Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

politics

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Still so much to learn, about the relationships of philosophy - and I think ontology, however rarefied that sounds, holds some of the keys to existential
    Message 1 of 24 , Nov 26, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Still so much to learn, about the relationships of philosophy - and
      I think ontology, however rarefied that sounds, holds some of the
      keys to existential exploration for the modern age - to the
      realities and deceptions of current affairs. BBC2 is very sombre at
      this moment: the Stern Group, the Irgun, and now the telling of the
      tale of the King David Hotel, attacked. Archive footage, interviews
      with survivors, including British civilians, British soldiers and
      officers. This kind of detailed analysis on terrestrial tv is not
      new, but is maybe increasing in frequency, amid the mounds of 'keep
      the punters cheerful' sort of programming. Louise
    • louise
      city such loaded word beware upper case
      Message 2 of 24 , May 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        city

        such loaded word

        beware upper case
      • Trinidad Cruz
        I will never believe that 9/11 was solely an act of Arab terrorism. It insults my intelligence to do so. The whole thing was far too carefully engineered for
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 30, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I will never believe that 9/11 was solely an act of Arab terrorism. It
          insults my intelligence to do so. The whole thing was far too
          carefully engineered for impact on the American general public, and
          utterly stinks of US government control. I will always believe that
          the Bush administration, FEMA, and at least Giuliani locally, were
          treasonously complicit in the act and maybe even entirely in control
          of it. To understand this, one needs to understand the American
          public. The Arabs do not, in fact in most cases are not even close in
          their estimation; but guess what - American corporate dandy
          politicians do. Consider what would have happened in the US if the
          target had been the Daytona 500. I guarantee you there would not have
          been a living Arab south of Ohio within weeks. Just blowing up Dale
          Jr. alone would cause that, forget about civilians. The target was
          politically chosen, but not by any Arab. Generally this neo-con
          misdirection was a success, failing only in its attempt to direct
          blame back toward the Clinton administration (who was really not much
          better, but would not have condoned the killing of American citizens
          for the agenda). Everybody but the firemen and policemen at ground
          zero buys it. It succeeded in making terrorism a military issue in the
          minds of the American public, rather than what it is, an intelligence
          issue. Terrorism simply cannot work on any scale against the American
          public. It is the dirty corporate politicians who want you to believe
          that it can. It is appalling to me that the Justice Department refuses
          to consider the manifesto of the PNAC as enough probable cause for an
          investigation of treasonous intent. It is more than enough.

          You want reasonable reform that leads to real "homeland security".
          Vote for Barack Obama for president, and every democrat House and
          Senatorial candidate. Give reasonable people like Russ Feingold, and
          even old Joe Biden, the votes in congress they need to reform the
          system, and a president who will sign the bills, and stop the selling
          of your government to corporate interests. Contrary to the
          intellectual disease that sad clown Reagan has infected you with, your
          government is all that stands between you and serfdom. That is its
          only purpose in a democracy. Outside of that purpose it is criminal
          and treasonous to its constitutional charge. Wake the hell up.
          Buildings like the WTC don't fall into their own footprint just
          because you park a 747 in `em. It ain't conspiracy theory, and I won't
          discuss 9/11 as if it was solely an Arab terrorist act on this list.
          It is technically impossible for that to be true in a thousand ways.

          Trinidad
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          The recent disclosures about Cheney, and his in-your-face bully-ish and insulting cliams and disclaimers makes me suspect him most of all. WS ... From:
          Message 4 of 24 , Jun 30, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            The recent disclosures about Cheney, and his in-your-face bully-ish and
            insulting cliams and disclaimers makes me suspect him most of all.

            WS


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:17 am
            Subject: [existlist] politics























            I will never believe that 9/11 was solely an act of Arab
            terrorism. It

            insults my intelligence to do so. The whole thing was far too

            carefully engineered for impact on the American general public, and

            utterly stinks of US government control. I will always believe that

            the Bush administration, FEMA, and at least Giuliani locally, were

            treasonously complicit in the act and maybe even entirely in control

            of it. To understand this, one needs to understand the American

            public. The Arabs do not, in fact in most cases are not even close in

            their estimation; but guess what - American corporate dandy

            politicians do. Consider what would have happened in the US if the

            target had been the Daytona 500. I guarantee you there would not have

            been a living Arab south of Ohio within weeks. Just blowing up Dale

            Jr. alone would cause that, forget about civilians. The target was

            politically chosen, but not by any Arab. Generally this neo-con

            misdirection was a success, failing only in its attempt to direct

            blame back toward the Clinton administration (who was really not much

            better, but would not have condoned the killing of American citizens

            for the agenda). Everybody but the firemen and policemen at ground

            zero buys it. It succeeded in making terrorism a military issue in the

            minds of the American public, rather than what it is, an intelligence

            issue. Terrorism simply cannot work on any scale against the American

            public. It is the dirty corporate politicians who want you to believe

            that it can. It is appalling to me that the Justice Department refuses

            to consider the manifesto of the PNAC as enough probable cause for an

            investigation of treasonous intent. It is more than enough.



            You want reasonable reform that leads to real "homeland security".

            Vote for Barack Obama for president, and every democrat House and

            Senatorial candidate. Give reasonable people like Russ Feingold, and

            even old Joe Biden, the votes in congress they need to reform the

            system, and a president who will sign the bills, and stop the selling

            of your government to corporate interests. Contrary to the

            intellectual disease that sad clown Reagan has infected you with, your

            government is all that stands between you and serfdom. That is its

            only purpose in a democracy. Outside of that purpose it is criminal

            and treasonous to its constitutional charge. Wake the hell up.

            Buildings like the WTC don't fall into their own footprint just

            because you park a 747 in `em. It ain't conspiracy theory, and I won't

            discuss 9/11 as if it was solely an Arab terrorist act on this list.

            It is technically impossible for that to be true in a thousand ways.



            Trinidad






















            ________________________________________________________________________
            AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
            from AOL at AOL.com.
            =0
          • Exist List Moderator
            ... I m sorry, but I strongly disagree with this for a number of reasons. First, understand that the head of Hamas is a physician -- highly educated and quite
            Message 5 of 24 , Jun 30, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On Jun 30, 2007, at 10:17, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

              > I will never believe that 9/11 was solely an act of Arab terrorism. It
              > insults my intelligence to do so. .... To understand this, one
              > needs to understand the American
              > public. The Arabs do not, in fact in most cases are not even close in
              > their estimation

              I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this for a number of reasons.
              First, understand that the head of Hamas is a physician -- highly
              educated and quite familiar with the west. Likewise, the head of the
              Muslim Brotherhood is a scientist and the second in command was an
              engineer educated in the United States.

