righters and Citizens Councils big shots would lustily cheer Paul on that one. They railed for decades against the federal government's lift of even the tiniest finger to protect black rights and lives. Their stock line was that race relations can only change when hearts change. If we waited for that to happen the whites only signs would still be dangling prominently from every toilet and school house door in the South. Paul's views are a corn ball blend of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government. This marks him as a type A American political quirk. Now there's the fourth reason not to laugh at Paul. And this is really what makes him scary. There are apparently millions that don't see a darn thing wrong with any of this and pillory anyone who does. They are even scarier than him. Maybe
[FairfieldLife] Concise Summary of Mike Huckabee's Positions
Concise Summary of Mike Huckabee's Positions Thom Hartmann Radio Show The Southern Baptist Reverend Mike Huckabee speaks: Certainly good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed. (May 2007) Embryonic stem cell research creates life to end a life. (May 2007) Pro-life and pro-death penalty, sees them as far different. (Jan 2007) Signed legislation outlawing same-sex marriage in Arkansas. (Dec 2006) No civil unions; only one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002) Respect gay couples but no gay adoptions. (Jan 2007) Gay tolerance reflects lack of fixed societal standards. (Jun 2007) Wal-Mart is case study in genius of American marketplace. (Jan 2007) Death penalty is necessary part of criminal justice system. (Sep 2007) Opposes hate crimes legislation. (Sep 2007) Does not believe in evolution. (May 2007) Ending school prayer was one step in society's moral decay. (Jun 2007) Support displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools. (Nov 2002) Guaranteed medical care not government's responsibility. (Nov 2002) No additional AIDS spending; cancer vascular victims first. (Nov 1992) Ban smoking in all public places. (Nov 1992) Isolate carriers of this plague of AIDS. (Nov 1992) No sexual orientation in Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Sep 2007) George W. Bush has done a magnificent job. (Jan 2007) Stay in Iraq because we're winning; we lose if we walk away. (Dec 2007) In contrast, here is the On The Issues web page for Barack Obama: http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm
[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier (article)
Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier - by Earl Ofari Hutchinson / Posted January 3, 2008 | 10:57 AM (EST) The scariest thing about no hope GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd ball racial views. It's not that he polls in single digits in all national polls and has zilch of a chance to get the nomination. It's not that at times the GOP candidates sound just as racially isolationist as he does. It's certainly not that he will wow a national audience with his trademark shoot-from-the-lip zingers even if ABC and Fox recants in a moment of compassion and dumps him back in a seat in their January 6 televised GOP New Hampshire presidential debate. The scariest thing about Paul is that even though only a few hard core Paul backers will waste a vote on him, millions more seem to agree that his off beat views, especially on race matters, make sense. They even stand logic as high as it get can go on its head to defend their leader against all comers. That's especially true when it comes to Paul's views on race and ethnic politics. That's not a small point given the open but more often sneaky role that race and ethnicity will increasingly play in the presidential derby. Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have pulled out all stops to woo and court blacks, Latinos and Asian voters. They have made poverty, affordable health care, immigration reform, and job protections the linchpins of their campaigns. Paul and the GOP candidates have done just the opposite. They duck, dodge, and deny racial issues. The only departure from their racial blind eye is to fan anti-immigrant flames. Paul has gone one better. In an ad, he demanded that students from alleged terrorist countries should be denied visas into the U.S. Paul offered not a shred of proof that there are hordes of students pouring into America to commit terrorist acts. The ad was more than just a cheap ploy to fan terrorism fears. This reinforced the worst in racial and religious stereotyping and negative typecasting. The stereotype is that any one in America with a non-white face and is a Muslim is a terrorist. Then there's Paul's now infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn't fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul's historical dumbness would have been laughable except for four things. One, he was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to buy the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed the slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the U.S., did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight a war-- Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the slave revolt there. Two, he's running for president and has a national platform to spout his wrong-headed views (Meet the Press!). Three, he's done and said stuff like this many times before. Among the choice Paulisms are that blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a noted white supremacist. Here's what Paul on his campaign website ronpaul2008.com has to say about race. In fact he even highlights this as Issue: Racism on the site. Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class. Paul's cure for racial bigotry is to change people's hearts. Whew!! The ghosts of Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, the unreconstructed George Wallace, and packs of Southern States Righters and Citizens Councils big shots would lustily cheer Paul on that one. They railed for decades against the federal government's lift of even the tiniest finger to protect black rights and lives. Their stock line was that race relations can only change when hearts change. If we waited for that to happen the whites only signs would still be dangling prominently from every toilet and school house door in the South. Paul's views are a corn ball blend of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government. This marks him as a type A American political quirk. Now there's the fourth reason not to laugh at Paul. And this is really what makes him scary. There are apparently millions that don't see a darn thing wrong with any of this and pillory anyone who does. They are even scarier than him. Maybe ABC and Fox should let Paul crash the New Hampshire debate. It's always
[FairfieldLife] The Freedom to Starve: Why the Left Should Reject Ron Paul (article)
The Freedom to Starve Why the Left Should Reject Ron Paul By SHERRY WOLF 12/26/07 Counterpunch' -- POLITICS, LIKE nature, abhors a vacuum, goes the revamped aphorism. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's surprising stature among a small but vocal layer of antiwar activists and leftist bloggers appears to bear this out. At the October 27, 2007, antiwar protests in dozens of cities noticeable contingents of supporters carried his campaign placards and circulated sign-up sheets. The Web site antiwar.com features a weekly Ron Paul column. Some even dream of a Left-Right gadfly alliance for the 2008 ticket. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, liberal maverick and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich told supporters in late November he was thinking of making Ron Paul his running mate if he were to get the nomination. No doubt, the hawkish and calculating Hillary Rodham Clinton and flaccid murmurings of Barack Obama, in addition to the uninspiring state of the antiwar movement that backed a prowar candidate in 2004, help fuel the desperation many activists feel. But leftists must unequivocally reject the reactionary libertarianism of this longtime Texas congressman and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate. Ron Paul's own campaign Web site reads like the objectivist rantings of Ayn Rand, one of his theoretical mentors. As with the Atlas Shrugged author's other acolytes, neocon guru Milton Friedman and former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan, Paul argues, Liberty means free-market capitalism. He opposes big government and in the isolationist fashion of the nation's Pat Buchanans, he decries intervention in foreign nation's affairs and believes membership in the United Nations undermines U.S. sovereignty. Naturally, it is not Ron Paul's paeans to the free market that some progressives find so appealing, but his unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq and consistent voting record against all funding for the war. His straightforward speaking style, refusal to accept the financial perks of office, and his repeated calls for repealing the Patriot Act distinguish him from the snakeoil salesmen who populate Congress. Paul is no power-hungry, poll-tested shyster. Even the liberalish chat show hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar on The View gave a friendly reception to Paul's folksy presentation, despite his paleoconservative views on abortion, which he-a practicing obstetrician-argues is murder. Though Paul is unlikely to triumph in the primaries, it is worth taking stock not only of his actual positions, but more importantly the libertarian underpinnings that have wooed so many self-described leftists and progressives. Because at its core, the fetishism of individualism that underlies libertarianism leads to the denial of rights to the very people most radicals aim to champion-workers, immigrants, Blacks, women, gays, and any group that lacks the economic power to impose their individual rights on others. Ron Paul's positions A cursory look at Paul's positions, beyond his opposition to the war and the Patriot Act, would make any leftist cringe. Put simply, he is a racist. Not the cross-burning, hood-wearing kind to be sure, but the flat Earth society brand that imagines a colorblind world where 500 years of colonial history and slavery are dismissed out of hand and institutional racism and policies under capitalism are imagined away. As his campaign Web site reads: The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence-not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. Paul was more blunt writing in his independent political newsletter distributed to thousands of supporters in 1992. Citing statistics from a study that year produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, Paul concluded: Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet- footed they can be. His six-point immigration plan appears to have been cribbed from the gun-toting vigilante Minutemen at the border. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked, reads his site. And he advocates cutting off all social services to undocumented immigrants, including hospitals, schools, clinics, and even roads (how would that work?). The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of
[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul: the case Against, Part 3
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 Ron Paul: the Case Against, Part 3 Not long ago I said that I wasn't going to defend my assertion that Ron Paul is a racist- specifically a white supremacist- until I had positive proof in hand. Well, I'm going forward with that now. I first found out about this trait of Ron Paul's when I made the horrible mistake of buying a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a truly noxious mixture of incomplete truths and complete lies by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. I bought it without reading the reviews or doing any research on Dr. Woods. Had I known that Woods was a co-founder of The League of the South, a white supremacist group dedicated to the resurrection of the Confederate States of America. (The Wikipedia article on the League of the South is pretty well researched and covers the basic points about the organization; the article on Woods, however, reads more like an advertisement for his works.) I posted a scathing review of the book (look to bottom of page) and was promptly counterattacked by numerous supporters of Woods. I was shocked when I saw that one of those supporters was Ron Paul. I was further shocked to read, in Paul's review and related writings, that Paul supported the efforts of the League of the South to defend the unique culture of the Southern states. The unique culture the League of the South seeks to preserve is white supremacy and racial purity. Unfortunately, I lost my bookmark of that statement, and I've yet to rediscover it. Instead, I've had to rely on scraps and snippets regarding Ron Paul's frequent writing for The Southern Caucus, his frequent speaking engagements in front of the League of the South and other secessionist and/or white supremacist groups, and his endorsement by Stormfront and other white supremacist or Klan- associated groups. All of this, of course, is guilt by association, as was Michelle Malkin's accusation that the presence of 9/11 conspiracy theorists at Ron Paul rallies meant that Ron Paul himself was a conspiracy theorist. Still... it's a LOT of association. About the one semi-solid thing I have in hand at present is Ron Paul's newsletter, Freedom Watch, which has run more or less continually for over twenty years. Some of the most egregious items came to light in Paul's 1996 race, as reported by the Houston Chronicle: If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action. Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such. By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism. Another, even more noxious article in response to the Rodney King race riots of 1992, is the first article archived here at the Nikzor Project. Selected quotes: We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality. . . . The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is Eurocentric. They demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks understanding it. . . . Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable. . . . Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A.
