--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bryan.junius" <bryan.junius@...> wrote:
>
>
> Why China Does Capitalism Better than the U.S.
>
>
> Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html#ixzz28LqYXlGl
>
> One of the great ironies revealed by the global recession that began in 2008
is that Communist Party–ruled China may be doing a better job managing
capitalism's crisis than the democratically elected U.S. government. Beijing's
stimulus spending was larger, infinitely more effective at overcoming the
slowdown and directed at laying the infrastructural tracks for further economic
expansion.
>
> As Western democracies shuffle wheezily forward, China's economy roars along
at a steady clip, having lifted some half a billion people out of poverty over
the past three decades and rapidly created the world's largest middle class to
provide an engine for long-term domestic consumer demand. Sure, there's massive
social inequality, but there always is in a capitalist system. (Income
inequality rates in the U.S. are some of the worst in the industrialized world,
and more Americans are falling into poverty than are being raised out of it. The
number of Americans officially designated as living in poverty in 2009 — 43
million — was the highest in the 51 years that records have been kept.)
> (See TIME's photo-essay "The Rise of Hu Jintao.")
>
> Beijing is also doing a far more effective job than Washington of tooling its
economy to meet future challenges — at least according to historian Francis
Fukuyama, erstwhile neoconservative intellectual heavyweight. "President Hu
Jintao's rare state visit to Washington this week comes at a time when many
Chinese see their weathering of the financial crisis as a vindication of their
own system, and the beginning of an era in which U.S.-style liberal ideas will
no longer be dominant," wrote Fukuyama in Monday's Financial Times under a
headline stating that the U.S. had little to teach China. "State-owned
enterprises are back in vogue, and were the chosen mechanism through which
Beijing administered its massive stimulus."
>
> Today Chinese leaders are more inclined to scold the U.S. — its debtor to the
tune of close to a trillion dollars — than to emulate it, and Fukuyama noted
that polls show that a larger percentage of Chinese believe their country is
headed in the right direction, compared with Americans. China's success in
navigating the economic crisis, wrote Fukuyama, was based on the ability of its
authoritarian political system to "make large, complex decisions quickly, and
... make them relatively well, at least in economic policy."
>
> These are startling observations from a writer who, 19 years ago, famously
proclaimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union heralded "the end of history as
such ... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the
universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human
government."
> (See TIME's video "An Eye on China, Old and New.")
>
> Fukuyama has had the good grace and intellectual honesty to admit he was
wrong. And he's no apologist for Chinese authoritarianism, calling out its
abuses and corruption, and making clear that he believes the absence of
democracy will eventually hobble China's progress. Still, as he noted in the
Financial Times, while they don't hold elections, China's communist leaders are
nonetheless responsive to public opinion. (Of course they are! A party brought
to power by a peasant rebellion knows full well the destructive potential of the
rage of working people.) But the regime claims solid support from the Chinese
middle class, and hedges against social explosion by directing resources and
investment to more marginal parts of the country.
>
> China's leaders, of course, never subscribed to Fukuyama's "end of history"
maxim; the Marxism on which they were reared would have taught them that there
is no contingent relationship between capitalism and democracy, and they only
had to look at neighbors such as Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore to see
economic success stories under authoritarian rule — although the prosperity thus
achieved played a major role in transforming Taiwan and South Korea into the
noisy democracies they are today. Nor were Beijing's leaders under any illusions
that the free market could take care of such basic needs as education, health
care and infrastructure necessary to keep the system as a whole growing.
>
> But Fukuyama also made a point about the comparative inability of the U.S.
system to respond decisively to a long-term crisis. "China adapts quickly,
making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively," Fukuyama wrote.
"Americans pride themselves on constitutional checks and balances, based on a
political culture that distrusts centralised government. This system has ensured
individual liberty and a vibrant private sector, but it has now become polarised
and ideologically rigid. At present it shows little appetite for dealing with
the long-term fiscal challenges the U.S. faces. Democracy in America may have an
inherent legitimacy that the Chinese system lacks, but it will not be much of a
model to anyone if the government is divided against itself and cannot govern."
> (See "China's High-Speed Rail.")
>
> Money has emerged as the electoral trump card in the U.S. political system,
and corporations have a Supreme Court–recognized right to use their considerable
financial muscle to promote candidates and policies favorable to their business
operations and to resist policies and shut out candidates deemed inimical to
their business interests. So whether it's health reform or the stimulus package,
the power of special interests in the U.S. system invariably produces either
gridlock or mishmash legislation crafted to please the narrow interests of a
variety of competing interests rather than the aggregated interests of the
economy and society as a whole. Efficient and rational decisionmaking it's not.
Nor does it appear capable of tackling long-term problems.
>
> China is the extreme opposite, of course. It can ride roughshod over the lives
of its citizens (e.g., building a dam that requires the forced relocation of 1.5
million people who have no channels through which to protest). But China's
system is unlikely to give corporations the power to veto or shape government
decisionmaking to suit their bottom lines at the expense of the needs of the
system as a whole in the way that, to choose but one example, U.S.
pharmaceutical companies are able to wield political influence to deny the
government the right to negotiate drug prices for the public health system.
Fukuyama seems to be warning that, in Darwinian terms, the Chinese system may be
more adaptive than the land of the free.
>
>
>
> Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html#ixzz28LqGWVNZ
>Bryan, As you said democracy is not capitalism. I see the  nidus of capitalism
being Great Britain. As a mercantile, sea trading state its far flung empire
functioned well  for several centuries. They are  capitalist under a monarch. I
think China resembles that  sort of association with  a polotbouro  as monarch 
and a rude  and little regulated bureaucracy trading with  the world. The
chinese communist party makes the rules with little consultation with the
people. The old communist  dictatorships have evolved into these one party
dictatorships  and fear their own populations more than they do outside powers.
Those systems are intrinsically weak. Pesants ,once they have some education 
want a better life and can be trinketerred for a time  but slowly develope  a
political will that  begins to assert itself. China like USA is a continental
nation  that has  its own production  assets. Unlike maritime GB it needs 
capitalism much less than a trading state. I think we will see USA find its
energy balance and look to its democracy to guide  its productive strengths away
from banking and pure business interests to actual production of goods and
innovative proudcts. The idea that the money,its nations currancy, is the
property of the people not that of the banks or insurance companies. Most of our
debt is not to China ,it is to US citizens. The people can and should reform 
the capitalist  monopoly within the USA. That is our strength and  this gridlock
is engineered and financed by the banks and insurance companies. We the people
can break this gridlock and steep  regulation of our capitalist class is the
answer. China cannot do that because its people have no voice. Americans have
such power  but are duped into obesance to tin ,capitalist gods. Now media are
in the capitalist camp and push the agenda of the banks and insurance companies.
If we produce and  properly regulate we can have a better, more agile system
than one party dictatorships. The way is not to become more like Great Britain
or China of the present but  more like USA of the near future. Bill

Belief Essential?



[ You claim that belief is not essential, that it is not a basic
characteristic of our nature, and yet all human activity involves
belief, even hope requires it. Religions believe that there is something
more, a place, a state of being, which is better than this world where
we have to eat, and struggle to survive. Even science investigates
things in the hope and belief that doing so will be effective. All the
evidence seems to suggest that belief is effective and an essential part
of our being. ]



Let us take a simple and very common case. Tell a young person that one
day they could find another human being and find themselves in love with
that person. Do they believe it prior to it happening or do they believe
it because it happened?  If and when it happens do they then believe it
can happen because it DID happen? Don't they KNOW that it has
happened?  If you tell them before it has happened do they know that it
will happen? So, what happens when you tell them? What effect does
telling them have? Do they then one day find it because they believed
what they had heard? Or did they find it because it happened? Did I fall
in love (twice) because I believed that it would happen?  NO.  Suppose I
had believed that it would not happen?  It still happened. But the fact
IS that I neither believed that it would happen nor did I believe that
it would not happen. So belief did not figure in it did it.