              Most Islamic people I know, including those outside the U.S., are
              educated, but they allow religion to "block" education at some point.
              Christians often do the same thing, and Orthodox Jews do this to an
              extent that most Israeli's in a recent poll wished Orthodoxy would
              vanish. Religion and "free thought" don't always conflict -- or we
              wouldn't have so many existential theists and other great
              philosophers of faith -- but *orthodoxy* by definition means you
              don't question and don't resist traditions.

              I am in Minneapolis, where the state technical college is installing
              foot baths for the Muslim students. I have seen and heard the local
              imams praising terrorists. I have also seen attacks against women who
              did not adhere to the cultural norms perfectly. One poor girl was
              beaten after dropping a Koran on a cold winter day. If I had not been
              on the train, I probably would have made the mistake of intervening.

              Islam has not yet had a second reformation, as has most Christianity.
              I have read that most European "Christians" think the Bible is
              metaphor and that 1/3 of *clergy* in France and Germany say they
              don't believe Jesus actually performed miracles, was a virgin birth,
              or even part-Creator. As Sam Harris and others have written, radical
              Islam is like Christian Fundamentalism -- but with a lot of money and
              weapons.

              As philosophy and science have progressed, Christianity has "lost the
              battle" to science at our universities and within (most) of our
              schools. Definitely this is the case in Europe and a good chunk of
              the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc.

              I read a column by Dawkins in yesterday's NYT commenting on how the
              leading scientist to challenge evolution is a "Christian" but that
              the meaning of Christian has evolved, giving way to a philosophy
              based on metaphors and fables. When Dawkins writes that Christianity
              is less a religion than a social theory, I tend to take him
              seriously. After all, few atheists are more strident than Dawkins.

              Religions evolve. Humans are (in theory) progressing. Philosophy and
              social studies use dialectic debate, challenges to norms, and such to
              move society ahead -- knowing perfection is impossible, but we need
              to try. This is why Dawkins is now writing that "Christian"
              scientists are not among those he means to attack.

              Most Islamic radicals are not Arab. They are highly-educated
              individuals from Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Africa. However,
              despite these educations, they believe the Koran is the literal,
              perfect, word of Allah. I have met Islamic professors of science and
              math who will not study some issues because they believe that the
              Koran is always right, even if it contradicts science.

              These men have not only the skills, but the know-how to be very
              dangerous. Thankfully, 90 percent or more of such people don't worry
              about politics as much as they do normal everyday life issues.

              As for metal melting and crushing a building: I've watched as melting
              gasoline tankers ruin multi-level freeways in California. I have seen
              numerous models demonstrating why "center core" buildings are
              unstable -- for the same reason the freeways collapse easily. The WTC
              was based on a single main shaft in each building. The outer walls
              "hung" from this skeleton. It is a stupid, dangerous design that will
              likely never be used again.

              Do I trust government? No way... that's why I don't care who is in
              charge, I'm not about to believe one group of crooks is that much
              better than another. At the same time, I don't imagine government
              organized enough to carry out anything in secret. The release of CIA
              documents from the last 40 years shows how amazingly incompetent
              government is most of the time.

              We need to move away from politics in general and ask why someone
              would think blowing up an airport, a nightclub, or anything else is
              somehow an entrance into "Heaven" and a great thing to do in the name
              of faith.

              It's definitely as dumb as thinking you can establish democracy
              overnight in nations without certain liberal traditions.


              - C. S. Wyatt
              I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
              that I shall be.
              http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
              http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
            • jimstuart46
              CSW, You write: We need to move away from politics in general and ask why someone would think blowing up an airport, a nightclub, or anything else is somehow
              Message 6 of 24 , Jul 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                CSW,

                You write:

                "We need to move away from politics in general and ask why someone
                would think blowing up an airport, a nightclub, or anything else is
                somehow an entrance into "Heaven" and a great thing to do in the
                name of faith."

                Yes, you are right, this is a better topic of discussion for an
                Existentialist group.

                As existentialism is a first-person perspective philosophy, the aim
                should be to attempt to see the world from the viewpoint of the
                other. A starting point in the case of the bomber is to admit that
                he or she is driven by high ideals: he or she genuinely believes
                that this act of violence is what God wants. God wants revenge on
                the infidel who has violated God's lands and humiliated God's chosen
                people. The mind-set of the radical Muslim is straight out of the
                Old Testament. So one way to understand the radical Muslim outlook
                is for us to re-read the Old Testament and understand the God
                depicted there – the jealous and revengeful God, the God who wants
                us to go out and smite the Hittites, or whoever.

                Jim
              • Trinidad Cruz
                First, understand that the head of Hamas is a physician – highly educated and quite familiar with the west. Likewise, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood is
                Message 7 of 24 , Jul 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  "First, understand that the head of Hamas is a physician – highly
                  educated and quite familiar with the west. Likewise, the head of the
                  Muslim Brotherhood is a scientist and the second in command was an
                  engineer educated in the United States. Most Islamic people I know,
                  including those outside the U.S…" CSW

                  "Most Islamic radicals are not Arab. They are highly-educated
                  individuals from Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Africa…" CSW

                  "These men have not only the skills, but the know-how to be very
                  dangerous…" CSW

                  First of all I am speaking of culture not education. These men can't
                  understand the Nascar crowd, and blue collar America any more readily
                  than you or I. But I guess you are saying that they have the education
                  to choose WTC as a target. Then isn't that the clear definition of
                  terrorism - targets chosen that won't lead to all out war? Who makes
                  that definition? Our politicians or the terrorists? Both? Blow up the
                  Daytona 500, and the Superbowl, and there won't be a Muslim left in
                  this country. We will have interment camps and non-Muslim people of
                  color will be victimized as well. I think, and will continue to think,
                  that the WTC was chosen by both an American political faction and a
                  Muslim faction. There was complicity, even if it only amounted to
                  intelligence leaks from the American side, but I doubt that it is the
                  entire scope of the situation. Military chain of command
                  considerations make that impossible. This incident was truly a
                  plausible deniability scenario. There are also several other factors
                  concerning this specific target that made it the best choice that I
                  won't relate because of space, but all involve American political
                  demographics. tc

                  "As for metal melting and crushing a building: I've watched as melting
                  gasoline tankers ruin multi-level freeways in California. I have seen
                  numerous models demonstrating why "center core" buildings are unstable
                  -- for the same reason the freeways collapse easily. The WTC was based
                  on a single main shaft in each building. The outer walls "hung" from
                  this skeleton." CSW

                  I talk to architects regularly. No one I know, though many may not
                  readily confess to such things for political reasons, considers the
                  inertia collapse numbers to be anywhere within a plausible range. The
                  buildings were imploded. Whether or not there was a such a collateral
                  damage control system (rigging for implosion) installed after the
                  first attack during the Clinton years remains to be seen, but what
                  that means is people went to work every day in what essentially
                  amounted to a bomb. tc

                  "It is a stupid, dangerous design that will likely never be used
                  again." CSW