[FairfieldLife] The Ron Paul that Ron Paul doesn't want you to know
The Ron Paul that Ron Paul doesn't want you to know (Greens have 2nd thoughts) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1902088/posts Georgia Green Party | May 25, 2007 | Richard Searcy Posted on 09/25/2007 4:28:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet Republican Presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul is making a name for himself by emerging as an antiwar republican in the 2008 race for the White House. While those of us who oppose the mindless war in Iraq welcome all voices of opposition, there are some troubling questions arising about Mr. Paul. Paul has been consistent in his opposition to the war, but he hasn't been very vocal or visible about that opposition. Most Americans knew nothing about Mr. Paul before this election season or had no idea that such an animal as an antiwar republican even existed. Where was he years ago when his voice of opposition would not only have been more appreciated, it would have been much more beneficial to this nation, before being antiwar was popular and carried far more political risks. Being that he's an antiwar republican, which makes him somewhat of an anomaly, surely he could have found and exploited opportunities to be more vocal and visible with his stance. There were other politicians such as, Cynthia McKinney, Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, and others who were known for their opposition to the war. Why didn't Mr. Paul stand with any of them? Why didn't he appear at antiwar demonstrations or stand with other non-politicians who were against the war? Even more troubling than his obscurity, is his past comments on racial minorities and his association with the John Birch Society. Paul is the only congressperson to receive a 100% approval rating from the Birchers. His MySpace links directly to the John Birch Society. He has also been attributed to comments such as these which appeared in his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report: If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such. We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers. He called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a fraud and a half-educated victimologist. Paul also claimed that former President Bill Clinton not only fathered illegitimate children, but, that he also used cocaine which would explain certain mysteries about the president's scratchy voice. He said, None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting, When challenged on those remarks he blamed them on an aide that supposedly wrote them for his newsletter over a period of years. Are we to assume that he hadn't read his own newsletter? His newsletter with his name on it When challenged by the NAACP and other civil rights groups for an apology for such racist remarks, Paul simply said that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of current events and statistical reports of the time. He denied any racist intent. Lock up black children, only black children, but he meant nothing racist. Sure. It isn't just blacks that Paul has a problem with it's also Asians, homosexuals, Jews, women, fornication, gambling, and the stock market. I have a 13 year-old nephew and I certainly wouldn't want the President of the United States trying to convince America that he's dangerous simply because he's black and can run fast. I believe that the Ron Paul express needs much closer and thorough examination before those who champion his antiwar stance jump on- board.
[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul quotatations describing Blacks in America - to Offworld
DS to OffWorld: Paul likes to say his ghost writer said some of these things. But that's pure evasion. Certainly, even his ghost writer would, at least, approximate his views closely. But these are his quotes. Decide for yourself: Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of Blacks have sensible political opinions! RP If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be. RP Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal, Paul said. We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
[FairfieldLife] DS responds to Bronte Baxter about possible mispost
DS: No, that was not written to Rick. I thought I was responding to Hridaya Puri or Ron (I believe they are the same person), whose name appeared at the bottom of the post (see below). Please explain further, if necessary. Thanks, DS __ Bronte: DS, did you confuse Ron with Rick?/ re: DS responds to response to Rick Archer RE: Enlightenment __ Bronte: Dear DS: Are you responding to Rick Archer or to Ron (Hridaya)? The comments below don't sound like Rick, and unless he sent you these questions privately, it isn't him, because such a post from him does not appear on the forum. You misconstrued me, Bronte Baxter, as being New Morning in an earlier post. Are you mixing these other two people up now? Please try to be careful getting the names right when you quote people. - Bronte __ oneradiantbeing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please note. To save time, I am placing my responses in CAPS minus the shouting. They easily distinguish my responses from the rest of the text. Thank you for your understanding. David Spero OK Rick, Now asking in public so all can participate. THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION TO ENTER THIS DISCUSSION. I suspect that all of those that you know that you say are realized have proclaimed this on their own without their Guru declaring this, or they did not or currently do not have a guru, or they have their own inner Guru- either in some form or otherwise. It does seem that enlightenment is also possible without the guru but I think it is very rare. Even Ramana, from which this idea that it is possible, had a Guru (acording to my guru- I think the name was Archula). HERE IS WHAT RAMANA SAID: THE SELF, OR THE ATMAN, IS THE GURU. HE ALSO SAYS THAT THE SELF - OR GRACE - MAY GUIDE THE SEEKER TO FIND AN OUTER (LIVING) GURU. I'VE NOT HEARD ABOUT RAMANA HAVING AN EXTERNAL GURU. PLEASE HAVE YOUR GURU SEND YOU THE SOURCE OF HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS GURU SO WE CAN LEARN ABOUT HIM OR HER. You pointed out that among other functions with the Guru is telling one to continue even though they think they have arrived. This is the key missing element for those self proclaiming as above because a Sat Guru in living form can quiclky see if there is further to go once they are with the people for some time. That is how it works in my path. AN APPOINTED GURU IS NO GUARANTEE OF AUTHENTICITY. ON THE CONTRARY, SPIRITUAL LINEAGES AND MOVEMENTS OFTEN CARRY A LOT OF POLITICAL BAGGAGE. AN APPOINTED, BONA-FIDE GURU - REALIZED OR NOT - IS JUST A BODY WITH A REPUTATION ATTACHED TO IT. My experience with it is I have been with and read about both those self proclaiming as above and also those proclaimed enlightened by their Guru who also were proclaimed enlightened by their Guru in a chain continueing upwards. The Self procalimed fell apart every time under scrutiny. I have seen a lot in the last two years like this- maybe 20. AND MANY APPOINTED GURUS HAVE ALSO BITTEN THE DUST IN PUBLIC HUMILIATION AND DISGRACE. THE PLAYING FIELD IS EVEN: NEITHER THE APPOINTED NOR THE SELF- PROCLAIMED HOLD ANY ADVANTAGE OVER THE OTHER. It is a subtle difference by quite clear to me, with the aide of my guru pointing out the diffferences. There is a value to it- keeping holy company is wise, so good to make sure the company one keeps is 100% holy sometimes. HOLINESS IS MERELY APPEARANCE AND THERE ARE NO OUTER BEHAVIORIAL CRITERIA TO JUDGE WHETHER SOMEONE IS ENLIGHTENED OR NOT. Some of these people screw others up in various ways. Most amazing I saw was one with all the perfect words describing themselves as enlightened. What came out once there was an association with Sat Guru was this person was depressed, angry. and with violent thoughts. I'VE MET MANY PROFOUNDLY WOUNDED PEOPLE AFTER STUDYING UNDER HIGHLY ACCLAIMED, APPOINTED GURUS. I just recently saw in person a guru proclaiming his disciples enlightened, however the guru himself is a self proclaimed enlightened one, and this also looks flawed. The topic is a tricky one. YES, IT IS. SO PLEASE TRY NOT TO SOUND SO CERTAIN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. NAMASTE, DS Hridaya Puri
[FairfieldLife] DS Responds to Offworld Re: Ron Paul Video Clip
Offworld: Ron Paul Calls for End to Drug War: http://youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU DS: Paul is is a polished politician and a better speaker than any of his Republican contenders. He is also more erudite. Of course, Ron says a few intelligent things, the most important one the immediate ending the Iraq war. But who Paul associates with is the real issue, along with his ACTUAL voting record. Please read carefully and objectively my earlier post: ABOUT RON PAUL: THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS NOT ALWAYS MY FRIEND. Read it two or three times One thing not mentioned in that article, though, is Paul's association with the Rushdoony family. FYI, search John Rushdoony on Wikipedia. You will find that he is the Guru of Pat Robertson, the late Falwell, Hinn, Hagey, and the list goes on. Ron Paul's Christianity is vile and hateful. My brief response to your videoclip is: don't take the bait. Read what the left-wing bloggers have to say, not Ron's supporters, who are now his faithful apologists. I placed three posts on today so people can think deeply about Paul who CLEARLY is a racist and white supremacist. Remember George Wallace? He was a states rights man right to the core. Paul and his ilk are trying to return us to pre-FDR days. Paul will take us to fascism through the back door. This man is an absolute menace to democracy and will complete what W started.