Now, suppose they had been told something which was not true, something
which did not happen ? Would it ever happen?  Would it happen if they
believed that it would happen? What if they had been told that they had
to believe in belief and that they had to believe strongly enough?



Did I find that transcended mode of being (plus all the other things)
because I believed that I would?  NO. Moreover, who would I have
believed it from – for nobody had spoken of these things. Sir, you
are being silly.



Also, you talk of `Essential'. To me the term essential defines
those things found in our original state of being. I have told you what
was there and believing anything was not one of them. Thus belief is NOT
an essential part of my being. Do you have your origin some place else?
Are you different in your basic essential nature of being?  If so then
how know do you know?  When did you learn that and come to know it? What
was that like?  When did that happen?  Tell me about it. Tell me what
you know?



Yes, I know well enough that religionists and even the `gnostics'
and other such fringe groups BELEIVE things. That is obvious isn't
it; and they say it every day.  I do not doubt them, it is obvious that
they BE-LIEF. I don't. As for science then that is a JOB. The job of
studying things. That can be done by anybody, religionists, atheist or
what knows else. Doing science, like doing making shoes, is a job.



As for IF there is something more to life than living on this world then
I found that is true. I know it.  But that does not make this world and
life here not true. They are just two different aspects of Being and
conscious experience. But if you enjoy believing things and it makes you
feel good then DO IT. Who cares?  I don't. And what if you are
believing something which IS NOT SO?  How do you know if you are or not?
If you ARE believing something which IS NOT SO then your life has been
wasted. Please yourself, it isn't my life. But you did have the
chance to study yourself didn't you. Belief is a con trick. As for
HOPE then that arises out of knowing that you do not know something. It
has nothing to do with belief. Hope can arise all the time that time
exists for you, but it is not an essential part of your being. Hope is
not an essence. There is no hope in eternity. FACT !  Talk about what
you know, not what you don't know. Fools talk about what they
don't know. Search for what you don't know. And search without
assumptions of what IS SO. Oh, by the way the `gnostics' gnosis
is nothing more than them knowing that they having dumped their religion
:- ))) I am not one of them.



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Refuting religion does not reveal what IS



[ You say that feeling is far more important than reason for finding
this `essential nature of our being and life'. But reason can
indeed refute religions if one reads enough information on how these
religions were set up and their history, one does not need feeling,
intelligence will do. ]



   Refuting religions does not reveal what IS. Refuting religions is not
enough. Refuting religions simply leaves a vacuum. The reason why I say
that feeling is more important is because it works. Feeling runs to the
very base of what we are, E-Motion can and does return you home; reason
and intelligence does not. What gives you MOTION ?  It is not the
refuting of religions sir. When you have logically refuted all the
religions ever constructed by men what then? What will fill that empty
existential gap?  Moreover, I never had a religion so I had no need of
refuting them or it. That happened later per chance of what life IS. Why
would I have set out to cure something I was no suffering from? Why
would I set out to break a shackle by which I was not bound? I set out
to learn about life and what it had in store. That is all. I am life.
Mysterious isn't it. Negation does not prove WHAT IS SO. Even though
negation is handy for finding out what ISNT SO.



Dick Richardson.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes! Concerned citizens should consider themselves as having a special interest
in democracy. Government is the people, at least those who care enough to make
it theirs. So many young people are beginning to understand we need more
political parties and want the change that only they can begin. Centrism, as was
on full display in the presidential debate, so much so that you can't tell one
party from the other, is not a good thing. Differences should be stark, but like
the President's manner, should be conciliatory and civilized, and above all
honest. People just don't accept refusing to borrow from China on the one hand,
but then supporting businesses who operate there on the other. If those
undecided or so called independents make their choice on appearance and not
substance, they'll get what they deserve but we'll all have to suffer for it.
Not voting changes nothing.

Mary


--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <vize9938@...> wrote:

The people can and should reform  the capitalist monopoly within the USA. That
is our strength and this gridlock is engineered and financed by the banks and
insurance companies. We the people can break this gridlock and steep regulation
of our capitalist class is the
answer. China cannot do that because its people have no voice. Americans have
such power but are duped into obesance to tin ,capitalist gods. Now media are in
the capitalist camp and push the agenda of the banks and insurance companies. If
we produce and properly regulate we can have a better, more agile system than
one party dictatorships. The way is not to become more like Great Britain or
China of the present but more like USA of the near future. Bill

I am listening to the spin being put on the unemployment numbers. The
republicans say the administration is calling the numbers from the White House.
Thats too much spin for me. Obama now has an unemployment rate lower than when
he took office. I want to know what number we are aiming at if we even remember
the controversy after the election. I have read that it is impossible to have
Zero unemployment  because some people are changing jobs or normal sesional lay
offs or  short term disabilities.Three % seems a realistic bottom and here we
are at 5% . We have more jobs than workers but  many of those workers are not
suitable for the jobs. It would seem to me that at 5% you quit worrying about
the numbers and  initiate job training programs.
As political pay back I suggest that republican banking and insurance  should
not be included in new jobs  training programs. We do not need more of those
sort of workers who got us in this mess. Regulate and reduce insurance and
banking they just add overhead to real business that produces goods  or
essential services. Investment banking needs particular scrutany as those people
lose billions of other peoples dollars  and then throw the debt on the general
public. As Dodd ,Frank  mandates investment banking  needs diverge  street
banking and the public cash flow from the wild risks of investment banking
schemes. The unbridled rampage of too big to fail banks  needs
compartmentalisation breaking them down into traditional banking activities and
a separate investment banking  group. Their cash flows should not be mingled .
They follow entirely different risk profiles. If you work in the traditional
banking sector  your job should be very secure with moderate salaries and good
benefits. If you opt for the investment side  you are a true risk taker. This is
the wild side of capitalism  that adds innovation to a society but adds crazy
risk. 7.8% unemployment is too high and many of those people are financial
service people who were fired when the bad investments of their unregulated
corporations blew up. Regulate the corporations, retrain the workers in other
industries and get 7.8 down to 5.0. Bill

Bill,

When I lived in Jacksonville, Fl from 2005-2010, during Bush's reign in office
at the white house - Jeb Bush was Governor here then (go figure),...for the
first 2 years the jobs in Florida were O.K. Come 2008 the unemployment went from
9% to 14.2% in a course of 3 short years. And that was only third highest
compared to Tennessee and Nevada. Detroit basically became an empty ghost city
by 2012 because all the plants shut down and crime rates went through the roof
alongside Nashville. It looked like the East coast started to bottom out after
all the number of people I knew who became those "99ers". It was dreadful and
depressing for some time.

When I think of investment banking and all the money they are gambling away, I
feel a sudden lurch in my belly to regurgitate. These banks that have gotten to
big to fail should of never happened to begin with. They should of been
deregulated into smaller banks and optimally decentralized - for example - when
I lived in Germany I had a bank account with Sparkasse - at the time, I was
annoyed with the way the Germans had their banking practices setup, as well as
many other peculiarities I didn't like - anyway, if you have a bank account in,
say Darmstadt, Germany and you go to Stuttgart for a day, which is 100 miles,
you better have your ATM card cause you cannot use the same bank at a different
location, they won't let you - all the cashier attendants will tell you is you
have to go use your own bank. Literally, If I wanted to deposit money at my
Sparkasse bank in Darmstadt and did it in Stuttgart, they would  make me do a
wire transaction back to Darmstadt and charge me for it in Stuttgart!