                  Actually this is just completely false. Buildings of such stature
                  require such design. The weight/flexibility numbers are not practical
                  for more rigid design. That's just the way it is. It must be outer or
                  inner shell, and single or multiple core. (technically there were
                  four) Makes no real difference. Parking a 747 on the roof and starting
                  a jet fuel fire will not cause a directly vertical collapse period.
                  The buildings were imploded. Something rather easy to mask given this
                  specific design. All charges would be shielded by the outer structure,
                  and internal, relatively unnoticeable. tc

                  "Do I trust government? No way... that's why I don't care who is in
                  charge, I'm not about to believe one group of crooks is that much
                  better than another." CSW

                  Have you read the Obama/Feingold reform bill? It is not radical.
                  Simply requires disclosure. This is a reasonable prerequisite
                  expectation for public service. Trusting government and stopping the
                  sale of it to corporate interests are two different things. I don't
                  care if a political candidate takes corporate money, I just want to
                  know exactly how much and what specific corporation unmasked from
                  lobbyist misdirection. That is fair. Let's suggest something else
                  while were at it: our government is the core of our civilization.
                  Without it altogether is only anarchy. I would do nicely with anarchy.
                  I doubt you have the stomach for it. If you care about your current
                  way of life, you would do well to at least monitor the activity of
                  politics, and vote to reform the financial end of it, otherwise a good
                  deal of what you hold as important will be bought right out from under
                  you - and in fact that is the current situation of government. Your
                  cynicism is incomplete, as Saul Bellow would say. It chooses to ignore
                  rather than fight. tc

                  "At the same time, I don't imagine government organized enough to
                  carry out anything in secret. The release of CIA documents from the
                  last 40 years shows how amazingly incompetent government is most of
                  the time." CSW

                  No secret activities? Utterly naïve. Couple of examples for you:
                  medical experiments on minorities and military personel. The School of
                  the Americas activities. Recently "rendition" flights. That aside you
                  have hit upon the difference in government during Dubyah's first term.
                  It WAS THAT ORGANIZED along its factional line, inter-agency, and
                  interlocking corporate lines, and ready for risk taking, and giddy
                  with public support. You bet they could pull it off. They did. tc

                  "We need to move away from politics in general and ask why someone
                  would think blowing up an airport, a nightclub, or anything else is
                  somehow an entrance into "Heaven" and a great thing to do in the name
                  of faith. It's definitely as dumb as thinking you can establish
                  democracy overnight in nations without certain liberal traditions." CSW

                  Start with "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom". Try Chief Seattle's speech.
                  (Dee Brown, "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee")

                  For what it's worth, I have no doubt that Barack Obama would bring to
                  the presidency a reasonableness long absent in American politics, and
                  an unprecedented accountability. It is time to refresh the system
                  toward its fundamental ideals. He is the right choice. Don't be
                  scared. No one's asking you to trust the government. You still have
                  civil rights; though eight years of Giuliani would pretty much end
                  that, unless of course you attach yourself to a corporate sugar daddy
                  and toe the line. "Uni-polar" indeed.

                  Also, there is a chain of command in terrorist cell activities, though
                  it operates with a latency. Things are on the table waiting for
                  scenarios, rather than immediate orders. Current politics are the most
                  likely cue, and that has never changed that I know of. It is the only
                  way that terrorists can keep pace with politics outside of their
                  homeland. It is just impossible to reliably organize a terrorist
                  attack with any political immediacy away from home. This latent nature
                  of terrorism allows political factions aware of it in targeted nations
                  to play terrorism with politics for political purposes. And they do,
                  SOP. Read those Agency Docs again.

                  As far as footbaths: I absolutely argue for separation of church and
                  state. They can wash their feet at home or the Mosque. The law is more
                  important and must continue to pursue its separation from religion or
                  lose its grip on civilization altogether. This is the line we really
                  must hold in the face of terrorism. We need stronger self-defense laws
                  in this country. A child being beaten by any adult is already against
                  the law. On the other side of this coin the law must be continually
                  vigilant toward constitutional issues. We fail if we allow terrorism
                  to convert us to a police state. Our legal system and our constitution
                  are the most elegant proposition to appear of any civilization in
                  history; to respect that completely we cannot compromise it to a goal
                  of converting the world to our thinking while violating our own
                  cachet. We can only move the world toward our democracy by being what
                  we are, and being willing to defend that without question and without
                  compromising what it is. No one said it would be easy, except of
                  course for the neo-cons.

                  I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
                  guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail. I am not
                  the one to do so, simply because it is not my area of interest here
                  and I don't want to. There is plenty of information elsewhere. Look
                  for it with some effort, or remain cynically incomplete.

                  Trinidad
                • C. S. Wyatt
                  ... Last night I read an interview with (foiled) Islamic bombers who had exploded a bomb outside a nightclub. They said they target clubs because the women
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jul 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...> wrote:

                    > As existentialism is a first-person perspective philosophy, the aim
                    > should be to attempt to see the world from the viewpoint of the
                    > other. A starting point in the case of the bomber is to admit that
                    > he or she is driven by high ideals: he or she genuinely believes
                    > that this act of violence is what God wants.

                    Last night I read an interview with (foiled) Islamic bombers who had exploded a bomb outside
                    a nightclub. They said they target clubs because "the women are harlots and non-believers."
                    There was no political motivation -- just moral outrage. Genuine anger.

                    One of the bombers (I think they were from Indonesia) said it was okay to kill anyone
                    drinking alcohol and dancing to rock music. He said killing followers of Satan was his duty.

                    I don't know how I could ever engage in philosophical debate with such men.

                    - CSW
                  • C. S. Wyatt
                    ... I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do not engage in rhetorical exercises -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jul 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@...> wrote:
                      > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
                      > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.

                      I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do not engage in rhetorical
                      "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such. Games annoy me enough
                      that I usually break all relations / connections to people without the honesty to ask
                      questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.

                      My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to people in power that
                      I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.

                      My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for any extended time
                      holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of things. From experiments on
                      soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out there. People knew the
                      "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The "Project for a New
                      American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it is amazing what we can
                      find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather watch Paris Hilton
                      on Larry King.

                      As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America -- that's my family. I
                      grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only thing my father's
                      family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but socially conservative.

                      I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped most of my views as I
                      first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.

                      Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on the Twin Towers, as
                      well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The research from Purdue
                      University released this month concluded two years of recreations. The professors involved
                      are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but their computer models
                      showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of a building would
                      cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the towers, which is the key.

                      People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people will debate what was
                      known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know people certain that
                      FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a war.

                      I'm just not much for conspiracy.

                      I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion that are beyond
                      comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him. No one propped up
                      Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange enough to believe in both
                      the power and evil of lone individuals.

                      One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.