[FairfieldLife] DS responds to response to Rick Archer RE: Enlightenment
Please note. To save time, I am placing my responses in CAPS minus the shouting. They easily distinguish my responses from the rest of the text. Thank you for your understanding. David Spero OK Rick, Now asking in public so all can participate. THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION TO ENTER THIS DISCUSSION. I suspect that all of those that you know that you say are realized have proclaimed this on their own without their Guru declaring this, or they did not or currently do not have a guru, or they have their own inner Guru- either in some form or otherwise. It does seem that enlightenment is also possible without the guru but I think it is very rare. Even Ramana, from which this idea that it is possible, had a Guru (acording to my guru- I think the name was Archula). HERE IS WHAT RAMANA SAID: THE SELF, OR THE ATMAN, IS THE GURU. HE ALSO SAYS THAT THE SELF - OR GRACE - MAY GUIDE THE SEEKER TO FIND AN OUTER (LIVING) GURU. I'VE NOT HEARD ABOUT RAMANA HAVING AN EXTERNAL GURU. PLEASE HAVE YOUR GURU SEND YOU THE SOURCE OF HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS GURU SO WE CAN LEARN ABOUT HIM OR HER. You pointed out that among other functions with the Guru is telling one to continue even though they think they have arrived. This is the key missing element for those self proclaiming as above because a Sat Guru in living form can quiclky see if there is further to go once they are with the people for some time. That is how it works in my path. AN APPOINTED GURU IS NO GUARANTEE OF AUTHENTICITY. ON THE CONTRARY, SPIRITUAL LINEAGES AND MOVEMENTS OFTEN CARRY A LOT OF POLITICAL BAGGAGE. AN APPOINTED, BONA-FIDE GURU - REALIZED OR NOT - IS JUST A BODY WITH A REPUTATION ATTACHED TO IT. My experience with it is I have been with and read about both those self proclaiming as above and also those proclaimed enlightened by their Guru who also were proclaimed enlightened by their Guru in a chain continueing upwards. The Self procalimed fell apart every time under scrutiny. I have seen a lot in the last two years like this- maybe 20. AND MANY APPOINTED GURUS HAVE ALSO BITTEN THE DUST IN PUBLIC HUMILIATION AND DISGRACE. THE PLAYING FIELD IS EVEN: NEITHER THE APPOINTED NOR THE SELF- PROCLAIMED HOLD ANY ADVANTAGE OVER THE OTHER. It is a subtle difference by quite clear to me, with the aide of my guru pointing out the diffferences. There is a value to it- keeping holy company is wise, so good to make sure the company one keeps is 100% holy sometimes. HOLINESS IS MERELY APPEARANCE AND THERE ARE NO OUTER BEHAVIORIAL CRITERIA TO JUDGE WHETHER SOMEONE IS ENLIGHTENED OR NOT. Some of these people screw others up in various ways. Most amazing I saw was one with all the perfect words describing themselves as enlightened. What came out once there was an association with Sat Guru was this person was depressed, angry. and with violent thoughts. I'VE MET MANY PROFOUNDLY WOUNDED PEOPLE AFTER STUDYING UNDER HIGHLY ACCLAIMED, APPOINTED GURUS. I just recently saw in person a guru proclaiming his disciples enlightened, however the guru himself is a self proclaimed enlightened one, and this also looks flawed. The topic is a tricky one. YES, IT IS. SO PLEASE TRY NOT TO SOUND SO CERTAIN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. NAMASTE, DS Hridaya Puri
[FairfieldLife] Verizon Rejects Text Messages From Abortion Rights Group by Adam Liptak (NYT)
Verizon Rejects Text Messages From Abortion Rights Group By Adam Liptak The New York Times Thursday 27 September 2007 Saying it had the right to block controversial or unsavory text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro- Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon's mobile network available for a text-message program. The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code. Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters. But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages. The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of net neutrality - whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers. This is right at the heart of the problem, said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling. In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation's two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it does not accept issue- oriented (abortion, war, etc.) programs - only basic, general politician-related campaigns (Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, etc.). Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times. Nancy Keenan, Naral's president, said Verizon's decision interfered with political speech and advocacy. No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them, Ms. Keenan said. Regardless of people's political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them? A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral's position on abortion. Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position, the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson, said. It is the topic itself - abortion - that has been on our list. Mr. Nelson suggested that Verizon may be rethinking its position. As text messaging and multimedia services become more and more mainstream, he said, we are continuing to review our content standards. The review will be made, he said, with an eye toward making more information available across ideological and political views. Naral provided an example of a recent text message that it had sent to supporters: End Bush's global gag rule against birth control for world's poorest women! Call Congress. (202) 224-3121. Thnx! Naral Text4Choice. Messages urging political action are generally thought to be at the heart of what the First Amendment protects. But the First Amendment limits government power, not that of private companies like Verizon. In rejecting the Naral program, Verizon appeared to be acting against its economic interests. It would have received a small fee to set up the program and additional fees for messages sent and received. Text messaging programs based on five- and six-digit short codes are a popular way to receive updates on news, sports, weather and entertainment. Several of the leading Democratic presidential candidates have used them, as have the Republican National Committee, Save Darfur and Amnesty International. Most of the candidates and advocacy groups that use text message programs are liberal, which may reflect the demographics of the technology's users and developers. A spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, which is in some ways Naral's anti-abortion counterpart, said, for instance, that it has not dabbled in text messaging. Texting has proven to be an extraordinarily effective political tool. According to a study released this month by researchers at Princeton and the University of Michigan, young people who received text messages reminding them to vote in the November 2006 were 4.2 percentage points more likely to go to the polls. The cost per vote generated, the study said, was much smaller than other sorts of get- out-the-vote efforts. Around the world, the phenomenon is even bigger. Even as dramatic as the adoption of text messaging for political communication has been in the United States, we've been quite slow compared to the rest of the world, said James E. Katz, the director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers
[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion
Mainstream: The wanton disregard of the fetus in determining to abort is incredibly cruel. DS: I believe it's more cruel for a religion or government to abduct the bodily rights of a living individual and force them to reproduce against their will. Mainstream: Abortion coarsens social interaction, results in death, and poisons the atmosphere. DS: Rampant conjecture, opinion, speculation. Mainstream: Abortion is a very toxic - and encourages an excessively selfish perspective. DS: I fail to see the basis for your statement. It' mere opinion, based on some views you are not fully disclosing. Mainstream: It's such a tragedy, and unfortunately, people confronted with an unwanted pregnancy far too often realize that they gave little consideration of the possible outcome of casual intercourse,... DS: True, unawanted pregnancies are often the result of the carelessness (too little consderation) - not born of casual intercourse - but from the lack of intelligent use of birth control. Here it's transparent how anti-sexual views underlie anti-abortionist rhetoric. The problem, I repeat, is not casual sex, (do you also mean pleasurable?) but unprotected, careless sexual practices. Mainstream: ...and make the choice to abort when overwhelmed with the prospect of the responsibility of parenthood. DS: ...and no one should be forced to accept a responsibility against their will, thrust upon them by a superstitious religious cult or a misognic governmental law. Mainstream: Abortion should be rare, rather than considered a right freely exercised to make a messy situation go away. DS: It must be both. Ideally, it should be rare, but it should also be allowed when chosen freely. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE ANYONE ELSE'S BODY TO DO THINGS IT DOES NOT WANT TO DO, ESPECIALLY BEAR A CHILD. So let's end this stupid war in Iraq, take some of those trillions of dollars and fund social programs for sex education and birth control. That way, we will dramatically reduce the ppssibility that a woman wil use abortion in lieu of or as a form of birth control. Mainsteam: Anti-abortionists are not misogynists, but when considering the cause of unwanted pregnancy, they do not agree with elevating personal sexual freedom and snuffing a life for convenience to be admirable behavior patterns. Who does? I don't think we agree on the cause of unwanted pregnancies. I say they exist primarily because of not using birth control. You say it is because of sexual freedom (read casual, pleasurable sex here). I think it's primarily the puritanic male psychology, in man or woman, that criticizes a woman's right to choose her bodily reproductive destiny. And, once again, please note (this is very important) the way in which you frame this problem - with inherently anti-sexual rhetoric. This anti-sexual talk is based on the assumption that pleasurable sexual activity causes abortions. Wrong. Careless (please don't read enjoyable!) sexual activity causes unwanted pregnancies. While I disgree with your points, I hold your feelings and intentions in the highest regard. I believe we both want the same thing, an end to suffering for both women and children. I failed to discuss the sad fate of many unwanted children in our nation and around the world, which is another topic altogether. Thank you for caring enough to respond. Peace, DS
[FairfieldLife] Response to Steve (sgrayatlarge): Chucrh / State separation
SG: Am I missing something here? Normally when I post an article that has a strong bias like this one and after reading your previous posts, I would assume that you are in line with Mr. Edelen thinking, hence the laugh. DS: Bill lives and writes in Palm Springs. He is a friend of mine. I confess you are correct here in my appreciation of his views on this subject. But I still don't want to take credit for his great writings, so please say Edelen so people are not led to believe I wrote his columns. (-: SG: I wonder what he would say about Krishna telling Arjuna he should fight and kill his relatives? See how silly that sounds? He is saying the same thing in his silly article. DS: Bill is a scholar who writes about many religious traditions. He has a particular fondness for Taoism and Native American spirituality (to name just two). I can almost guarantee he's read Gita. My guess is that he'd want to explore the metaphorical aspects of that work as opposed to a literal reading. SG: Oh right, he will never comment on that sort of thing. DS: I am not sure about that, but I will not answer here on his behalf. SG: Also since it seems that Edelen doesn't like this mixing of religion and politics, he probably abhors what religious Buddhist monks are doing in Burma, mixing religion and politics. Oh right, he will never comment on that. DS: My GUESS is that he is against the merger of church and state as a rule, but that is just my feeling. I don't really know how he feels about that particular issue. SG: Btw, I am in favor of the Buddhist monks and if a religious republican wants to throw in his/her beliefs and values in the political debate, free speech cuts both ways. Tolerance cuts both ways. Yes, of course free speech runs both ways. The Republicans of today are NOT defenders of free speech! Furthermore there are honest and dishonest ways to argue political points. See Fox News for details. DS Peace, Steve p.s. Someone say something about a Corvette??!!
[FairfieldLife] Why Coulter is not worth reading
Coulter: And liberals agree with Ahmadinejad on the issues! We know that because he was invited by an American university to speak on campus. DS: Right Every American University agrees with the views of every speaker it invites to its campuses. This is what Republicanism does to the brain. DS
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can say the same thing about million babies who are victims of abortion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing oneradiantbeing@ wrote: The Ugly Side of the GOP By Bob Herbert The New York Times Tuesday 25 September 2007 I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. ME TOO !! And what is wrong with people, protesting over a few kids in a brawl, but don't give a damn about the 100,000 children murdered by coalition forces and Blackwater in Iraq. ?!?? OffWorld A fetus is not a human life. These are two totally unrelated topics.