Back then...I was so irritated with their way of banking, but after the
financial meltdown we had, I think the German system was not so bad after all.
It keeps banks honest and transparent to a certain degree in transactions, but I
am sure, there would be downfalls to a full decentralization such as that, so
maybe there can be a compromise in how we can reform banking practices.

regards,

Bryan Junius

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> I am listening to the spin being put on the unemployment numbers. The
republicans say the administration is calling the numbers from the White House.
Thats too much spin for me. Obama now has an unemployment rate lower than when
he took office. I want to know what number we are aiming at if we even remember
the controversy after the election. I have read that it is impossible to have
Zero unemployment  because some people are changing jobs or normal sesional lay
offs or  short term disabilities.Three % seems a realistic bottom and here we
are at 5% . We have more jobs than workers but  many of those workers are not
suitable for the jobs. It would seem to me that at 5% you quit worrying about
the numbers and  initiate job training programs.
> As political pay back I suggest that republican banking and insurance  should
not be included in new jobs  training programs. We do not need more of those
sort of workers who got us in this mess. Regulate and reduce insurance and
banking they just add overhead to real business that produces goods  or
essential services. Investment banking needs particular scrutany as those people
lose billions of other peoples dollars  and then throw the debt on the general
public. As Dodd ,Frank  mandates investment banking  needs diverge  street
banking and the public cash flow from the wild risks of investment banking
schemes. The unbridled rampage of too big to fail banks  needs
compartmentalisation breaking them down into traditional banking activities and
a separate investment banking  group. Their cash flows should not be mingled .
They follow entirely different risk profiles. If you work in the traditional
banking sector  your job should be very secure with moderate salaries and good
benefits. If you opt for the investment side  you are a true risk taker. This is
the wild side of capitalism  that adds innovation to a society but adds crazy
risk. 7.8% unemployment is too high and many of those people are financial
service people who were fired when the bad investments of their unregulated
corporations blew up. Regulate the corporations, retrain the workers in other
industries and get 7.8 down to 5.0. Bill
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Junius" <bryan.junius@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> When I lived in Jacksonville, Fl from 2005-2010, during Bush's reign in office
at the white house - Jeb Bush was Governor here then (go figure),...for the
first 2 years the jobs in Florida were O.K. Come 2008 the unemployment went from
9% to 14.2% in a course of 3 short years. And that was only third highest
compared to Tennessee and Nevada. Detroit basically became an empty ghost city
by 2012 because all the plants shut down and crime rates went through the roof
alongside Nashville. It looked like the East coast started to bottom out after
all the number of people I knew who became those "99ers". It was dreadful and
depressing for some time.
>
> When I think of investment banking and all the money they are gambling away, I
feel a sudden lurch in my belly to regurgitate. These banks that have gotten to
big to fail should of never happened to begin with. They should of been
deregulated into smaller banks and optimally decentralized - for example - when
I lived in Germany I had a bank account with Sparkasse - at the time, I was
annoyed with the way the Germans had their banking practices setup, as well as
many other peculiarities I didn't like - anyway, if you have a bank account in,
say Darmstadt, Germany and you go to Stuttgart for a day, which is 100 miles,
you better have your ATM card cause you cannot use the same bank at a different
location, they won't let you - all the cashier attendants will tell you is you
have to go use your own bank. Literally, If I wanted to deposit money at my
Sparkasse bank in Darmstadt and did it in Stuttgart, they would  make me do a
wire transaction back to Darmstadt and charge me for it in Stuttgart!
>
> Back then...I was so irritated with their way of banking, but after the
financial meltdown we had, I think the German system was not so bad after all.
It keeps banks honest and transparent to a certain degree in transactions, but I
am sure, there would be downfalls to a full decentralization such as that, so
maybe there can be a compromise in how we can reform banking practices.
>
> regards,
>
> Bryan Junius
> Bryan, I think the Obama administration has banking figured out. Dodd and
Frank are still around and I have heard them in hearings. They know the system
inside out. Obama himself seems very knowledgable . I think they can and will
regulate banks and insurance. The insurance  companies  are already feeling the
heat. I was involved in a complaint against  an insurance vender. The decision
came from a federal source, the state  mechanism of  shoddy regulation was just
side stepped. When the ins. boys took the bailout money they should have known
they had let the feds in. The feds wont be leaving until they are sure the
industry is on the up and up. Never let a fed buy.
It seems we need to find some golden mean between high risk investing and
securing of jobs and income for normal workers and investors. It can be done .
If you really like losing money you should have the right to throw money at
those wild men. My wife worked at the brokeradge  and those brokers skinned
everybody. They churned old lady accounts sold futures to those without proper
credentuals and ran to their old competators when their company went belly up.
Pirate is much too mild for these people.
The bankers have to report to the house banking committee. The tea baggere have
shielded them as of late. There are more statutory ways to regulate banks . Both
Treasury and The Fed have great authority to  force banking compliance. Most of 
these matters will not even make the papers or network news. It is just too
esoteric material. I do not think we have hanged enough pirates as they are bold
bastards  and the perp walk should be just the first  steps to the joint. Hang
em high, they screwed all of us. Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> > I am listening to the spin being put on the unemployment numbers. The
republicans say the administration is calling the numbers from the White House.
Thats too much spin for me. Obama now has an unemployment rate lower than when
he took office. I want to know what number we are aiming at if we even remember
the controversy after the election. I have read that it is impossible to have
Zero unemployment  because some people are changing jobs or normal sesional lay
offs or  short term disabilities.Three % seems a realistic bottom and here we
are at 5% . We have more jobs than workers but  many of those workers are not
suitable for the jobs. It would seem to me that at 5% you quit worrying about
the numbers and  initiate job training programs.
> > As political pay back I suggest that republican banking and insurance 
should not be included in new jobs  training programs. We do not need more of
those sort of workers who got us in this mess. Regulate and reduce insurance and
banking they just add overhead to real business that produces goods  or
essential services. Investment banking needs particular scrutany as those people
lose billions of other peoples dollars  and then throw the debt on the general
public. As Dodd ,Frank  mandates investment banking  needs diverge  street
banking and the public cash flow from the wild risks of investment banking
schemes. The unbridled rampage of too big to fail banks  needs
compartmentalisation breaking them down into traditional banking activities and
a separate investment banking  group. Their cash flows should not be mingled .
They follow entirely different risk profiles. If you work in the traditional
banking sector  your job should be very secure with moderate salaries and good
benefits. If you opt for the investment side  you are a true risk taker. This is
the wild side of capitalism  that adds innovation to a society but adds crazy
risk. 7.8% unemployment is too high and many of those people are financial
service people who were fired when the bad investments of their unregulated
corporations blew up. Regulate the corporations, retrain the workers in other
industries and get 7.8 down to 5.0. Bill
> >
>

What constitutes an interesting person?



[ What constitutes an interesting person for you Merlin? ]



Everybody. They are all a mystery to me. I would also have to add to
that Everybody Individually and Everybody Collectively. To even try
thinking about all this blows one's mind away. But of all the people
that there ever was and is now then which one do you know best (after
yourself of course)? Presumably your spouse. How long have you known
them? How long have you lived with them? How much do you know about
them? How do you get on with them? What exists to be known about them?



How long would it take a person to come to know everything there is to
know about Organ Stops, or Garden Birds, or Wind Instruments? How long
would it take somebody to play every piece of music that has ever been
written?  How much do you know and how much can you do in a lifetime?
How long would it take you to read every book that was  ever written? Do
you know everything there is to know about medicine? About every human
language? About every postage stamp? Does the `theory of
everything' know everything? Can it do everything? Can it fly a
Kite? Can it spread butter on bread? Can it do anything?