                      - CSW
                    • jimstuart46
                      CSW, You write: Last night I read an interview with (foiled) Islamic bombers who had exploded a bomb outside a nightclub. They said they target clubs because
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        CSW,

                        You write:

                        "Last night I read an interview with (foiled) Islamic bombers who had
                        exploded a bomb outside
                        a nightclub. They said they target clubs because "the women are
                        harlots and non-believers."
                        There was no political motivation -- just moral outrage. Genuine anger.

                        One of the bombers (I think they were from Indonesia) said it was okay
                        to kill anyone
                        drinking alcohol and dancing to rock music. He said killing followers
                        of Satan was his duty.

                        I don't know how I could ever engage in philosophical debate with such
                        men."

                        I agree these individuals do sound like lost causes, but I do believe
                        that just talking to people can bring about slow change.

                        And even if these men will not change, their children may gain a
                        better and more diverse education so they develop more enlightened,
                        humanist attitudes.

                        It is not too long ago that the U.S.A. suffered from quite a lot of
                        racism, with the KKK prominent in the South. However, I gather that in
                        recent decades racism in your country has been in sharp decline as
                        your society has become fully integrated and all citizens are better
                        educated to the intrinsic values of all people.

                        In a similar way I do believe that fundamentalist Muslims can be
                        educated to develop a more tolerant attitude to non-Muslims. It is not
                        too long ago that Christians routinely abused and killed heretics and
                        non-believers.

                        Multicultural societies take time to develop, but the rewards are
                        great when they do succeed. We Westerners can help by being sensitive
                        to the types of behaviour that Muslims find offensive. For example, it
                        is best if Westerners behave and dress modestly when visiting Muslim
                        countries.

                        Jim
                      • Trinidad Cruz
                        I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did not. They were
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result
                          of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did
                          not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the
                          point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic
                          suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
                          any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I
                          have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side
                          of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I
                          ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the
                          outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will
                          NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it
                          up here again.

                          Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that
                          believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a
                          consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of
                          money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever
                          encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
                          any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
                          reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this
                          either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient
                          disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here
                          again.

                          Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
                          dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
                          only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
                          intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of
                          all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best
                          handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a
                          matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we
                          never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the
                          proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that
                          can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this
                          opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more
                          costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by
                          military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could
                          well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not
                          bringing this up again.

                          We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children
                          should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should
                          be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal
                          proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere
                          to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all
                          incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force
                          when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as
                          well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.
                          Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of
                          subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and
                          red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,
                          and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.
                          This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack
                          here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and
                          present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will
                          continue.

                          We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
                          could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
                          for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?

                          Trinidad


                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@> wrote:
                          > > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
                          > > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.
                          >
                          > I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do
                          not engage in rhetorical
                          > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.
                          Games annoy me enough
                          > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without
                          the honesty to ask
                          > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.
                          >
                          > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to
                          people in power that
                          > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.
                          >
                          > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for
                          any extended time
                          > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of
                          things. From experiments on
                          > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out
                          there. People knew the
                          > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The
                          "Project for a New
                          > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it
                          is amazing what we can
                          > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather
                          watch Paris Hilton
                          > on Larry King.
                          >
                          > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --
                          that's my family. I
                          > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only
                          thing my father's
                          > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but
                          socially conservative.
                          >
                          > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped
                          most of my views as I
                          > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.
                          >
                          > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on
                          the Twin Towers, as
                          > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The
                          research from Purdue
                          > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.
                          The professors involved
                          > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but
                          their computer models
                          > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of
                          a building would
                          > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the
                          towers, which is the key.
                          >
                          > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people
                          will debate what was
                          > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know
                          people certain that
                          > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a war.
                          >
                          > I'm just not much for conspiracy.
                          >
                          > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion
                          that are beyond
                          > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.
                          No one propped up
                          > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange
                          enough to believe in both
                          > the power and evil of lone individuals.
                          >
                          > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.
                          >
                          > - CSW
                          >
                        • Albert Dolley
                          Trinidad, Has it ever occurred to you that when the truth is plain to see; that this is in-fact your objection to it and the single reason for your non-belief
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Trinidad,

                            Has it ever occurred to you that when the truth is plain to see; that this is in-fact your objection to it and the single reason for your non-belief thereof ?

                            Albert.


                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Trinidad Cruz
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:37 PM
                            Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics


                            I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result
                            of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did
                            not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the
                            point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic
                            suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
                            any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I
                            have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side
                            of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I
                            ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the
                            outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will
                            NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it
                            up here again.

                            Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that
                            believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a
                            consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of
                            money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever
                            encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
                            any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
                            reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this
                            either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient
                            disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here
                            again.

                            Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
                            dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
                            only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
                            intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of
                            all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best
                            handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a
                            matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we
                            never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the
                            proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that
                            can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this
                            opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more
                            costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by
                            military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could
                            well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not
                            bringing this up again.

                            We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children
                            should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should
                            be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal
                            proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere
                            to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all
                            incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force
                            when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as
                            well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.
                            Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of
                            subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and
                            red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,
                            and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.
                            This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack
                            here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and
                            present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will
                            continue.

                            We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
                            could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
                            for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?

                            Trinidad

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@> wrote:
                            > > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
                            > > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.
                            >
                            > I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do
                            not engage in rhetorical
                            > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.
                            Games annoy me enough
                            > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without
                            the honesty to ask
                            > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.
                            >
                            > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to
                            people in power that
                            > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.
                            >
                            > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for
                            any extended time
                            > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of
                            things. From experiments on
                            > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out
                            there. People knew the
                            > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The
                            "Project for a New
                            > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it
                            is amazing what we can
                            > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather
                            watch Paris Hilton
                            > on Larry King.
                            >
                            > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --
                            that's my family. I
                            > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only
                            thing my father's
                            > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but
                            socially conservative.
                            >
                            > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped
                            most of my views as I
                            > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.
                            >
                            > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on
                            the Twin Towers, as
                            > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The
                            research from Purdue
                            > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.
                            The professors involved
                            > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but
                            their computer models
                            > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of
                            a building would
                            > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the
                            towers, which is the key.
                            >
                            > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people
                            will debate what was
                            > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know
                            people certain that
                            > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a war.
                            >
                            > I'm just not much for conspiracy.
                            >
                            > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion
                            that are beyond
                            > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.
                            No one propped up
                            > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange
                            enough to believe in both
                            > the power and evil of lone individuals.
                            >
                            > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.
                            >
                            > - CSW
                            >






                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            No virus found in this incoming message.
                            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                            Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date: 7/1/2007 12:19 PM


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • eupraxis@aol.com
                            I am going to have to side with TC on this. As much as I dread it, I cannot pass over the apparent contradictions in the whole 9-11 affair. There is more there
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I am going to have to side with TC on this. As much as I dread it, I cannot pass over the apparent contradictions in the whole 9-11 affair. There is more there than can be nose thumbed away.