[FairfieldLife] Abortion - By William Edelen
Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com) The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting. Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your stature and brilliance now that we need you? In this debate the Bible and God are words that are going to be raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say I do not like abortion. That's fine. That's their opinion and they have a right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and God to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane, unhinged and comical they appear. In papal theology they use the phrase the sanctity of life from conception onwards. There is no reference in either the Old or New Testament to the sacredness or sanctity of either human or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and slaugh- tered by the millions. The lack of sanctity of the fetus is all through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: All the women therein that are with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16 reads: The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child ripped up. God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a man's wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31). Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if they are rebellious. Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal life: Blessed are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be joking. In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception. The Hebrew word to describe a human being is nephesh . . . the breathing one. It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The history of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those using the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life position condemn abortion as murder of the unborn, while the church itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder records in the history of our species, of both the born and unborn. Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind. If the Republicans want to simply say I am against abortion and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth and all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David states: If the Republicans want to simply say I am against abortion and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth and all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification. -David, you are hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh. Steve -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing oneradiantbeing@ wrote: Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com) The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting. Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your stature and brilliance now that we need you? In this debate the Bible and God are words that are going to be raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say I do not like abortion. That's fine. That's their opinion and they have a right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and God to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane, unhinged and comical they appear. In papal theology they use the phrase the sanctity of life from conception onwards. There is no reference in either the Old or New Testament to the sacredness or sanctity of either human or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and slaugh- tered by the millions. The lack of sanctity of the fetus is all through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: All the women therein that are with child shall be ripped up. Hosea 13:16 reads: The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child ripped up. God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a man's wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31). Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if they are rebellious. Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal life: Blessed are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be joking. In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception. The Hebrew word to describe a human being is nephesh . . . the breathing one. It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The history of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those using the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life position condemn abortion as murder of the unborn, while the church itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder records in the history of our species, of both the born and unborn. Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind. If the Republicans want to simply say I am against abortion and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth and all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification. Steve, I didn't state it. Edelen did. That was his essay. I just posted the article. Peace, David
[FairfieldLife] Response to MDixon - Re: Herbert
MDixon wrote: Bob Hebert doesn't bother to tell us what the Constitution says about Washington D.C. having elected representatives and Senators. DS responds: What the Constitution says in Sec. 8 is that the Congress possesses power to legislate for the District of Columbia and what the size of this district should be limited to. Bob Herbert wrote that Congress failed to legislate (pass laws) for the people of DC to have their own elected Representatives in the House and also the right to vote. How do you feel about the fact that these people (mostly Black people) cannot vote except in presidential elections and yet they pay taxes to the U.S. government just like everybody else? Here is a quotation right from Sec. 8 of the US Constitution: Peace, DS To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And In a message dated 9/26/07 5:31:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades - a voting member of Congress to represent them. A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate - with the enthusiastic support of President Bush - rose up on Tuesday and said: No way, baby.
[FairfieldLife] DS's Response to MDixon Re; Abortion
DS wrote: A fetus is not a human life. MDixon responds: Not human? What does the DNA say it is? It's definitely not the mother's, alone, nor the father's, alone and it's definitely alive or it wouldn't be growing. DS: But the actual fetus is the object in question, not what the fetus breaks down into chemically or biologically. That is a separate topic and a smokescreen for the real issue at hand, which is: WHO DECIDES if this form will mature into a separately functioning human being or not? The answer to this dilemma boils down to one primary issue: who is the fetus a part of? That is what the courts should decide, not whether it's alive, which can only be determined from the point of view of philosophy or theology. In other words, it's merely theoretical. MDixon: Why do some states charge a person with double murder if they intentionally kill a pregnant woman? First, human laws do not make a thing right or wrong. Second, because the misogynic religious right has had a huge impact on state laws. Some of these Christian apologists/misogynists/anti- abortionists also support laws to stone adulterous women. Anti-abortionists remain indifferent toward, or even against, pro- environmental legislation that would protect the health of fetuses, like controlling the amount of mercury released into the environmnent. These anti-abortionists are religious and political hypocrits with a specifically misogynic agenda. They also oppose birth control to make sure women remain in the home, giving birth to babies whether they want them or not. This amounts to punishing women for being sexually active. As you sow, so shall you reap. Misogeny, the hatred, fear and suppression of woman, and not life, underlies the position of the religious right on the issue of abortion. Thanks for your comments and the opportunity to respond. Peace, DS
[FairfieldLife] Some responses to New.Morning from David Spero
As far as dharshan goes, though, I don't count it as much. In fact, I'm suspicious of it. AT LEAST SIX THOUSAND YEARS OF VEDIC TEACHINGS WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU. DARSHAN LITERALLY MEANS COGNITION AND REFERS TO THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PARAMATMAN (SUPREME CONSCIOUSNESS) OR ABSOLUTE REALITY. SOME WOULD CALL IT THE PRESENCE OF GOD. I saw some videos George DeForest linked us to from this site, of David Spero, a guru, and there was little doubt for me the guy is wired to something very powerful. WE ARE ALL LINKED TO SOMETHING VERY POWERFUL. Lots of shakti, even coming through the computer screen. YES. THIS EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN REPORTED BY MANY PEOPLE. But what is that energy, that shakti? SHAKTI IS THE SAME FORCE THAT BEATS YOUR HEART AND MAKES YOU BREATHE. SHAKTI MAKES THE EARTH TURN. SHAKTI MAY ALSO BE REFERRED TO AS KUNDALINI, KUNDALINI-SHAKTI OR SIMPLY SPIRITUAL CURRENT. Is it necessarily something benign? EVERY AUTHENTIC GURU, MASTER, OR AVATAR HAS SOME FORM OF SHAKTI. THAT FORCE ALLOWS FOR THE BLESSING OF THE WORLD. People say guru shakti zaps them into a transcendental state. THIS MAY HAPPEN, BUT IT'S REALLY AN OVER-GENERALIZATION. SHAKTI DOES MANY THINGS. IT HEALS THE BODY, SOOTHES THE MIND, AND PROMOTES THE EXPERIENCE OF SPONTANEOUS MEDITATION. PARAMATMAN RIDES ON THE CURRENT OF THE SHAKTI. At what possible cost? YOU RECEIVED THE SHAKTI THROUGH MY VIDEO. WHAT WAS THE COST? Who is it who's doing the zapping? SHAKTI IS A CONDENSED FORM OF THE LIFE-CURRENT LIVING IN ALL THINGS. WHO IS BEATING YOUR HEART? WHEN A BIRD SINGS, WHAT OR WHO MAKES IT SING? Is it the Infinite One? YES - AS THE SHAKTI-KUNDALINI ASPECT. Could it be a being from outside this dimension, using the human guru as a channel? NO. IT'S COMPLETELY NATURAL. SHAKTI IS PRESENT THROUGHOUT NATURE. If so, for malice or for good? THE POTENIAL FOR MALICE AND GOOD ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHOICES ONE MAKES. IF I USE MY PAYCHECK TO BUY FOODS THAT DAMAGE MY HEATH OR BUY DRUGS THAT DAMAGE MY BRAIN, THE SHAKTI WITHIN THAT MONEY RUINS MY LIFE. SHAKTI, OR ENERGY, IS INHERENTLY BENIGN. IT'S COMPLETELY NATURAL AND MANY MASTERS POSSESS DIFFERENT FORMS OF IT. Could the goal possibly be to devour human individuality, turning people into empty bone sacks? I THINK YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING TOO MANY HORROR FLICKS (-:. Or does that shakti really bring the spirit home to God? THE SHAKTI IS THE VERY PRESENCE OF GOD. Yes, I know the traditional answers. But they were given us by the zappers. RIGHT. WHEN YOU GO TO A DOCTOR, YOU GET ANSWERS FROM A DOCTOR TOO. When you look at their lives, do those lives typically demonstrate something we want, do they indicate people we can trust and respect? THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THEREFORE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO FIND A TEACHER WHOSE LIFE STANDS FOR SOME OF THE THINGS YOU BELIEVE IN. If our history with gurus shows we so rarely can trust or respect them, can we trust their answers about where their shakti comes from and the effect it is having in our lives? 'GURU' JUST MEANS ONE THAT DISSOLVES THE DARKNESS OF IGONANCE AND BONDAGE. HE OR SHE IS A BEING WHO CAN HELP ANOTHER TO TRANSCEND SUFFERING. A GURU IS BEST UNDERSTOOD AS A FUNCTION - OR ACTIVITY - IN CONSCIOUSNESS - NOT A PERSON. HOWEVER, GURUS ARE ALSO PERSONS IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE. I don't trust any of it. IT'S BETTER TO UNDERSTAND THAN TO SIMPLY MISTRUST. I THINK YOU MEAN YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY OF IT. I consider the evidence, and draw my own conclusions. EXCELLENT. THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. If a teacher is hooked up to shakti, and radiates it, that simply means they're connected to cosmic energy. YES, BUT NOT SIMPLY. Energy is only half of the consciousness/energy equation. YES! I EXPLAIN THIS OFTEN IN MY SPIRITUAL GATHERINGS AND VIDEOS. SHAKTI IS DEFINITELY NOT THE WHOLE STORY. ONE MUST HAVE PROGRESSED INTO SELF-REALIZATION AND THEN SAHAJA SAMADHI. What is the nature of their consciousness? IT SHOULD BE FUSION OF NONDUAL AWARENESS (ADVAITA VEDANTA), DIVINE LOVE, AND KUNDALINI SHAKTI. Is it nihilist, annihilating individuality? INDIVIDUALITY AND THE WORLD CONTINUE TO ARISE AFTER AWAKENING. Is it self-centered and sensual, having sex with young disciples? Is it self-centered and greed-ridden? NO. When such qualities are present, who cares if they have shakti? The devil himself has shakti, I'm sure, if such a person exists. Shakti is just power. Hitler, for instance, had incredible charisma. Would he make a good guru? SHAKTI - IN AND OF ITSELF - IS NOT THE POINT. I AGREE. IF THERE IS A DEVIL, THOUGH, THE SAME SHAKTI THAT GIVES HIM LIFE ALSO GIVES YOU LIFE, SO YOU BOTH HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON. I ENJOYED RESPONDING TO THESE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. NAMASTE, DAVID SPERO
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to New.Morning from David Spero
YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE. I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I WAS SIMPLY REFERRING - IN THAT SENTENCE - TO THE SUBJECT OF DARSHAN - APART FROM THE SCENARIO WE SEE WITHIN THE OUTER INDIAN CULTURE. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing oneradiantbeing@ wrote: As far as dharshan goes, though, I don't count it as much. In fact, I'm suspicious of it. AT LEAST SIX THOUSAND YEARS OF VEDIC TEACHINGS WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU. Without shouting :-), at least six thousand years of Vedic teachings have told us that some people are better than others because of their parentage, and that the rest (and their children) are stuck in their caste forever. In other words, Vedic teaching has been a source of some of the greatest misery this planet has ever seen. Literally millions of Indians trapped in poverty and discriminated against to this day. And you want me to buy Vedic teachings as some kind of *authority*? Get real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to Bronte Baxter from David Spero