Of all the human beings whom I have ever known I have never meet one who
has read more books than my wife.  She started reading at two and used
to read under the sheets with a torch.  Added to which she is a speed
reader. That cannot be taught. Added to which she has a photographic
memory. Imagine that. But what percentage of all the books ever written
has she read? Practically nothing. What does she read about?  To many
topics to mention. She has never read anything which I have ever written
:- )))) What can she do?  Well, she cannot repair a fuse ;- ) She can
obtain a degree easy.  But come to that what can any person do? What can
you do? What do you know EVERYTHING about?   What makes a person
interesting? Is a person who never DOES anything interesting? Is a
person who never says anything interesting?  I cannot answer your
question sir. Not only is it too complicated it is also mysterious. And
what I can know and do in one short lifetime amounts to zilch. Oh by the
way, if you have a godo can it play every musical instrument?  Can it
drive every known vehicle? Does it KNOW everything? Can it do
everything? Can it do my shoes up? I can do that at least. I can know
more than your godo can know and I can do more than your godo can do.
For I exist. But what I can know and do does not amount to very much and
is probably about as useful and effective as fart in a hurricane. But
what do I find interesting? Everything which I can know anything about.
How many millions of lifetimes would it take to study it all? And where
would I begin? I think I would being with myself in its beginning. How
about you?



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have put  my Obama poster in the front  window and have hunkered down for the
final assault of negative attack ads and preposterous claims from the packs.
The media are hyping the whole political scene as they want all those campaign
funds spent. They will bombard us until the last cent is drained  and it appears
both sides have plenty of cash left for the final bombast. Today I learned that
Dick Chaney was on the board of Romneys corporation. So was Newt. It is possible
to get  a look at the depth of the two sides. It is the same old boys  in the
republican camp. They cannot use Bush or Chaney as they were an admitted
failure. Newt hangs around the Sunday talk shows  as most have forgotten his
record. Romney  is taking his cues from whatever audience he is in front of. I
understand that is politics  and Obama has to call him on his jagged record of
flip flops. Some of the secound tier players are out. Jack Walsh of GE boiled
the whole thing down to Chicago Vs  the republicans. He called a federal agency
crooked in giving false unemployment numbers. Jack needs to go back into
retirement.
John Sununu played the race card calling the president lazy and dumb. That
should be  the end of him as his checkered past alone  should  put him in the
waste bin.
In this final run  it is the young  Vs the old . The white males vs women  and
people of color. The rich,rural republicans vs modernists of all stripes.The
media will blast and attack from both sides and fill their corporate coffers  to
overflowing.  Bill

Bill,

Get a grip. The old Bill, who in Nietzschean fashion joined or bought into
nothing, and whose only "side" was his own, has suddenly gone giddy as a school
girl over a politician in the midst of a media bath. (And over one, I may add,
who was as much in over his head in a recent debate as he's been while in
office.) And just last week you were caught writing that you only vote for
Democrats. I hope this isn't because you're retiring and have too much time on
your hands, as I look forward to seeing the old Bill here again after the
election.

Best regards,

Irvin



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> I have put  my Obama poster in the front  window and have hunkered down for
the final assault of negative attack ads and preposterous claims from the packs.
> The media are hyping the whole political scene as they want all those campaign
funds spent. They will bombard us until the last cent is drained  and it appears
both sides have plenty of cash left for the final bombast. Today I learned that
Dick Chaney was on the board of Romneys corporation. So was Newt. It is possible
to get  a look at the depth of the two sides. It is the same old boys  in the
republican camp. They cannot use Bush or Chaney as they were an admitted
failure. Newt hangs around the Sunday talk shows  as most have forgotten his
record. Romney  is taking his cues from whatever audience he is in front of. I
understand that is politics  and Obama has to call him on his jagged record of
flip flops. Some of the secound tier players are out. Jack Walsh of GE boiled
the whole thing down to Chicago Vs  the republicans. He called a federal agency
crooked in giving false unemployment numbers. Jack needs to go back into
retirement.
> John Sununu played the race card calling the president lazy and dumb. That
should be  the end of him as his checkered past alone  should  put him in the
waste bin.
> In this final run  it is the young  Vs the old . The white males vs women  and
people of color. The rich,rural republicans vs modernists of all stripes.The
media will blast and attack from both sides and fill their corporate coffers  to
overflowing.  Bill
>

Irvin,

It's never too late to change! Come on over to the dark side :)

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Get a grip. The old Bill, who in Nietzschean fashion joined or bought into
nothing, and whose only "side" was his own, has suddenly gone giddy as a school
girl over a politician in the midst of a media bath. (And over one, I may add,
who was as much in over his head in a recent debate as he's been while in
office.) And just last week you were caught writing that you only vote for
Democrats. I hope this isn't because you're retiring and have too much time on
your hands, as I look forward to seeing the old Bill here again after the
election.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Irvin
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> > I have put  my Obama poster in the front  window and have hunkered down for
the final assault of negative attack ads and preposterous claims from the packs.
> > The media are hyping the whole political scene as they want all those
campaign funds spent. They will bombard us until the last cent is drained  and
it appears both sides have plenty of cash left for the final bombast. Today I
learned that Dick Chaney was on the board of Romneys corporation. So was Newt.
It is possible to get  a look at the depth of the two sides. It is the same old
boys  in the republican camp. They cannot use Bush or Chaney as they were an
admitted failure. Newt hangs around the Sunday talk shows  as most have
forgotten his record. Romney  is taking his cues from whatever audience he is in
front of. I understand that is politics  and Obama has to call him on his jagged
record of flip flops. Some of the secound tier players are out. Jack Walsh of GE
boiled the whole thing down to Chicago Vs  the republicans. He called a federal
agency crooked in giving false unemployment numbers. Jack needs to go back into
retirement.
> > John Sununu played the race card calling the president lazy and dumb. That
should be  the end of him as his checkered past alone  should  put him in the
waste bin.
> > In this final run  it is the young  Vs the old . The white males vs women 
and people of color. The rich,rural republicans vs modernists of all stripes.The
media will blast and attack from both sides and fill their corporate coffers  to
overflowing.  Bill
> >
>

Mary and Irvan,I have always advised to vote your pocketbook. As a retiree I
have left the land of milk and honey  and join the pesantry in scrapping for
crumbs. Rich Romney is a nightmare for fixed income people. I dislike his
religion and I dislike his economics. I dislike him as  a pretty boy  silver
spoon  guy. Romneys country club speach really pissed me off,what an eletist
ass. If elected he would finish gutting this country and handing it over to  the
rich  bankers and insurance crooks. Bush /Chaney almost got it done and Obama
has done a great job with the wars and jobs. The right wing conspiracy is to
rule,not to govern. They are utterly anti progressive  and fight the cultural
wars with religous zeal. I want to see them finished off as a political party in
my lifetime. A center right party  as the republicans used to be  might interest
me but not this hood wearing  racist mob  that struts its bigotry , hate and
intolerance with pride.I`m getting old but  not old in the sense I become
brittle to injustice and cheer civil rights intolerance,voter supression and
states rights immigration policy. That is the dark side and I will not  support
such narrow , viscious people.Before Nixon initiated the cultural wars  George
Wallace types were scoffed at  by serious  people but you blow enough hate into 
a party  as Lee Atwater did  you create the monster tha right is today. My Obama
sign stays put for the above mentioned reasons and more. Bill

All,

This post came from someone else...and just wanted to share.

******




A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Romney fans.

Not really knowing what a Romney fan is, but wanting to be liked by the
teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny...

The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different...
Again.

Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not a Romney fan."