                              WS







                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>
                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 9:37 am
                              Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics

























                              I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result

                              of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did

                              not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the

                              point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic

                              suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see

                              any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I

                              have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side

                              of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I

                              ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the

                              outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will

                              NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it

                              up here again.



                              Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that

                              believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a

                              consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of

                              money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever

                              encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking

                              any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for

                              reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this

                              either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient

                              disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here

                              again.



                              Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and

                              dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can

                              only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful

                              intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of

                              all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best

                              handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a

                              matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we

                              never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the

                              proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that

                              can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this

                              opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more

                              costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by

                              military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could

                              well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not

                              bringing this up again.



                              We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children

                              should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should

                              be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal

                              proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere

                              to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all

                              incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force

                              when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as

                              well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.

                              Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of

                              subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and

                              red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,

                              and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.

                              This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack

                              here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and

                              present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will

                              continue.



                              We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we

                              could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car

                              for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?



                              Trinidad



                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...> wrote:

                              >

                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@> wrote:

                              > > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm

                              > > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.

                              >

                              > I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do

                              not engage in rhetorical

                              > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.

                              Games annoy me enough

                              > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without

                              the honesty to ask

                              > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.

                              >

                              > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to

                              people in power that

                              > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.

                              >

                              > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for

                              any extended time

                              > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of

                              things. From experiments on

                              > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out

                              there. People knew the

                              > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The

                              "Project for a New

                              > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it

                              is amazing what we can

                              > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather

                              watch Paris Hilton

                              > on Larry King.

                              >

                              > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --

                              that's my family. I

                              > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only

                              thing my father's

                              > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but

                              socially conservative.

                              >

                              > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped

                              most of my views as I

                              > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.

                              >

                              > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on

                              the Twin Towers, as

                              > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The

                              research from Purdue

                              > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.

                              The professors involved

                              > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but

                              their computer models

                              > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of

                              a building would

                              > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the

                              towers, which is the key.

                              >

                              > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people

                              will debate what was

                              > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know

                              people certain that

                              > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a war.

                              >

                              > I'm just not much for conspiracy.

                              >

                              > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion

                              that are beyond

                              > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.

                              No one propped up

                              > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange

                              enough to believe in both

                              > the power and evil of lone individuals.

                              >

                              > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.

                              >

                              > - CSW

                              >

















                              ________________________________________________________________________
                              AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Trinidad Cruz
                              As a matter of fact, I have a credibility stake in 9/11 elsewhere, the nature of which I will never inform you or anyone else at this list. Suffice it to say
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                As a matter of fact, I have a credibility stake in 9/11 elsewhere, the
                                nature of which I will never inform you or anyone else at this list.
                                Suffice it to say that I will not discuss this matter again, and my
                                public opinion on it will never change. You'll have that. I'm done
                                with this subject here. Believe anything you want. How's the weather
                                there?

                                Trinidad

                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Dolley" <al_d@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Trinidad,
                                >
                                > Has it ever occurred to you that when the truth is plain to see;
                                that this is in-fact your objection to it and the single reason for
                                your non-belief thereof ?
                                >
                                > Albert.
                                >
                                >
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: Trinidad Cruz
                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:37 PM
                                > Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics
                                >
                                >
                                > I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result
                                > of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did
                                > not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the
                                > point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic
                                > suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
                                > any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I
                                > have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side
                                > of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I
                                > ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the
                                > outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will
                                > NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it
                                > up here again.
                                >
                                > Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that
                                > believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a
                                > consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of
                                > money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever
                                > encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
                                > any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
                                > reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this
                                > either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient
                                > disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here
                                > again.
                                >
                                > Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
                                > dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
                                > only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
                                > intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of
                                > all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best
                                > handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a
                                > matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we
                                > never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the
                                > proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that
                                > can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this
                                > opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more
                                > costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by
                                > military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could
                                > well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not
                                > bringing this up again.
                                >
                                > We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children
                                > should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should
                                > be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal
                                > proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere
                                > to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all
                                > incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force
                                > when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as
                                > well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.
                                > Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of
                                > subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and
                                > red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,
                                > and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.
                                > This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack
                                > here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and
                                > present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will
                                > continue.
                                >
                                > We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
                                > could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
                                > for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?
                                >
                                > Trinidad
                                >
                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@>
                                wrote:
                                > > > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
                                > > > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.
                                > >
                                > > I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do
                                > not engage in rhetorical
                                > > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.
                                > Games annoy me enough
                                > > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without
                                > the honesty to ask
                                > > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.
                                > >
                                > > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to
                                > people in power that
                                > > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.
                                > >
                                > > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for
                                > any extended time
                                > > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of
                                > things. From experiments on
                                > > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out
                                > there. People knew the
                                > > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The
                                > "Project for a New
                                > > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it
                                > is amazing what we can
                                > > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather
                                > watch Paris Hilton
                                > > on Larry King.
                                > >
                                > > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --
                                > that's my family. I
                                > > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only
                                > thing my father's
                                > > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but
                                > socially conservative.
                                > >
                                > > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped
                                > most of my views as I
                                > > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.
                                > >
                                > > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on
                                > the Twin Towers, as
                                > > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The
                                > research from Purdue
                                > > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.
                                > The professors involved
                                > > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but
                                > their computer models
                                > > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of
                                > a building would
                                > > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the
                                > towers, which is the key.
                                > >
                                > > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people
                                > will debate what was
                                > > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know
                                > people certain that
                                > > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a
                                war.
                                > >
                                > > I'm just not much for conspiracy.
                                > >
                                > > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion
                                > that are beyond
                                > > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.
                                > No one propped up
                                > > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange
                                > enough to believe in both
                                > > the power and evil of lone individuals.
                                > >
                                > > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.
                                > >
                                > > - CSW
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                >
                                >
                                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date:
                                7/1/2007 12:19 PM
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • Albert Dolley
                                Trinidad, I don t necessarily believe anything. It s just that this might be part of the equation here. The weather is COLD, it snowed here last week, and this
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Trinidad,

                                  I don't necessarily believe anything. It's just that this might be part of the equation here. The weather is COLD, it snowed here last week, and this is unusual for this part of town...

                                  Kind Regards,
                                  A.


                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Trinidad Cruz
                                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:55 PM
                                  Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics


                                  As a matter of fact, I have a credibility stake in 9/11 elsewhere, the
                                  nature of which I will never inform you or anyone else at this list.
                                  Suffice it to say that I will not discuss this matter again, and my
                                  public opinion on it will never change. You'll have that. I'm done
                                  with this subject here. Believe anything you want. How's the weather
                                  there?