My use of the term aspirant was not meant derisively or condescendingly. On the contrary, I used it as term of affection and endearment to describe those on fire to realize the Divine. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great youtube videos. He, he, we are all aspirants and he is the enlightened teacher. Step right up, step right up... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest george.deforest@ wrote: As far as dharshan goes, though, I don't count it as much. In fact, I'm suspicious of it. AT LEAST SIX THOUSAND YEARS OF VEDIC TEACHINGS WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU. DARSHAN LITERALLY MEANS COGNITION AND REFERS TO THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PARAMATMAN (SUPREME CONSCIOUSNESS) OR ABSOLUTE REALITY. SOME WOULD CALL IT THE PRESENCE OF GOD. I saw some videos George DeForest linked us to from this site, of David Spero, a guru, and there was little doubt for me the guy is wired to something very powerful. just to clear up some little misinformation ... David is actually addressing comments that were made by Bronte Baxter -to- New Morning; see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/149851 the youtube reference referred to is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XL3rT7pCr8 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/149419 check it out, its really good!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to New.Morning from David Spero
Follow-up comment: I think I made it pretty clear that Shakti is a property of Consciousness or the Absolute. It is the Absolute, as energy, and not radiated intentionally or effortfully, which would amount to a mere manipulation of energy. On my YT video, Forgiving the Teacher, I make it clear that Shakti functions outside of human individuality. And thank you for both pointing out my inappropriate use of capital letters on the internet and the problem with my website. If you continue to have problems with my website, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Namaste, DS --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing oneradiantbeing@ wrote: YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE. I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I WAS SIMPLY REFERRING - IN THAT SENTENCE - TO THE SUBJECT OF DARSHAN - APART FROM THE SCENARIO WE SEE WITHIN THE OUTER INDIAN CULTURE. With all due respect, the choir should learn that on the Internet the use of all capital letters is considered the equivalent of shouting. As for darshan, I'm with Maharishi's take on things that was posted here earlier today, and with my own experience with it. That is, that true darshan is a phenomenon that is mainly generated by the student, not the teacher. Oh sure, I've encountered teachers who can do darshan, and zap a few people with some cheap kundalini, but I was trained for many years in how to see the differ- ence on an occult level, and so in my opinion if the teacher feels that he or she has to do anything for the darshan to manifest, they're fooling themselves as to the real nature of what is going on. What they're generating is a low-grade form of kundalini or shakti, completely different from the higher gradations of light one can encounter into in the presence of some teachers. The latter transforms; the former only dazzles. IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary, and that's OK... there is no reason to try to convince me otherwise, and certainly no need to do it by shouting. Hint, hint. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing oneradiantbeing@ wrote: As far as dharshan goes, though, I don't count it as much. In fact, I'm suspicious of it. AT LEAST SIX THOUSAND YEARS OF VEDIC TEACHINGS WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU. Without shouting :-), at least six thousand years of Vedic teachings have told us that some people are better than others because of their parentage, and that the rest (and their children) are stuck in their caste forever. In other words, Vedic teaching has been a source of some of the greatest misery this planet has ever seen. Literally millions of Indians trapped in poverty and discriminated against to this day. And you want me to buy Vedic teachings as some kind of *authority*? Get real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to Bronte Baxter from David Spero
I like to think of them as metaphors, not concrete, literal terms. Peace, DS --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great youtube videos. He, he, we are all aspirants and he is the enlightened teacher. Step right up, step right up... yeah, I'll bet it really pissed you off in grade school when the teacher referred to you as a student... If you just read the words enlightened teacher and aspirant as words with definitions, vs. loading them with baggage, it is easier to see what he is talking about. Dr. Phil, who's common sense I enjoy, refers to this loading as psychological sunburn; because of events in the past, even a mention of a word or phrase evokes strong emotion. I'm not dissing you, just noticing your reaction to those words. DS doesn't strike me as a power tripper in the least.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to Bronte Baxter from David Spero
I am often my own worst critic, so I certainly understand where you are coming from. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing oneradiantbeing@ wrote: My use of the term aspirant was not meant derisively or condescendingly. On the contrary, I used it as term of affection and endearment to describe those on fire to realize the Divine. I'll bet the people who look to you for advice about life take it the way you mean it. Guys like me are impossible to please when it comes to implied power relationships. Since I have zero fire to realize the Divine myself, I am not in your target market anyway. Thanks for the response. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great youtube videos. He, he, we are all aspirants and he is the enlightened teacher. Step right up, step right up... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest george.deforest@ wrote: As far as dharshan goes, though, I don't count it as much. In fact, I'm suspicious of it. AT LEAST SIX THOUSAND YEARS OF VEDIC TEACHINGS WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU. DARSHAN LITERALLY MEANS COGNITION AND REFERS TO THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PARAMATMAN (SUPREME CONSCIOUSNESS) OR ABSOLUTE REALITY. SOME WOULD CALL IT THE PRESENCE OF GOD. I saw some videos George DeForest linked us to from this site, of David Spero, a guru, and there was little doubt for me the guy is wired to something very powerful. just to clear up some little misinformation ... David is actually addressing comments that were made by Bronte Baxter -to- New Morning; see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/149851 the youtube reference referred to is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XL3rT7pCr8 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/149419 check it out, its really good!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to New.Morning from David Spero
Thank you for your comments and input - all of you - since it helps me to go into deeper and deeper critical examination of my own work. Namaste, DS --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing oneradiantbeing@ wrote: Follow-up comment: I think I made it pretty clear that Shakti is a property of Consciousness or the Absolute. It is the Absolute, as energy, and not radiated intentionally or effortfully, which would amount to a mere manipulation of energy. On my YT video, Forgiving the Teacher, I make it clear that Shakti functions outside of human individuality. Hi David, and thanks for the lift after lunch, and for your discussion of the whole shakti thing. The 5-10 seconds I watched of your you tube video was really enjoyable, and well integrated. Great message!:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to Bronte Baxter from David Spero
Right, a two way street, and metaphor is itself a metaphorical notion - for a kind of knowing where the Knower cannot be separated from what It knows - so, ultimately, we are not in a postion to know anything with absolute certainty All activiity (and knowing) is approximation metaphor, occurs in the space of simple Being. Thanks for deconstructing the notion that within teaching enlightenment there is an inherent, unspoken position of authority or superiority. That was right on! Namaste, DS --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing oneradiantbeing@ wrote: I like to think of them as metaphors, not concrete, literal terms. Peace, DS --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great youtube videos. He, he, we are all aspirants and he is the enlightened teacher. Step right up, step right up... yeah, I'll bet it really pissed you off in grade school when the teacher referred to you as a student... If you just read the words enlightened teacher and aspirant as words with definitions, vs. loading them with baggage, it is easier to see what he is talking about. Dr. Phil, who's common sense I enjoy, refers to this loading as psychological sunburn; because of events in the past, even a mention of a word or phrase evokes strong emotion. I'm not dissing you, just noticing your reaction to those words. DS doesn't strike me as a power tripper in the least.:-) Well its always a two way street, right? And if it isn't, they aren't even metaphors...:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to New.Morning from David Spero
Well, George, in a nutshell, I really don't teach anything at all. I show up, sit with those who also show up, then allow the natural state of sahaja samadhi give its own teaching, radiate its own perfume. That teaching, as I've come to understand and interpret it with my limited mind, is a coexistence of advaita Vedanta, devotional, and kundalini realizations - all blended - arising spontaneously out of One Supreme Unidentifiable Awareness which can't be located in time and space. I often talk about things that people want to hear, enlightenment topics, or I give a specific talk based on the general atmosphere present in the room that evening. It's pretty simple, really. Bliss is contagious and no effort is required to taste It. In a way, I just keep everyone entertained while That does Its work. It's quite powerful, absolutely effortless and utterly simple. I really does not know how this manifests and yet I is that very happening. I hope this helps Thanks, DS --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, george_deforest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Spero wrote: Thank you for your comments and input - all of you - since it helps me to go into deeper and deeper critical examination of my own work. Namaste, DS ok david, since you are examining your work here in public, i'd like to ask straight out: what is your work? i have some sense of what it is, and enjoy seeing you; but further off-the-cuff explanations from you here would be clarifying. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing oneradiantbeing@ wrote: Follow-up comment: I think I made it pretty clear that Shakti is a property of Consciousness or the Absolute. It is the Absolute, as energy, and not radiated intentionally or effortfully, which would amount to a mere manipulation of energy. On my YT video, Forgiving the Teacher, I make it clear that Shakti functions outside of human individuality. Hi David, and thanks for the lift after lunch, and for your discussion of the whole shakti thing. The 5-10 seconds I watched of your you tube video was really enjoyable, and well integrated. Great message!:-)
[FairfieldLife] The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times
The Ugly Side of the GOP By Bob Herbert The New York Times Tuesday 25 September 2007 I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I'd really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington. Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is. The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades - a voting member of Congress to represent them. A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate - with the enthusiastic support of President Bush - rose up on Tuesday and said: No way, baby. At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But the Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died. At the same time that the Republicans were killing Congressional representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for president were offering a collective slap in the face to black voters nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, nationally televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities. The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates participated. The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told Mr. Smiley: No way, baby. They won't be there. They can't be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they're Republicans. This is the party of the Southern strategy - the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush - they all ran with that lousy pack. Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964. Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life. In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them. I believe in states' rights, said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared. In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan's presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger,' said Atwater. By 1968, you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is itself racist. Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, All right, you want your black on the court? Boy, have I got one for you. Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004. Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party, which says a great deal about the quality of black leadership in the U.S. It's time for that passive, masochistic posture to end.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