The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Romney?" Johnny said,
"Because I'm a Liberal."

The teacher asked him why he's a Liberal. Little Johnny answered,
"Well, my Mom's a Liberal and my Dad's a Liberal, so I'm a Liberal."

Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom was a moron and
your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?"

With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me a Romney
fan."

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Junius" <bryan.junius@...> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> This post came from someone else...and just wanted to share.
>
> ******
>
>
>
>
> A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Romney fans.
>
> Not really knowing what a Romney fan is, but wanting to be liked by the
> teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny...
>
> The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different...
> Again.
>
> Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not a Romney fan."
>
> The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Romney?" Johnny said,
> "Because I'm a Liberal."
>
> The teacher asked him why he's a Liberal. Little Johnny answered,
> "Well, my Mom's a Liberal and my Dad's a Liberal, so I'm a Liberal."
>
> Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom was a moron and
> your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?"
>
> With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me a Romney
> fan."
>
Bryan, I have known politicians since I was a child. I often saw them as a
separate class  that operated within a different set of norms than the rest of
us. Many were lawyers and most were relatively wealthy. I compaired them against
the health professionals and preferred the Docs as they seemed  people who did
more for others and had a better life philosophy. My profession put me somewhere
between the  two types. I was in business for myself  but had healing
responsibilities. We did not take the Hypocritic oath  and it took me years to
understand why. As businessmen we had to have the ability to defend ourselves.
In court or on the street  do no harm was often just not possible.
I consider all lawyers to be politicians. I looked at politics  but found it  to
aggressive ,too offensive for my taste. I have worked for politicians  and
learned that if you want to be a politician you must run for and win elections.
Existing  below that level is just wasting your time. Attributing  high ideals
to politicians is really to ask them to act beyond their calling. They are to
get votes and then to lead.
Now a community activist is a relatively new sort of politician  while Romney as
business man  is very normal. I do not know if Romney has a law degree but Obama
does. Obama has shown he  can give lethal orders, Romney would seem to relish
the idea as he likes to fire people.
So I suppose I look for some  mitigating idealism in a politician but I know
what they are really about. So I do not see Romney as an idiot, I just see him
as a very normal politician. With Obama I always look for something  a bit
better. Bill

When Romneys ancestors  were  mormons in northern england Benjamin Franklin was
devising insurance in the colonies. I do not know who lifted from who  but
mormanism and insurance have several similar tenants.
A mormon  tithes  10 % a mutual insurance company  asks for savings of  around
10%. Both act as business cartels guiding business and clients to the group.
Both act as cults asking specific behavours  of members  and asking for non
risky,highly conservative  life styles.
Mormons promise elder care as do the mutual company with its health insurance.
They promise to support you in your old age.
These are extremely complicated  life long contracts. They are very english and
mercantile as their common origins show. Now what their relationship to
modernism or even democracy  I have not thought out. But I will. Bill

Anglo-American notions of private insurance (if I may be so bold as to offend
the politically correct with reference to pedigree) focus on shared risks and
avoidance of moral hazard (the later of which is exemplified by the likes of
claims for burning one's own property or medicaid fraud). Ideally, the
association is voluntary, and gratuitous risk takers are as free as others to
pool and risk their own assets --if they wish to and can afford it. Ideally too
there should be free competition amongst insurers (though often frustrated by
state intervention), and insurance law holds insurers accountable to claimants
for breach of contract, together with punitive damages for claims withheld in
bad faith. And as to cartels, let's not forget the various professional cartels,
inclusive of the omnipresent ambulance chasing networks and bill happy
diagnosticians, against whom insurers, in monitoring for moral hazard, provide a
balance.

Irvin

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> When Romneys ancestors  were  mormons in northern england Benjamin Franklin
was devising insurance in the colonies. I do not know who lifted from who  but
mormanism and insurance have several similar tenants.
> A mormon  tithes  10 % a mutual insurance company  asks for savings of  around
10%. Both act as business cartels guiding business and clients to the group.
Both act as cults asking specific behavours  of members  and asking for non
risky,highly conservative  life styles.
> Mormons promise elder care as do the mutual company with its health insurance.
They promise to support you in your old age.
> These are extremely complicated  life long contracts. They are very english
and mercantile as their common origins show. Now what their relationship to
modernism or even democracy  I have not thought out. But I will. Bill
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
>
> Anglo-American notions of private insurance (if I may be so bold as to offend
the politically correct with reference to pedigree) focus on shared risks and
avoidance of moral hazard (the later of which is exemplified by the likes of
claims for burning one's own property or medicaid fraud). Ideally, the
association is voluntary, and gratuitous risk takers are as free as others to
pool and risk their own assets --if they wish to and can afford it. Ideally too
there should be free competition amongst insurers (though often frustrated by
state intervention), and insurance law holds insurers accountable to claimants
for breach of contract, together with punitive damages for claims withheld in
bad faith. And as to cartels, let's not forget the various professional cartels,
inclusive of the omnipresent ambulance chasing networks and bill happy
diagnosticians, against whom insurers, in monitoring for moral hazard, provide a
balance.
>
> Irvin
>Irvin, Witness Jack Welch and his self firing from Forbes  because of libelous
assertions  about "The chicago guys" and unemployment numbers. The business
sector  sees the  bleak  future in an Obama reelection and are pushing  legal
bounds  to avoid their  just  penalties. The american middle class is in a war
with  american business class. Obama will bring the pendulum back to  middle
ground with  tax increases for the rich  and needed regulation to wall street
and insurance. The true moral hazard is to let the Bush era  imbalances
continue. When  the Dems speak of waste fraud and abuse they are including  the
upcoming medicare Advantage scandle.Volunteers are training to combat these
fradulant business tactics on seniors. This amounts to trust fund fraud and that
kind of stealing gets jail time. Kick the advantage boys out of medicare and you
will lose much of the moral hasard they pretend to protect the funds from. It is
pay back time and the business community will lie and run and try to obfuscate
as that is all they have ever done. It has gotten  very bad when the chicago
machine  has to stand up for fair business practice. Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> > When Romneys ancestors  were  mormons in northern england Benjamin Franklin
was devising insurance in the colonies. I do not know who lifted from who  but
mormanism and insurance have several similar tenants.
> > A mormon  tithes  10 % a mutual insurance company  asks for savings of 
around 10%. Both act as business cartels guiding business and clients to the
group. Both act as cults asking specific behavours  of members  and asking for
non risky,highly conservative  life styles.
> > Mormons promise elder care as do the mutual company with its health
insurance. They promise to support you in your old age.
> > These are extremely complicated  life long contracts. They are very english
and mercantile as their common origins show. Now what their relationship to
modernism or even democracy  I have not thought out. But I will. Bill
> >
>

If Romneys foreign policy address was to be the Oct. suprise it turned out to be
a popcorn fart. A right wing  republican  beating the war drumb does not suprise
me. I had predicted this a few months ago as I know we are in the same old
politics but in these last furious days  360 degree self defamations are usual
and expected. If you lose no one will remember so just heave it at the wall and
see what sticks. I have three nights of debate to suffer through. Listening to
right wing Ryan will be a chore Chaney was more fun as he might  propose damn
near any autrocity. Those were the good old days of Olliver North  when field
grade officers wrote foreign policy and real suprises happned. Like let us
attack the wrong country on false intelligence.
Mitt wants  us involved in Syria and he is in cahoots with Bebe to attack Iran.
Back to cowboy foreign policy, back to huge military budgets , back to boom
,bust republican economics. Ill pass on this big suprise, it is just rewrapping
the same old dog turd. Bill

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/heaven-real-says-neurosurgeon-claims-visite\
d-afterlife-213527063.html

Bryan,

Just a few responses to your comments.