                                  Trinidad

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Dolley" <al_d@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Trinidad,
                                  >
                                  > Has it ever occurred to you that when the truth is plain to see;
                                  that this is in-fact your objection to it and the single reason for
                                  your non-belief thereof ?
                                  >
                                  > Albert.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: Trinidad Cruz
                                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:37 PM
                                  > Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I am not arguing whether or not the WTC towers collapsed as a result
                                  > of an airliner crashing into them a hundred or so floors up. They did
                                  > not. They were imploded with explosives. I don't care to argue the
                                  > point by disassembling the Purdue study though it has many problematic
                                  > suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
                                  > any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion. What I
                                  > have encountered is an endless trail of obfuscation on the that side
                                  > of the coin. The issue is as dead as the victims for me. I'm sorry I
                                  > ever brought it up here again, but I stated my position clearly at the
                                  > outset in response to someone else's, for what it's worth. I will
                                  > NEVER think otherwise. And for your convenience I will never bring it
                                  > up here again.
                                  >
                                  > Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now, I will say that
                                  > believing that groups of people within a government cannot come to a
                                  > consensus to operate clandestinely especially when large amounts of
                                  > money are involved is one of the stupidest beliefs I have ever
                                  > encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
                                  > any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
                                  > reform and accountability. I will not change my mind about this
                                  > either, as I have too many children to embrace such a convenient
                                  > disengagement. But for your convenience I will never bring it up here
                                  > again.
                                  >
                                  > Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
                                  > dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
                                  > only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
                                  > intelligence gathering. Real enemies must be embraced the closest of
                                  > all. Our relationship with the Muslim world should probably be best
                                  > handled abroad as a new cold war. Domestically it is absolutely a
                                  > matter of law. We have an opportunity with this situation that we
                                  > never had with the Soviets - an opportunity to substantially delay the
                                  > proliferation of WMD's to the Muslim world. This is not something that
                                  > can be accomplished by military posturing. If we constantly ruin this
                                  > opportunity with military adventurism we can only insure a much more
                                  > costly conflict. We cannot conquer the world, or even little Iraq by
                                  > military force. We can blow it up. That's all. The cost of that could
                                  > well be the end of us all. I will not give you the convenience of not
                                  > bringing this up again.
                                  >
                                  > We need stronger self-defense laws in this country. Women and children
                                  > should not be allowed to be publicly beaten. Men of conscience should
                                  > be allowed to intervene with reasonable force and not face criminal
                                  > proceedings and/or civil litigation. Muslim demonstrations must adhere
                                  > to non-violence, and law enforcement authority should handle all
                                  > incidences of violence with arrest, prosecution, and yes deadly force
                                  > when necessary. But that goes for any other kind of demonstration as
                                  > well. Violent demonstration is against the law, but not non-violent.
                                  > Public officials must allow non-violent demonstrations, regardless of
                                  > subject matter, and not hide behind things like community standard and
                                  > red-tape permit issues. We must reaffirm an openness to non-violence,
                                  > and yet meet incidences of violence reliably with appropriate force.
                                  > This is a matter of legal clarity, something we often sorely lack
                                  > here. Until we find a new respect for the value of our laws and
                                  > present a clear and reliable public face, confusion and violence will
                                  > continue.
                                  >
                                  > We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
                                  > could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
                                  > for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?
                                  >
                                  > Trinidad
                                  >
                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@>
                                  wrote:
                                  > > > I don't really think you think all the things you wrote here. I'm
                                  > > > guessing you wanted me to argue what I think in more detail.
                                  > >
                                  > > I do not write what I do not believe or have not considered. I do
                                  > not engage in rhetorical
                                  > > "exercises" -- if I have a doubt or question, it is posed as such.
                                  > Games annoy me enough
                                  > > that I usually break all relations / connections to people without
                                  > the honesty to ask
                                  > > questions or pose challenges without trying to bait me.
                                  > >
                                  > > My work experiences and friends have brought me close enough to
                                  > people in power that
                                  > > I've formed my views based on how things work behind closed doors.
                                  > >
                                  > > My comments about the government not doing anything in secret for
                                  > any extended time
                                  > > holds. Alternative media and even basic leaks reveal a lot of
                                  > things. From experiments on
                                  > > soldiers to "secret" presidential orders, the information is out
                                  > there. People knew the
                                  > > "Mafia" was briefly employed to attack Castro, for example. The
                                  > "Project for a New
                                  > > American Century" is not secret, either. If people care to read, it
                                  > is amazing what we can
                                  > > find. Mention PNAC and watch eyes glaze, though. People would rather
                                  > watch Paris Hilton
                                  > > on Larry King.
                                  > >
                                  > > As for knowing / understanding NASCAR and Blue Collar America --
                                  > that's my family. I
                                  > > grew up going to races in Bakersfield and country music was the only
                                  > thing my father's
                                  > > family knows. They are "blue dog" Democrats: union members, but
                                  > socially conservative.
                                  > >
                                  > > I am from the rather extreme end of poverty, which is what shaped
                                  > most of my views as I
                                  > > first encountered a university and "educated" people. Blah.
                                  > >
                                  > > Susan is a mechanical engineer, so we have followed the research on
                                  > the Twin Towers, as
                                  > > well as the pseudo-academics blinded by politics and cynicism. The
                                  > research from Purdue
                                  > > University released this month concluded two years of recreations.
                                  > The professors involved
                                  > > are not likely to embrace anything said by this government, but
                                  > their computer models
                                  > > showed time and time again the weight of the top fourth to third of
                                  > a building would
                                  > > cause an implosion. The planes did not strike the tops of the
                                  > towers, which is the key.
                                  > >
                                  > > People will believe what they want, though. For centuries people
                                  > will debate what was
                                  > > known and when. Just as they do with Pearl Harbor and FDR. I know
                                  > people certain that
                                  > > FDR wanted as many Americans killed as possible to get us into a
                                  war.
                                  > >
                                  > > I'm just not much for conspiracy.
                                  > >
                                  > > I really do believe one or two people can set things into motion
                                  > that are beyond
                                  > > comprehension. I don't think Hitler needed anyone else to guide him.
                                  > No one propped up
                                  > > Stalin. I even think Lee Harvey O acted alone!! I'm just strange
                                  > enough to believe in both
                                  > > the power and evil of lone individuals.
                                  > >
                                  > > One nut. One "belief" (sane or not) and anything is possible.
                                  > >
                                  > > - CSW
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                  > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date:
                                  7/1/2007 12:19 PM
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >






                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  No virus found in this incoming message.
                                  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/883 - Release Date: 7/1/2007 12:19 PM


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Exist List Moderator
                                  ... It is this line that bothers me: certain... opinion. That s the same I hear from too many other people. They are certain of things, when I always argue
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Jul 02, 2007, at 9:37, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

                                    > suggestions. I happen to be certain I'm correct, and I have yet to see
                                    > any decent enough fact finding to dissuade me from my opinion.