I have a few responses to some statements made below: If one knows what ice cream tastes like - one doesn't say it is said to taste sweet - this is not the words from knowing directly. This conclusion may or may not be correct. The use of the word said may indicate an idiosynratic use of language by one who does not speak excellent Enlish, or simply one who is speaking colloquially. It also may be a reference to spiritual texts about Kundalini, which also does not imply non-realization of the Shakti. Thirdly, some Masters do not like to point or speak about their own Realilsation of the Divine, for one reason or another, so they distance themselves through referring to something objective such as a text or previous statement. For example, Ramana Maharishi often answered people by quoting what other texts stated about the Self-Realization. I would not conlude Ramana's non-realisation of the Self because of that. Kundlaini has been felt all over by some, not only in the spine. Yes, I agree. Kundalini is a process through consciousness that acts as rotor rooter clearing the pathways for unfolding enlightenment and the kundalini journey is complete and over in Realization Rotor Rooter is a good analogy - but there is more to the Shakti than its function as purifier. I would like to suggest that even after the Self is established, Kundalini-Shakti still circulates, and for some even radiates as a form of (extremely potent) spiritual transmission. Kundalini, therefore, is not merely a path to establish the Self. It is an actual property of the Absolute or Consciousness Itself through which the Self makes Itself known. Therefore, I feel it is innacurate to insist that it is over at a certain point of Realization. For some, it continues to function, quite powerfully and beautifully and spontaneously, as an initiating force (diksha) for others. Namaste, David Spero http://www.davidspero.org
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened
I'd rather not comment on the question about the Vedas --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ron sidha7001@ wrote: Response: I will ask my Guru to comment, as I have been saying, I am not enlightened. snip Comment: If you or anyone else can explain to me how the Vedas can be cognized *before* enlightenment, I owe you a nickel. Such a foolish statement, which you have apparently swallowed hook, line and sinker.:-) I am not calling into question anything else regarding siddhis or other powers prior to enlightenment. All that is said about that, I agree with. Just the remark about the Vedas being able to be cognized, prior to permanent establishment in the Absolute.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul Will Destroy America
Ron Paul Will Destroy America Taken from:http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/ron-paul-will-destroy- america.html So, one of the big things that I keep getting grilled about with my criticism of Ron Paul is that people vehemently argue that the man isn't a racist. Well, I think I found the ultimate proof that I need to finally lay this to rest. The Ron Paul supporters are going to come out in force on this one, so it should be a good time, but let's hope Google and Yahoo pick this up so that the American people can know who this Ron Paul person really is. I just got finished reading an article by David Dukea former Grand Wizard (read grand asshole) of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klanwhich I found rather enlightening. Besides being a former Grand Wizard, but has also been a Louisiana congressman, but he has also been convicted of mail fraud and filed a false tax return. All of this information is available on wikipedia at this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke While David Duke's staff claims that he isn't explicitly endorsing any candidates, he says an awful lot of nice things about Ron Paul. He also does a lot of attacking those who criticize Ron Paul. Suspicious, no? Well, I found in the URL that one of the lovely Ron Paul supporters put onto my blog a link to a white supremacy site, so I've been doing a little digging. Here are some interesting things that I found. - Ron Paul has been the subject of no fewer than three articles on David Duke's personal site. - Ron Paul has been praised by the white supremacy group White Civil Rights - Ron Paul is published in white supremacist newspapers:See here I am nowhere near the only person suspecting Ron Paul of racism and or white-supremacy: see here, and here, and here - Ron Paul has a large volume of white supremacist supporters: ivorypower.com/blog(the racism and jews categories are particularly showing) - Ron Paul has ties to the John Birch society, a group of rather serious conspiracy theorists - The Alabama Green Party has identified Ron Paul as a racist and as dangerous to the United States of America: see here, and don't forget to read the laundry list of racist comments - Ron Paul has a disgusting track record when it comes to environmental protection: see here(PDF) - Ron Paul voted against H.R. 9, called the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act. This bill passed 390-33 and is to protect the rights of Americans to vote, and to protect voters before, during, and after the polls: see here Do I really need to go on? Ron Paul is will destroy America. As I hope to make this the last post dedicated to this festering pustule on the face of America, I would like to thank all of Ron Paul's supporters who have helped me to really discover how horrifying this man really is. I would especially like to thank Josh, who so conveniently linked himself to the Ku Klux Klan by putting his blog's URL in his comment this evening. I really could have not informed readers this well without you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul Will Destroy America
Thanks for catching this error. Sorry. I suggest going here: http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/ron-paul-will-destroy- america.html and reading the article directly online. All the hyperlinks will activate if you read it on their website. Thank you and Namaste. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems implicit in your word choices, such as see here, that you are referring to links that are not showing up in this message. Please review your message and any links to confirm whether any more than the two links that I can find are what you intended to send. On 9/15/07, oneradiantbeing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron Paul Will Destroy America Taken from:http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/ron-paul-will- destroy- america.html So, one of the big things that I keep getting grilled about with my criticism of Ron Paul is that people vehemently argue that the man isn't a racist. Well, I think I found the ultimate proof that I need to finally lay this to rest. The Ron Paul supporters are going to come out in force on this one, so it should be a good time, but let's hope Google and Yahoo pick this up so that the American people can know who this Ron Paul person really is. I just got finished reading an article by David Dukea former Grand Wizard (read grand asshole) of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan which I found rather enlightening. Besides being a former Grand Wizard, but has also been a Louisiana congressman, but he has also been convicted of mail fraud and filed a false tax return. All of this information is available on wikipedia at this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke While David Duke's staff claims that he isn't explicitly endorsing any candidates, he says an awful lot of nice things about Ron Paul. He also does a lot of attacking those who criticize Ron Paul. Suspicious, no? Well, I found in the URL that one of the lovely Ron Paul supporters put onto my blog a link to a white supremacy site, so I've been doing a little digging. Here are some interesting things that I found. - Ron Paul has been the subject of no fewer than three articles on David Duke's personal site. - Ron Paul has been praised by the white supremacy group White Civil Rights - Ron Paul is published in white supremacist newspapers:See here I am nowhere near the only person suspecting Ron Paul of racism and or white-supremacy: see here, and here, and here - Ron Paul has a large volume of white supremacist supporters: ivorypower.com/blog(the racism and jews categories are particularly showing) - Ron Paul has ties to the John Birch society, a group of rather serious conspiracy theorists - The Alabama Green Party has identified Ron Paul as a racist and as dangerous to the United States of America: see here, and don't forget to read the laundry list of racist comments - Ron Paul has a disgusting track record when it comes to environmental protection: see here(PDF) - Ron Paul voted against H.R. 9, called the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act. This bill passed 390-33 and is to protect the rights of Americans to vote, and to protect voters before, during, and after the polls: see here Do I really need to go on? Ron Paul is will destroy America. As I hope to make this the last post dedicated to this festering pustule on the face of America, I would like to thank all of Ron Paul's supporters who have helped me to really discover how horrifying this man really is. I would especially like to thank Josh, who so conveniently linked himself to the Ku Klux Klan by putting his blog's URL in his comment this evening. I really could have not informed readers this well without you. Flourishingly, Dharma Mitra Helping you Say It With Panache! Because, how you say it can be, and often is, as important as what you want to convey, and what you have to say is very important to you. http://PROUT-Ananlysis-Synthesis.latest-info.com Copywriting - Editing - Publishing - Publicity I want every person to be complete in themselves. Your himsa has no place in my mission. Of all that anyone leading or teaching has to convey, the most valuable thing to cultivate and convey to others is a moral conscience. Only such persons deserve to lead others, in any capacity. Anything less is a menace to society.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul Will Destroy America
Hyperlinks still not activating, so please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I will send you the link directly. It will definitely work that way. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems implicit in your word choices, such as see here, that you are referring to links that are not showing up in this message. Please review your message and any links to confirm whether any more than the two links that I can find are what you intended to send. On 9/15/07, oneradiantbeing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron Paul Will Destroy America Taken from:http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/ron-paul-will- destroy- america.html So, one of the big things that I keep getting grilled about with my criticism of Ron Paul is that people vehemently argue that the man isn't a racist. Well, I think I found the ultimate proof that I need to finally lay this to rest. The Ron Paul supporters are going to come out in force on this one, so it should be a good time, but let's hope Google and Yahoo pick this up so that the American people can know who this Ron Paul person really is. I just got finished reading an article by David Dukea former Grand Wizard (read grand asshole) of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan which I found rather enlightening. Besides being a former Grand Wizard, but has also been a Louisiana congressman, but he has also been convicted of mail fraud and filed a false tax return. All of this information is available on wikipedia at this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke While David Duke's staff claims that he isn't explicitly endorsing any candidates, he says an awful lot of nice things about Ron Paul. He also does a lot of attacking those who criticize Ron Paul. Suspicious, no? Well, I found in the URL that one of the lovely Ron Paul supporters put onto my blog a link to a white supremacy site, so I've been doing a little digging. Here are some interesting things that I found. - Ron Paul has been the subject of no fewer than three articles on David Duke's personal site. - Ron Paul has been praised by the white supremacy group White Civil Rights - Ron Paul is published in white supremacist newspapers:See here I am nowhere near the only person suspecting Ron Paul of racism and or white-supremacy: see here, and here, and here - Ron Paul has a large volume of white supremacist supporters: ivorypower.com/blog(the racism and jews categories are particularly showing) - Ron Paul has ties to the John Birch society, a group of rather serious conspiracy theorists - The Alabama Green Party has identified Ron Paul as a racist and as dangerous to the United States of America: see here, and don't forget to read the laundry list of racist comments - Ron Paul has a disgusting track record when it comes to environmental protection: see here(PDF) - Ron Paul voted against H.R. 9, called the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act. This bill passed 390-33 and is to protect the rights of Americans to vote, and to protect voters before, during, and after the polls: see here Do I really need to go on? Ron Paul is will destroy America. As I hope to make this the last post dedicated to this festering pustule on the face of America, I would like to thank all of Ron Paul's supporters who have helped me to really discover how horrifying this man really is. I would especially like to thank Josh, who so conveniently linked himself to the Ku Klux Klan by putting his blog's URL in his comment this evening. I really could have not informed readers this well without you. Flourishingly, Dharma Mitra Helping you Say It With Panache! Because, how you say it can be, and often is, as important as what you want to convey, and what you have to say is very important to you. http://PROUT-Ananlysis-Synthesis.latest-info.com Copywriting - Editing - Publishing - Publicity I want every person to be complete in themselves. Your himsa has no place in my mission. Of all that anyone leading or teaching has to convey, the most valuable thing to cultivate and convey to others is a moral conscience. Only such persons deserve to lead others, in any capacity. Anything less is a menace to society.