According to Camus, suicide is not absurd; it doesn't follow the logic of the
absurd which is to endure the absurd.

He didn't claim to be an existentialist but saw the ultimate and radical freedom
of a suicide as existentialism's philosophical failure.

I agree that Camus preferred rebellion to suicide, because it chooses an absurd
life over an ideological death. I think we also agree that suicide is a social
failure.

I do disagree however that Buddhism is anything like the absurd because it
promotes the abolition of desire and the acknowledgment that all is illusion;
that we become happy or satisfied when we no longer strive, destroy our will,
and submit to nothing. Camus' philosophy of the absurd is opposed to these.
One's passions are not denied by oneself; the world does that but we don't
submit. Otherwise, why rebel? I agree with Zizek's interpretation that all is
illusion, but that it's our only reality; that the nothing of Buddhism is not
Hegel's nothing. Hegel's nothing coexists with being but not as denial. Buddhism
is non-duality; Hegel's idealism and Camus' absurd have more in common. They
recognize difference in unity, neither the balance nor the merging of opposites.
The tension of opposites is Camus' philosophy; endurance is not a resolution,
endurance is absurd. With Hegel, tension itself is what moves the dialectic
between truth as remembered and truth as anticipated.

Finally, Hegel's 'aufhebung' is far more complex than you presented. It
primarily means 'sublation' a subject still under debate among scholars and
life-long students. It refers to what happens to knowing, when the shape of a
truth changes. It is preserved as well as changes, which is not strictly
overcoming. As I previously suggested to Jim, the master-slave dialectic is
figurative and symbolizes what occurs as knowing moves upon itself.

Regards,
Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Junius" <bryan.junius@...> wrote:
>
> Mary,
>
> My view of Camus's philosophy of the absurd was not stunning when I started
reading his writings from 'The Rebel' or 'The Stranger' back in 1987. He only
made a a new interpretive analysis of existentialism - as pointed out by his his
critiques against the works of Jaspers, Husserl, or Heidegger who jumped to
conclusions in the idea of rationality and reasoning - sometimes going into the
abstract arguments of God being the only answer - as something to The otherness
of self.
>
> Simply stating Camus - we don't commit suicide, we revolt!
>
> As far as the Myth of Sisyphus - his metaphors of tragic greek heroes such as
Sisyphus, Oedipus, Atlas, Perseus, etc, being content in meaningless tasks, and
stating that we must see Sisyphus as being happy in his tasks was no different
than teachings in Zen-Buddhism 500 years earlier. 'Mind is one mind', 'one mind
is no mind'...
>
> ....hence, like Hegel's dialectic in the Master-Slave relationship, it is why
the slave will always take control over the master - the chores to the slave
that are his/her own to do are intangible and metaphysical over time - seeking
contentment in the everyday meaningless things we are given. And coming to
aufhebung (overcoming). However, in the end, we all become masters of our
destiny, if we can will it to happen.
>
> In my earlier posts my statement was just as succint as Albert Camus's belief
in Man and his freedom of passion.
>
> "I don't have to fight to live."
>
> best regards,
>
> Bryan
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > Bryan,
> >
> > You have to do better than a Wikipedia entry :) What do you think of Camus'
philosophy of the absurd? What do you think of his blanket condemnation of
suicide? His second wife, the mother of his children, was suicidal; she couldn't
cope with all his romantic affairs. His first wife was a morphine addict. His
disapproval was no doubt related to these personal situations. Camus also
condemned suicide as a nihilistic statement about life, as a protest if you
will. Did you read his version of the Myth of Sisyphus? Do you think we should
continue to roll that stone up the mountain, that we should be grateful for that
opportunity?
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Junius" <bryan.junius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill, Mary
> > >
> > > Since we were on such a topic - I thought I would throw Camus into the
picture and cite his 'Le'Mythe summarization below:
> > >
> > > In Le Mythe, Camus suggests that 'creation of meaning', would entail a
logical leap or a kind of philosophical suicide in order to find psychological
comfort. But Camus wants to know if he can live with what logic and lucidity has
uncovered – if one can build a foundation on what one knows and nothing more.
Creation of meaning is not a viable alternative but a logical leap and an
evasion of the problem. He gives examples of how others would seem to make this
kind of leap. The alternative option, namely suicide, would entail another kind
of leap, where one attempts to kill absurdity by destroying one of its terms
(the human being). Camus points out, however, that there is no more meaning in
death than there is in life, and that it simply evades the problem yet again.
Camus concludes, that we must instead 'entertain' both death and the absurd,
while never agreeing to their terms.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Bryan Junius
> > >
> >
>

Bill,

I doubt there's ever much change between administrations regarding the war
machine. So I make my choice for candidates based largely on domestic policies.
Mitt might be the moderate his family wants us to believe, but he will be so
beholden to the reactionaries who bought him that I tremble at the draconian
society they'll institute. The right is mighty unhappy with his softer, gentler
side, but they hate President Obama more. What does it mean when Left and Right
vote defensively? It means it's time for a change...next time.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> If Romneys foreign policy address was to be the Oct. suprise it turned out to
be a popcorn fart. A right wing  republican  beating the war drumb does not
suprise me. I had predicted this a few months ago as I know we are in the same
old politics but in these last furious days  360 degree self defamations are
usual and expected. If you lose no one will remember so just heave it at the
wall and see what sticks. I have three nights of debate to suffer through.
Listening to right wing Ryan will be a chore Chaney was more fun as he might 
propose damn near any autrocity. Those were the good old days of Olliver North 
when field grade officers wrote foreign policy and real suprises happned. Like
let us attack the wrong country on false intelligence.
> Mitt wants  us involved in Syria and he is in cahoots with Bebe to attack
Iran. Back to cowboy foreign policy, back to huge military budgets , back to
boom ,bust republican economics. Ill pass on this big suprise, it is just
rewrapping the same old dog turd. Bill
>

General dynamics has some used equiptment in California. Two thousand Abrams
tanks  are  parked  waiting for refurbishment. The Army does not want them, they
have plenty of tanks but congress  says refurbish them. General Dynamics gave
money to most of these congressmen. Again it is K street  balooning defense 
costs and we pay the bill. These tanks  are old and tank divisions are  part of
a military of the past. They were designed to fight for europe against Warsaw
Pact. This waste is akin to refurbishing battle ships  for the modern navy.
The congressmen  site jobs at the place in Ohio where the plant for
refurbishment as reason for doing this work even the genreals don`t want. This
is a government out of control ,unresponsive to the needs of the people and
unfit to lead. As  the majority of these people will be reelected  the tanks
will be rebuilt and the congressmen will get their bribes and we will get the
shaft.
So, Mary, would Camus  see this as absurd. Are we  just to suffer through  or
should we start  burning ourselves in the streets? I doubt we could burn these 
heavy battle tanks so it seems we have few philosophical choices. Both choices 
for congress that I have will take the money and run. Bill

Bill,

A philosophy of the absurd is not against acting on our desires. The absurd is
living with what you aren't able to change. If Dems win it all and do nothing to
acquiesce to our wishes for less military spending in the next term, we'll need
a different party. I think the younger generation would agree. Camus was
politically active and favored bloodless rebellion, a factor which makes him
less appealing to hardliners. Artistic expression trumped violent acts in his
book. I have a hard time walking let alone marching.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> General dynamics has some used equiptment in California. Two thousand Abrams
tanks  are  parked  waiting for refurbishment. The Army does not want them, they
have plenty of tanks but congress  says refurbish them. General Dynamics gave
money to most of these congressmen. Again it is K street  balooning defense 
costs and we pay the bill. These tanks  are old and tank divisions are  part of
a military of the past. They were designed to fight for europe against Warsaw
Pact. This waste is akin to refurbishing battle ships  for the modern navy.
> The congressmen  site jobs at the place in Ohio where the plant for
refurbishment as reason for doing this work even the genreals don`t want. This
is a government out of control ,unresponsive to the needs of the people and
unfit to lead. As  the majority of these people will be reelected  the tanks
will be rebuilt and the congressmen will get their bribes and we will get the
shaft.
> So, Mary, would Camus  see this as absurd. Are we  just to suffer through  or
should we start  burning ourselves in the streets? I doubt we could burn these 
heavy battle tanks so it seems we have few philosophical choices. Both choices 
for congress that I have will take the money and run. Bill
>

Bill/Mary,

The elections are right around the corner - and I can only assume, one way or
another with our 2 party dogfight going on whose bloody corpse will be first to
hit the dirt. I'm hoping Romney :)

I was talking to a German friend of mine. Wanted to share the comparisons of
their democracy vs ours. Very enlightening stuff.