                                    It is this line that bothers me: "certain... opinion." That's the
                                    same I hear from too many other people. They are "certain" of things,
                                    when I always argue a lack of certainty, and an endless curiosity.
                                    When too many people are "certain" of things, we end up in the mess
                                    we are in as a nation -- lots of certainty the other side is ignorant
                                    and not seeing the facts our side (whatever side) sees so clearly.

                                    I read an interview with Michael Moore in the Independent and he was
                                    asked about the documentary "Dead Meat" -- an expose of deaths,
                                    delays, and worse in Canadian health care. More said, "I don't care
                                    about your facts. I'll see what I need to see for my views when I
                                    know I am right. I don't need your truth when I have mine."

                                    That's where we've been taken over the last 30 years or so.

                                    Philosophy went the same way, with deep divisions and lots of talking
                                    past each other. Maybe a Rorty will try to bridge gaps, but they
                                    usually fails.

                                    I definitely trust information less and less, having close
                                    connections to the media. Knowing most information is rigged on one
                                    side or the other, I just assume I'll never be certain of much more
                                    than how cruel and vile humans can be to each other.

                                    > Since we are engaged in this with some animosity now

                                    Animosity because you indicate I either lied or tried or game you and
                                    because you said I am not familiar with much of America. I am
                                    increasingly defensive of my links to the "NASCAR" world of my
                                    family. I've had enough colleagues and professors insult the
                                    "uneducated" or "ignorant" of middle America. These people are not
                                    stupid, but they do have different types of knowledge and definitely
                                    different values than we find in urban areas.

                                    > encountered. Sure some activity comes to light, AFTER THE FACT. Taking
                                    > any comfort in this is putting one's head in the sand, not working for
                                    > reform and accountability.

                                    I lost faith in "reform" long ago. Reform too often gives the
                                    government/incumbent politicians more power, not less. Instead of
                                    reform, we could have leaders who actually take their
                                    responsibilities to hold each branch of government in check -- but
                                    that's unlikely when so many Senators dream of the White House or
                                    life-long incomes from lobbying.

                                    As for "after the fact," I think people curious enough knew what was
                                    happening as it happened. The problem is that larger society just
                                    doesn't seem to care until it is too late. People watch terrible
                                    things happen and rationalize these events. Death and destruction
                                    "there" do not affect me, so I'll do nothing. That's the sad reality
                                    of how people function and remain sane.

                                    Again, I admit that I think most people, maybe a slight majority but
                                    a majority nonetheless, are interested in their own welfare and that
                                    of their "tribe" (family, small town, whatever). A lot of
                                    psychological testing seems to support this. We work best in small
                                    groups, where because people know you and you know them, social order
                                    is easier to maintain.

                                    > Terrorism here is a matter best handled as an intelligence problem and
                                    > dealt with by law enforcement. Adventurist military engagement can
                                    > only fuel its fire, and in fact substantially impede meaningful
                                    > intelligence gathering.

                                    Never disagreed with this notion. I think creating Gitmo or engaging
                                    in rendition is absurd. It you want to shed light on terrorism, do so
                                    in public courts so everyone can hear the ideas at work.

                                    Secrecy breeds yet more cynicism -- especially when it isn't much of
                                    a secret. The more you deny something that can be proved, the more
                                    people lose faith in the government. But, once caught in a lie,
                                    politicians and children seem to add yet more layers of lies.

                                    > We are well on our way to spending enough money on this war; that we
                                    > could have given every single driver in this country a 50mpg Honda car
                                    > for nothing. At what point is absurdity criminal?

                                    For me, wars should never be measured by money or material goods. If
                                    it isn't a clear action of self-defense, then it isn't justifiable.
                                    Any amount of money to defend people is okay as long as the debate
                                    isn't gamed by others.

                                    Of course... most debates are gamed. Too many people think serious
                                    issues belong in a debating society.

                                    As I said, philosophy went this route and most people stopped paying
                                    much attention to philosophers.


                                    - C. S. Wyatt
                                    I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                    that I shall be.
                                    http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                    http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                  • Trinidad Cruz
                                    I d like to tone this down, but I keep coming across arguments from you that seem not entirely rational to me, and find them surprising, at least as surprising
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I'd like to tone this down, but I keep coming across arguments from
                                      you that seem not entirely rational to me, and find them surprising,
                                      at least as surprising as you find mine. I really don't relish playing
                                      the role in this discourse of citizen, but that is what seems to have
                                      happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
                                      opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
                                      abiding US citizen? Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
                                      likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I. I
                                      wonder how then I can be characterized as in the wrong here? Certainly
                                      not as a citizen. Just for having an opinion I doubt will likely ever
                                      change? I take it as a responsibility of my citizenship in this
                                      country to be involved with the system, at least enough to pursue some
                                      fundamental reforms through my vote whether they come to pass or not.
                                      I will not surrender so lightly to an inactive cynicism concerning
                                      something as important as a constitutional democracy. I could not face
                                      my own children and say I allowed their future to be sold away without
                                      even voting, let alone voicing any dissent. Why allow yourself to be
                                      disenfranchised without a fight? This thing, this American experiment,
                                      is not so easy these days, but it is also not so easy to dismiss as
                                      worthless by not participating.

                                      You don't agree with me. So be it. It is within the framework of our
                                      laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
                                      neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
                                      an opinion. Sometimes one side or the other gives in, but there are no
                                      rules here other than remaining law abiding. Democratic government is
                                      not a mystical process in any form. It is simply a group of opinions,
                                      and a consensus of laws. If that consensus is now being purchased away
                                      from general opinion by a minute faction of opinion we have a problem.
                                      We cannot make wealth a criteria of opinion without an equal
                                      consideration of the criteria of opinion of poverty. The rhetoric of
                                      opinion in this case does not matter, nor does any agreement, or
                                      disagreement; only the fact that wealth is actually in such a
                                      privileged position in the debate over consensus in our franchise. We
                                      need financial reforms in our political process to restore the
                                      efficaciousness of debate over consensus. Such reform need not be the
                                      denial of access to corporate money to public servants, only clear and
                                      immediate public disclosure.

                                      Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society. Grass
                                      roots change in opinion on such matters is a slow process. Monotheism
                                      and science have developed side by side for thousands of years. They
                                      must fall into the position in our democracy where they belong -
                                      opinion. The debate will go on, and most on either side will never
                                      change their opinion in their lifetime. To me they are like part one
                                      and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You despair of philosophy, of
                                      its active presence in our society. Our democracy is our part three in
                                      this dialectical situation. The synthetic fact must assert its truth
                                      above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                                      state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
                                      American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
                                      this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.

                                      Trinidad
                                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                                      To me they are like part one and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You despair of philosophy, of its active presence in our society. Our democracy is our
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        "To me they are like part one and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You
                                        despair of philosophy, of its active presence in our society. Our democracy is
                                        our part three in this dialectical situation. The synthetic fact must assert
                                        its truth above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                                        state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our American
                                        proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in this constitutional
                                        democracy we are actually all philosophers." Trinidad

                                        Hey Trin, gettin' all dialectical. I like it.