[FairfieldLife] Homophobic Trauma - by William Edelen
HOMOPHOBIC TRAUMA William Edelen January 28, 2007 I have always believed in the evolution of consciousness. Especially from those who blabber every Sunday morning from pulpits about something called love. Ugly and vicious internal battles are going on today in Episcopalian churches, as well as Methodist, Presbyterian and others. And of course all fundamentalist churches are in homophobic trauma. I am having doubts about the evolution of consciousness. A roll call of the brilliant gays and lesbians of history who have made giant contributions to our evolution as a species and to our cultural heritage, would include the following. King James (yes, of King James bible fame)Plato..Alexander the Great...Leonardo Da Vinci...Gore Vidal...Michelangelo...Walt Whitman...Emily Dickinson...Gertrude Stein...Rock Hudson...Greta Garbo..W.H. Auden...Amy Lowell...Tennessee Williams...Thornton Wilder...Willa Cather...Jane Austen...Henry James...George Santayana...Babe Zaharias...Christopher Isherwood...Peter Tchaikovsky...Oscar Wilde...Clifton Webb...Ethel Waters...Frederick the Great...Liberace...Rudolph Valentino...James Dean...James Hormel...Ramon Navarro...Malcolm Forbes...Christopher Marlowe...Phillip Johnson...Van Cliburn...Edward Everett Horton...John GielgudGeorge Gershwin...Adrian...Aristotle...Hadrian...Chastity Bono...Noel Coward...Agnes Moorehead...Montgomery Clift...Anthony Perkins...Virginia Woolf...Edward Albee...Andre Gide...Sumner Welles...Cole Porter...George Cukor...Marcel Proust...Rudolph Nureyev...Genet...Dag Hammarskjold...Martina Navratilova...John Chever...Aaron Copland...A.E. Housman...William Tilden...Greg Louganis...Ian McKellen...Richard Halliburton...Lawrence of Arabia...William Haines...Horatio Alger...Jean Genet...Ethel WatersLeonard Bernstein...and space limitations preclude my listing thousands more of many of the most creative and brilliant representatives of our species. I have two nephews. brothers, who often visited me on Marine Corps and Naval Air Stations. They always wanted to be a fighter pilot like their uncle Bill. They both became that. Both of them top Naval Fighter pilots. One became the Number one Top Gun of that elite group. His brother is gay and has been as far back as he can remember. Today he is a captain with one of Americas largest airlines and is one of the finest pilots in America. Gay. Robert Bernstein, former Senior Trial Lawyer for the U.S. Dept. of Justice, wrote an excellent book Straight Parents, Gay Children. He and his wife were told by their daughter that she had always been a lesbian. They embraced her with love, and marched with her in gay parades. Bob went on to become the National President of PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.) one of the finest and most loving organizations in America. He had a full house when he spoke to my Sunday Symposium in Palm Springs. When is the good Christian love going to extend to the over 600,000 lesbian and gay youth under 18 years of age in California alone. The suicide rate is the highest in gay and lesbian children because of their families inability to accept who they are and give them the Christian 'love' they prattle about every Sunday in church. The Christian church has a 2000 year old history of opposing scientific truth and blocking moral issues: the brutal persecution of Copernicus...Galileo...Bruno...Vesalius and others; supporting slavery with biblical references...fighting against the rights of women, including voting...still an issue today where wives are told to stay in their place as biblically defined. How many future generations of morally sensitive people are going to be amazed, and laughing, at the homophobic ignorance and superstitions of todays churches? In the name of Christian love, the thin-lipped witch hunting moralists are at work. Poor things. They can hardly get out of bed in the morning without knees shaking,..hands shaking and lips quivering. The sexual world they have to face each day is full of fantasized goblins...devils..evil spirits and bogeymen and their church fights over bedroom witch hunts. A closing question that any intelligent grade school child could ask: When are Christians going to start living the love they drivel about every Sunday.?
[FairfieldLife] Homophobics and Leviticus by William Edelen
Homophobics and Leviticus (1999) by William Edelen On the CNN show 'Equal Time' recently, the homophobic Oliver North ranted and raved and foamed at the mouth about gays and lesbians and how God's 'word' in Leviticus calls them 'sinners'. Don't you just love the biblical clowns who say the bible is true... every word...and we live by that book...yes sir..we do, by gawd..and it says right there in Leviticus l8:22 that 'you shall not lie with a male as with a woman...yes sir...that's what God said. Hey boy..hot dog...if we live by that archaic, superstitious and ignorant book..well wow..just look at who else is going to burn in hell. Ah, what fun! Practically all of the Republican leaders in Washington, that's who. God said...you shall not marry a woman divorced from her husband. (2l:7) Hot damn..how I love that bible. There goes Reagan, Dole, Gingrich, Buchanan, Barr and I could name dozens more of those big shots who have broken God's law and married divorced women. They gonna burn in hell boy. That's what the bible says..and we live by that book.. yes by gawd, we surely do. The fun and games have just started with God's word in Leviticus. Put your coffee down now. If a man commits adultery, both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death. (20:l0) There goes almost everyone in Washington, D.C. the Pentagon, all state capitols, and all burning in hell. My gawd, what a show. Yes sir, that bible is right on as to who is going to hell and its damn near everyone alive by the time you finish God's list of sinners. Your ranchers have had it, and farmers. Like, I mean HAD IT. Leviticus l9:l9 orders that you shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. Hot dawg, how I love that God. He tells those ranchers..now Claude...I seen you cross breeding them Charolais and Angus. Hot damn.. Claude..boy...you are burning in hell forever. What's next? Oh my, all the clothing stores, fabric shops, clothing designers, all headed for hell. Tears flood my eyes. You shall never wear a garment of cloth made of two different kinds of material. (l9:l9) Hey God, I got shirts and jackets of linen and wool, silk and cotton.. and all of us nice people who like mixing fabrics are going to you know where? Jeez...and we have just barely started listing the sinners... That God...He must have a terrific sense of humor. I say 'He' for no Goddess would issue such a list of crank, stupid and ignorant commands. Hey, Nancy Reagan, have you read about your sinful life? Do not turn to mediums or be defiled by them. (l9:3l) Well, there goes the Astrology that you and Ronnie lived by. Before I run out of space, here is the best for all of your smart aleck kids. If they sass you...why just kill 'em. Forget that sissy stuff like cutting their allowance. Just kill them. That God was the original Judge Roy Bean. (Lev:20:9) All of you Oliver North, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, James Dobson fundamentalist biblical phonies, if you say Leviticus is God's word on Gays and Lesbians, than the entire book is obviously God's word to anyone with an I.Q. above 3 So LIVE IT. WALK THE TALK...OR GET OFF IT.