*(***


Democracy
There are many differences between the two countries in their approach to
democracy. Most importantly, the US uses the majority system throughout, meaning
that voters get to decide between several candidates, and a candidate needs more
than 50% of the votes in order to win. Germany uses a mixture of proportional
and majority systems in order to ensure that the proportion of parliamentary
seats a party receives is exactly the same as the proportion of voters favoring
that party (if that proportion is bigger than 5%) while also allowing for local
representation.
The German system gives more power to the parties, since they decide which
candidates to place on the list from which the parliamentarians will later be
drawn. Parties finance the election campaigns; the candidates themselves do not
need to raise substantial amounts of money. In return, there is a very high
party loyalty in the German parliament. Parliamentarians vote their conscience
only on rare, very important questions; most of the time, they vote the party
line. Parties are financed by the taxpayers according to the proportion of votes
they received, by donations from big business, and by membership dues.

By contrast, Congress persons in the US are much more independent: they raise
campaign money on their own (or use their own money) and the party cannot even
decide who will be their candidate in a particular race: this is decided in
so-called primaries, races between the various candidates in which every voter
who declares themselves a supporter of the party gets to vote. Once in Congress,
the legislators can vote their conscience on virtually every question.

American politicians are almost constantly raising money for their next
campaign. Since they are free to change their voting pattern on almost any
topic, moneyed interests have much more political influence than in Germany.

The majority system in the U.S. basically ensures a two-party system; it is
exceedingly rare that a third-party candidate manages to win a seat, and it
never takes long before the seat goes back to the two parties. By contrast, in
Germany there are usually about five viable parties that send delegates to the
parliaments (and many more smaller ones that can't beat the 5-percent hurdle and
are therefore not represented in parliament).

A little-known and blatantly unjust feature of the US system is "redistricting",
also called "gerrymandering". The country is divided into congressional
districts, one for each member of the House of Representatives. The person who
wins the most votes in a district gets the corresponding seat in the House.
Every 10 years a census is carried out, and then the state governments go to
work and redraw the congressional districts, purportedly to make them all the
same size. The real reason is of course to keep the other party out of Congress:
the census provides enough information to know where supporters of the other
party live, and the new district boundaries are drawn so as to segregate all of
them in as few districts as possible. This same game takes place every ten
years, and it seems to outrage no one but me.

It is often believed that the position of President in the US is an veryy
powerful one; this is wrong. Essentially all he can do is govern by changing
administrative rules and veto or sign laws written by Congress, where the
majority is often hostile to the president. Presidential vetoes can even be
overridden by a 2/3-supermajority in both houses. By contrast, the Chancellor in
Germany is elected by the parliament, the Bundestag, which means that a majority
is behind him and most every law he wants to enact will pass, because of the
above mentioned party discipline. Most laws, the ones not affecting the German
states, do not have to be approved by the second chamber, the Bundesrat. (The
precise rules about which laws have to be approved by the Bundesrat are quite
obscure, and nobody seems to know them.)

The American parties are located to the right of their German counterparts.
Former President Clinton for instance, a Democrat, would have to be placed at
the right wing of the German conservative party CDU. Some people at the right
end of the American Republican party are so extreme that they would probably be
under surveillance in Germany. There is no social democratic party to speak of
in the US; it is the biggest and oldest party in Germany, and indeed all parties
in Germany are social democratic to some extent.

Even though US politics are located to the right of German politics, there is a
very real sense in which Germany is more conservative. New technologies and new
ways of doing things are embraced much more enthusiastically in the US. Even
conservatives will often propose quite radical policy changes, such as throwing
out the whole income tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax. On a
whim, some states will introduce gay marriage and others will put a prohibition
against it into the state constitution. Things appear to move much slower in
Germany.

It is not very well known in Germany that most US states have systems of direct
democracy, where citizens can bring up ballot measures if they raise enough
signatures. There are no restrictions on the contents of these measures: tax
reductions, criminal laws, recalls of unpopular politicians and changes of
(state) constitutions are all fair game. Local prosecutors, sheriffs, and judges
are also often directly elected by the citizenry. In Germany, these are all
appointed, not elected.

Despite all of this, large segments of American society ignore the political
process altogether. Even the big presidential elections see only about 55% of
the eligible voters participating; other elections have much smaller
participation. In Germany, the numbers for federal elections are around 80%.

I can see three possible reasons for the low voter participation in the US:
votes always take place on regular working days making it difficult to
participate (many businesses grant time off for voting, but they are not
required to), the majority system locks out supporters of smaller parties, and
the system of voter registration (which requires every voter who moved since the
last election to fill out a form several weeks before the vote) makes it
unnecessarily difficult to vote.




--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> A philosophy of the absurd is not against acting on our desires. The absurd is
living with what you aren't able to change. If Dems win it all and do nothing to
acquiesce to our wishes for less military spending in the next term, we'll need
a different party. I think the younger generation would agree. Camus was
politically active and favored bloodless rebellion, a factor which makes him
less appealing to hardliners. Artistic expression trumped violent acts in his
book. I have a hard time walking let alone marching.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> > General dynamics has some used equiptment in California. Two thousand Abrams
tanks  are  parked  waiting for refurbishment. The Army does not want them, they
have plenty of tanks but congress  says refurbish them. General Dynamics gave
money to most of these congressmen. Again it is K street  balooning defense 
costs and we pay the bill. These tanks  are old and tank divisions are  part of
a military of the past. They were designed to fight for europe against Warsaw
Pact. This waste is akin to refurbishing battle ships  for the modern navy.
> > The congressmen  site jobs at the place in Ohio where the plant for
refurbishment as reason for doing this work even the genreals don`t want. This
is a government out of control ,unresponsive to the needs of the people and
unfit to lead. As  the majority of these people will be reelected  the tanks
will be rebuilt and the congressmen will get their bribes and we will get the
shaft.
> > So, Mary, would Camus  see this as absurd. Are we  just to suffer through 
or should we start  burning ourselves in the streets? I doubt we could burn
these  heavy battle tanks so it seems we have few philosophical choices. Both
choices  for congress that I have will take the money and run. Bill
> >
>

When a high ranking republican operative  told me they would do anything to
elect Bush 1 I thought  it was just  bluster. Then I found out Chaney was
teaming up  on the ticket  and I knew  the neocons had found their attack dog.
Chaney would give the trickle down  foolishness a ruthless champion who learned
from Nixon  and found any scruples  a hinderance. The hapless Gore  gave up and
the hell started for this country.
In a few hours  the democratic  attack dog will have a go at the latest  supply
side  candidate. I wish Joe Biden luck and hopes he embarasses the right winger
into  giving up. Biden has a deep mean streak and it is time he lets it out. I
will not go further into supply side foolishness, it is time for a professional
to do the dissection. Sharpen the long knives and be merciless,Joe. No quarter
and no excuses. Bill

I've been reading John Dewey recently and can't believe how little has changed
since WWI to reorganize our society in order to enhance educative experiences
for a vibrant democracy. It's clear that the wealthy as a class are not doing
their share to build a better world.

I was very happy with Biden's performance. He missed a few opportunities for
emphasizing that Romney-Ryan will slash entitlements in order to finance across
the board tax cuts for reducing the deficit. The wealthy do not need tax cuts;
they've had them and done nothing to stimulate the economy, and the banks aren't
lending either. The difference between the two campaigns on war and abortion
were the clearest. We can't afford any more traditional wars, and we don't want
the government spending money to hunt down women and their abortion doctors.
Talk about government interference and bureaucracy! Just fix the  goddamned
economy by asking the wealthy to risk as much as the soldiers they send into
battle, the risk the poor have by just being alive, women have with unwanted
pregnancies, or at-risk children experience coming into this world.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> When a high ranking republican operative  told me they would do anything to
elect Bush 1 I thought  it was just  bluster. Then I found out Chaney was
teaming up  on the ticket  and I knew  the neocons had found their attack dog.
Chaney would give the trickle down  foolishness a ruthless champion who learned
from Nixon  and found any scruples  a hinderance. The hapless Gore  gave up and
the hell started for this country.
> In a few hours  the democratic  attack dog will have a go at the latest 
supply side  candidate. I wish Joe Biden luck and hopes he embarasses the right
winger into  giving up. Biden has a deep mean streak and it is time he lets it
out. I will not go further into supply side foolishness, it is time for a
professional to do the dissection. Sharpen the long knives and be merciless,Joe.
No quarter and no excuses. Bill
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> I've been reading John Dewey recently and can't believe how little has changed
since WWI to reorganize our society in order to enhance educative experiences
for a vibrant democracy. It's clear that the wealthy as a class are not doing
their share to build a better world.
>
> I was very happy with Biden's performance. He missed a few opportunities for
emphasizing that Romney-Ryan will slash entitlements in order to finance across
the board tax cuts for reducing the deficit. The wealthy do not need tax cuts;
they've had them and done nothing to stimulate the economy, and the banks aren't
lending either. The difference between the two campaigns on war and abortion
were the clearest. We can't afford any more traditional wars, and we don't want
the government spending money to hunt down women and their abortion doctors.
Talk about government interference and bureaucracy! Just fix the  goddamned
economy by asking the wealthy to risk as much as the soldiers they send into
battle, the risk the poor have by just being alive, women have with unwanted
pregnancies, or at-risk children experience coming into this world.
>
> Mary
>Mary, well said with the kind of energy it will take to  blow these rich,right
wingers off their  dead asses. They live on dividends and don`t work. Without
taxation they can expand their fortunes  exponitially for their  children and
grand children. This is trickle down and it is evil. Biden and you are some of
the few that seem to be able to understand that this creates dynastasys and
takes us back to feudalism. It is what happens when you become so conservative
you try to reverse history To go back to the good old days of religion and lock
step social order. In the debate Biden  reiterated that we do not need another
mid east war. Ryan could not touch that as his MIC supporters are screaming for
intervention in Syria. Without a war their profits begin to shrink and so they
find covert ways of starting hostilities. Terkey is under great pressure  and as
a nato member can request military and humanitarian aid. I say give them the
humanitarian aid . Ryan sides steps the question saying we should not put troops
in Syria but he wants to arm them. The neocons want a Nato led war against Iran.
It would cause a general conflagration in the area and that is fine  for  the
Chaney types, the Romney types.
I know it is difficult  for  up and up people to think this kind of sinister
shit is going on. About all that can be done is keep talking about it and
demanding openness so we can see how far they have gone to cause regional war.
Obama and Biden and Hillary have the horsepower to stop those war efforts but
the MIC and right wing will keep trying. Win the election,tear down the war
facade and see how  well this old machine is running. Blow away the doom and
gloom and show people how great a peaceful world can be. Keep the faith, baby.
Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> > When a high ranking republican operative  told me they would do anything to
elect Bush 1 I thought  it was just  bluster. Then I found out Chaney was
teaming up  on the ticket  and I knew  the neocons had found their attack dog.
Chaney would give the trickle down  foolishness a ruthless champion who learned
from Nixon  and found any scruples  a hinderance. The hapless Gore  gave up and
the hell started for this country.
> > In a few hours  the democratic  attack dog will have a go at the latest 
supply side  candidate. I wish Joe Biden luck and hopes he embarasses the right
winger into  giving up. Biden has a deep mean streak and it is time he lets it
out. I will not go further into supply side foolishness, it is time for a
professional to do the dissection. Sharpen the long knives and be merciless,Joe.
No quarter and no excuses. Bill
> >
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Wyatt <CSKotW@xxxxxxxx.xxxx wrote:
>
> I would just like to ask people if this forum is now open? I hope I have
> configured it properly...
>
> There are some questions I would like to pose, as well...
>
> 1. Any really good, concise (short!) biographies of Nietzsche?
> 2. Should I post a list of the individuals people want me to add to the site?
> (Frankl, Ortega, et al???) Then, we can select the next profile for the site
> from the list.
> 3. A dumb question I keep getting but decline to answer... was Nietzsche
> gay/bisexual? (How in the world would I know or care???)
>
> Cheers,
> C. S. Wyatt
> http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
> Exist List Host
> Csw. They have closed existlist but I think if you demand it will reopen ,
power dude ,power  fron nothing. Bill
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
>

I'm having no problems, Bill. It was probably just a temporary problem as your
post was immediately available to me right now.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Wyatt <CSKotW@xxxxxxxx.xxxx
wrote:
> >
> > I would just like to ask people if this forum is now open? I hope I have
> > configured it properly...
> >
> > There are some questions I would like to pose, as well...
> >
> > 1. Any really good, concise (short!) biographies of Nietzsche?
> > 2. Should I post a list of the individuals people want me to add to the
site?
> > (Frankl, Ortega, et al???) Then, we can select the next profile for the site
> > from the list.
> > 3. A dumb question I keep getting but decline to answer... was Nietzsche
> > gay/bisexual? (How in the world would I know or care???)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > C. S. Wyatt
> > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
> > Exist List Host
> > Csw. They have closed existlist but I think if you demand it will reopen ,
power dude ,power  fron nothing. Bill
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
> >
>

The four year season of the witch ie full upon us. I am returning to the movies.
Anything to escape the barrage of lies that infects the air ways. I was worried
when existlist was shut down as it is an escape  .
Certainly I have  spoken about politics but the debates really pushed it to wild
levels. As I watch the talk shows it is just  bickering.
In LA I see the American trojan horse being dragged through the city. Our trophy
from the cold war and the space race  is on parade to the songs of chain saws
and rock bands. A strange  movie,Apollo 18  is out there. The early  talking 
declarations were so small  I could not discern if  the movie is meant to be
fact or fiction. If fact it is  a great stretch to say a covert moon mission
intercepted a soviet mission  and  the earth men were attacked by aliens. It was
done in black and white and had a documentary foremat. If anyone has seen it I
would be interested in your take on it.
After the  strange parade in LA this odd movie takes the  space race to a
surrealistic conclusion. Why did we do those hard things? Will we continue to
fling  humans into the unknown? Which is  more onerous watching the  media
,political circus or watching the hollywood semi historical fantasies? At least
we know our totum has  been pulled through LA . If it is infected with aliens 
then it will all be tied togeather and truth will return to the media. Bill