[FairfieldLife] FUNCTIONAL ILLITERATES - BY WILLIAM EDELEN
FUNCTIONAL ILLITERATES by William Edelen August 19, 2007 Functional illiterates is a phrase coined by the late Robert Hutchins, who was dean of the Yale University Law School at age 28. He was appointed chancellor of the University of Chicago at age 32. He was obviously brilliant. One of the most important events of his life took place when he was a teenager. He never forgot it. His father was a professor of philosophy at Oberlin College in Ohio. Hutchins went to his father one day and started to give him his opinion on a particular subject. His father stopped him with these words: Son...let me remind you, before you proceed, that you do not know enough about the subject to even have an opinion. Would to God that every Tom, Jane, Dick and Harry going around giving their opinions about religion and the bible would take that to heart. As Dr. Fred Denbeaux put it in the Layman's Theological Library series the person who is unwilling to study linguistics and literary distinctions and to differentiate between prose and poetry, history and mythology, legend and folklore, will not ever understand the bible. There is an enormous amount of confusion as to what it means to be religiously educated. There is a vast, world of difference, between training, indoctrination and education. Let me illustrate: I had an acquaintance at Oklahoma State University who had a Ph.D in Poultry Science. (I do wish they would stop calling those degrees Doctor of Philosophy. He was not a philosophy major. He was a Doctor of Poultry Science) He knew all there was to know about chickens at that time. But outside of chickens he was one of the most ignorant, uninformed, poorly read, unlettered men I have ever known. A total functional illiterate. He could function in the area of chickens and that was the end of his knowledge and his opinions of religion, Christianity and bible were about as enlightened and informed as those of my dog. And yet people assumed that because he had his Ph.D he was educated when nothing could have been further from the truth. He was a trained technician or specialist in poultry science and nothing more. A dentist friend of mine in Tacoma, Washington was teaching bible classes. He was so religiously illiterate that when I told him the Old Testament was an English translation of Hebrew, he was amazed. And he often told me he refused to believe that Jesus was a Jew. And he was teaching bible classes. Even worse, people were listening to him. They assumed that because he had a degree in dentistry he was educated and could teach the bible. The blind leading the blind would be an understatement. He was a total functional illiterate. What does it mean to be religiously educated? That is my question . How swayed and duped we are by titles and so called credentials. that may not be either accurate or legitimate. For instance, the Doctor of Divinity degree that ministers love to use and tack on their name. It is not an earned degree at all but an honorary one given by a church related college of the ministers own denomination, after his church has made a donation. I repeat, it is not an academically earned degree obtained through study. In my 35 years as an ordained Congregational minister I have known only one minister who had an earned Doctoral degree in religious studies. And yet in the church ads of a local paper you will read...Dr. John Smith preaching Sunday. What a farce...a laughable joke. Dr Smith. What does it mean to be religiously educated.? If the bible is such an easy to understand book, why is it that we have over 700 different, fragmented Protestant denominations all reading the bible differently? Add to this the Roman Catholics, Jews and Eastern Orthodox with different interpretations. Add to this the fact that even within one single body, such as the Lutherans, there are continual internal fights as to how to read the bible. To such an extent that almost the entire staff of one Lutheran seminary was fired for not reading the bible correctly. The world of religion is filled to overflowing with functional illiterates who do not know enough about the subject to even have an opinion. The vast majority of the Christian professionals have been exposed to, trained in, and indoctrinated with only one religion, which leaves 99,999 others. Anthropologists estimate that over the past 150,000 years there have been at least 100,000 distinctly different religions. How can anyone preach, teach, speak or lecture intelligently about the bible or Christianity if he/she has no idea where they fit into that 150.,000 year jigsaw puzzle? Out of 150,000 years they have been exposed to only a very brief 2000 year period, which leaves the other 148,000 years out like they were of no importance to the last 2000. You can easily, and safely, call this a functional illiterate view of Christianity and the bible. There is nothing in this
[FairfieldLife] The Trouble with Ron [Paul]
This article, copied and pasted from http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/search?q=Ron+Paul, discusses Rep. Ron Paul. (Please note that this article is not intended as an attack on any individual who supports Rep. Ron Paul.) The Trouble with Ron Wednesday, June 06, 2007 -- by Sara Molly Ivins, God bless her big heart, warned us about Ron Paul over a decade ago. Her coverage of this 1996 Texas congressional races included this prescient precis: Dallas' 5th District, East Texas' 2nd District and the amazing 14th District,which runs all over everywhere, are also in play. In the amazing 14th, Democrat Lefty Morris (his slogan is ''Lefty is Right!'') faces the Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul, who is himself so far right that he's sometimes left, as happens with your Libertarians. I think my favorite issue here is Paul's 1993 newsletter advising ''Frightened Americans'' on how to get their money out of the country. He advised that Peruvian citizenship could be purchased for a mere 25 grand. That we should all become Peruvians is one of the more innovative suggestions of this festive campaign season. But what will the Peruvians think of it? Molly, with her usual insight, laid out the essential struggle we're having with Paul. As a libertarian leftist, I understand viscerally the charm of Paul's message. Who wouldn't be charmed? He's anti-war, anti-torture, anti-drug war, and anti-corporation -- a real progressive dream date. Until you reflect on the fact that he's also anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-sane immigration policy, and apparently, anti-separation of church and state as well: The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. -- From a War on Religion article Ron Paul wrote in December 2003 (found at Lew Rockwell.com): And that's the trouble we're having with Ron. There's just a whole lot going on under that affable exterior that deserves a hard second look before we clutch the man to our collective bosom. The political writers in Texas back in that '96 campaign knew quite a bit about this, and their writing survives to tell some interesting tales. Here, for example, is Clay Robison, writing in the Houston Chronicle the same week Molly wrote the above: [Democratic candidate] Morris recently distributed copies of political newsletters written by Paul in 1992 in which the Surfside physician endorsed the concept of secession, defended cross burning as an act of free speech and expressed sympathy for a man sentenced to prison for bombing an IRS building. Cross-burning as free speech? (And sympathy for domestic terrorist bombers?) Um, yeah. Two months later, the Austin American-Statesman let Paul share his views in his own words: Not all officials express alarm when discussing cross burnings. U.S.Rep.-elect Ron Paul, a Texas Republican from Surfside, described such activity as a form of free speech in some situations. Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police. See, here's that problem again. When Paul explains it, it sounds all nice and reasonable. What you do on your property absolutely should be your business, and nobody should be able to tell you what you can and can't put on your Saturday night bonfire. But Texas was having a huge upswing in cross-burnings that year, which were part of an (all- too-successful) effort to terrorize its African-American community. There's plenty of legal precedent that one person's right to free speech ends when it begins to terrorize others into silence -- and, because of this, cross-burning is recognized as a hate crime in many jurisdictions across the country. But Ron Paul, for all his libertarian talk, apparently doesn't believe in putting any restrictions on speech, even when it damages other individuals and the overall level of civil behavior in society. And then there's the company he keeps. Dave is going to have more on this soon; but if you want to know someone's character, look at the people he surrounds himself with. (Most of us wish we'd understood more about Bush's friends before the 2000 election -- let's not repeat that mistake here.) First, there's Tom DeLay. Paul may be loudly
[FairfieldLife] Is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a Homophobe? by Daniel R. Pinello
http://www.danpinello.com/Scalia.htm Is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a Homophobe? Daniel R. Pinello August 2005 Justices of the United States Supreme Court write their official opinions with utmost care, particularly with regard to their choice of language. Diction is probably more deliberate in the Court than in any other enterprise relying on written communication. With that reality in mind, I've conducted an empirical exercise that focuses on how Supreme Court justices describe classes of litigants. I use a measurement that I call a preferred-reference ratio. As an introduction to the concept, consider the evolution of diction in how the modern Court has referred to African-Americans. In the 1960s, the justices' exclusive term of reference was Negro or its plural. For instance, Negro(es) appears 31 times in the combined opinions of Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung (the 1964 companion cases upholding the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), while black isn't there once. Two decades later, however, the Court changed. The last justice writing for the Court who used Negro as his or her own (i.e., not in case citations or quotations from books, articles, etc.) was Justice Harry Blackmun in Cleavinger v. Saxner (1985). Today, black and African-American are the exclusive references. In the opinions of Grutter v. Bollinger (the 2003 decision approving of universities' use of racial preferences in developing a racially diverse student body), for example, the former term arises 42 times and the latter, 15. That produces a ratio of 15/42, or .357, for African-American to black. (I grant that one case is a small sample, but Grutter is long enough 25,000 words to be reasonably representative.) I call the ratio preferred reference because one of the terms is the frame of reference generally selected by the group at issue. So for the race example, African-American is preferred over black for self-identification. (I assert this with eleven years of classroom observation, teaching at an urban public university whose student population is at least one-third African- American. Undoubtedly, there's other empirical evidence addressing this point. Since the race example here is only illustrative, however, the accuracy of my observation about the preference of African-American isn't a central theme of this essay.) Relying on Grutter as a sample, then, I conclude that justices use the preferred reference about 26 percent of the time (i.e., 15 preferred uses among 57 total, or .263). Now I turn to the justices' use of homosexual and gay and lesbian in their official opinions. The Supreme Court has decided four appeals of major importance to gay and lesbian Americans since Justice Antonin Scalia joined that bench in 1988: Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), Romer v. Evans (1996), Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Hurley recognized a First Amendment right of the sponsors of Boston's annual Saint Patrick's Day Parade to exclude a gay-lesbian-bisexual organization's marching under its own banner in the parade, despite Massachusetts' public accommodations law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Romer held that a state constitutional amendment prohibiting the inclusion of sexual orientation in municipal antidiscrimination ordinances was unconstitutional. Dale stated that the First Amendment protected the Boy Scouts' decision to discharge a gay man in New Jersey as a Scout leader, despite a New Jersey law forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Finally, Lawrence struck down all state consensual sodomy laws as unconstitutional and overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). In Hurley, Romer, Dale, and Lawrence, I count 149 references to homosexual(s) or homosexuality and 36 to gay or lesbian among the opinions in those cases by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Clarence Thomas. (I counted each mention in the opinions of the phrases gay and lesbian or lesbian and gay as one reference, not two separate ones.) Thus, the preferred-reference ratio of gay and lesbian to homosexual for all justices with the exception of Justice Scalia is 36/149, or .242. Hence, all justices except Justice Scalia use the preferred term in this category about 19 percent of the time. In contrast, in his two relevant opinions (dissents in Romer and Lawrence) in the Supreme Court's gay rights jurisprudence since 1988, Justice Scalia uses homosexual(s) or homosexuality as his own 109 times, while gay and lesbian just once (at the end of his second footnote in Lawrence). (Indeed, I'd wager that the footnote reference was not
[FairfieldLife] Scalia dissenting from the 6-to-3 decision that struck down Texas' sodomy laws,
Scalia dissenting from the 6-to-3 decision that struck down Texas' sodomy laws, Lawrence v. Texas, 2003: Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda ... Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive ... So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously 'mainstream'; that in most States what the Court calls 'discrimination' against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such discrimination under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress ... that in some cases such 'discrimination' is mandated by federal statute ... and that in some cases such 'discrimination' is a constitutional right.