                                        WS

                                        In a message dated 7/2/07 5:18:30 PM, TriniCruz@... writes:


                                        >
                                        > I'd like to tone this down, but I keep coming across arguments from
                                        > you that seem not entirely rational to me, and find them surprising,
                                        > at least as surprising as you find mine. I really don't relish playing
                                        > the role in this discourse of citizen, but that is what seems to have
                                        > happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
                                        > opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
                                        > abiding US citizen? Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
                                        > likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I. I
                                        > wonder how then I can be characterized as in the wrong here? Certainly
                                        > not as a citizen. Just for having an opinion I doubt will likely ever
                                        > change? I take it as a responsibility of my citizenship in this
                                        > country to be involved with the system, at least enough to pursue some
                                        > fundamental reforms through my vote whether they come to pass or not.
                                        > I will not surrender so lightly to an inactive cynicism concerning
                                        > something as important as a constitutional democracy. I could not face
                                        > my own children and say I allowed their future to be sold away without
                                        > even voting, let alone voicing any dissent. Why allow yourself to be
                                        > disenfranchised without a fight? This thing, this American experiment,
                                        > is not so easy these days, but it is also not so easy to dismiss as
                                        > worthless by not participating.
                                        >
                                        > You don't agree with me. So be it. It is within the framework of our
                                        > laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
                                        > neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
                                        > an opinion. Sometimes one side or the other gives in, but there are no
                                        > rules here other than remaining law abiding. Democratic government is
                                        > not a mystical process in any form. It is simply a group of opinions,
                                        > and a consensus of laws. If that consensus is now being purchased away
                                        > from general opinion by a minute faction of opinion we have a problem.
                                        > We cannot make wealth a criteria of opinion without an equal
                                        > consideration of the criteria of opinion of poverty. The rhetoric of
                                        > opinion in this case does not matter, nor does any agreement, or
                                        > disagreement; only the fact that wealth is actually in such a
                                        > privileged position in the debate over consensus in our franchise. We
                                        > need financial reforms in our political process to restore the
                                        > efficaciousness of debate over consensus. Such reform need not be the
                                        > denial of access to corporate money to public servants, only clear and
                                        > immediate public disclosure.
                                        >
                                        > Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society. Grass
                                        > roots change in opinion on such matters is a slow process. Monotheism
                                        > and science have developed side by side for thousands of years. They
                                        > must fall into the position in our democracy where they belong -
                                        > opinion. The debate will go on, and most on either side will never
                                        > change their opinion in their lifetime. To me they are like part one
                                        > and two in a Hegelian dialectical triad. You despair of philosophy, of
                                        > its active presence in our society. Our democracy is our part three in
                                        > this dialectical situation. The synthetic fact must assert its truth
                                        > above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                                        > state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
                                        > American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
                                        > this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.
                                        >
                                        > Trinidad
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >




                                        **************************************
                                        See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • C. S. Wyatt
                                        ... What I worry about is the certainty I hear from the two sides (though there are more) in various debates -- and the corresponding divisions in our
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
                                          > opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
                                          > abiding US citizen?

                                          What I worry about is the certainty I hear from the "two sides" (though there are more) in
                                          various debates -- and the corresponding divisions in our society. Debate has been
                                          replaced by name calling and insinuations that one side alone if privy to the "correct"
                                          answers and views on issues.

                                          I long for someone, anyone, to come from the radical middle and change the tone of
                                          debate so it can be a genuine debate and not the noise that now echoes across the media
                                          and Web.

                                          > Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
                                          > likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I.

                                          My involvement is to oppose almost anything that large organizations, especially the
                                          government, claims to be doing for my benefit. I am definitely opposed to any
                                          encroachments into my freedoms and those of others. I don't care for any group trying to
                                          dictate how private individuals should live.

                                          To me, freedoms are under assault from all sides. I think how they view events becomes a
                                          way to justify which rights will be taken.

                                          Free speech is always under assault. Choices in medical care are limited by the FDA's
                                          desire to "protect" me from dangerous treatments. (I was denied painkillers here in MN
                                          because the use I had in California was considered "off-label" here. Nice to be protected,
                                          isn't it?) The right to drink what I want, smoke what I want, or even eventually decide how
                                          to exit life are all dictated to me. It's absurd.

                                          I spent a lot of time working for the government. I'm a darn good data analyst. From that
                                          work, I learned a lot about other cultures and groups. I trust them even less than our own
                                          government, if that's possible.

                                          I vote, I write, I volunteer -- but I don't trust. I am a skeptic. That's my nature.

                                          > laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
                                          > neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
                                          > an opinion.

                                          There is little debate in the mainstream. Political consultants, pollsters, and media analysts
                                          talk about politics in terms of horse races, winners and losers. The issues get four
                                          minutes, on a good night, and then we are told how leads in what poll by how much. Polls
                                          are not debate -- they are nothing but ways to create the impression a polling agency
                                          wants.

                                          I want debate and discussion, but I want it in a way I seldom see it or hear it, even from
                                          the sources I read every day. I am a loyal reader of both The Nation and CATO Bulletin. I
                                          read The New Republic and National Review, Telegraph.uk and Le Monde. I'm now reading
                                          more in Spanish and Hebrew -- but I admit I cannot read Arabic at all and my business
                                          partner (who served in the Middle East for several years speaking Arabic) tells me the
                                          English "translations" are nothing close to the real meanings.

                                          My radio buttons bounce from NPR and Nova M to Air America and several conservative
                                          stations. (I cannot stand Bill O'R and Sean Hannity. I try and try, but they annoy me on
                                          radio. Randy Rhodes is just as bad. Terrible radio.)

                                          There's just not a lot of real debate. That's why I still turn to S.F. radio stations and
                                          newspapers online.

                                          > Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society.

                                          Sadly.

                                          > above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                                          > state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
                                          > American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
                                          > this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.

                                          Sorry, but I want more science in politics and less religion. A lot less religion.

                                          I am glad we have a republican form. I wish we actually respected that form more, but then
                                          all three branches would require some leadership.

                                          I'll go all the way back to the Greek ideal: a leader needs a moral compass. Wish we had
                                          that, but I'm not sure I see many with ethical ideals. We need philosophers in government,
                                          men and women with well-rounded educations and experiences. I'm not sure we have
                                          that, especially when I have had a chance to talk to leaders one-on-one. Some turned out
                                          to be much less intelligent than I had hoped. Some were just plain ignorant.

                                          Philosophy is something I support -- or I wouldn't have the Web site and discussion list.
                                          What I fear is that divisions have increased and debate has lost to name calling and
                                          stubborn egomania.

                                          - CSW
                                        • eupraxis@aol.com
                                          CS, I think you confuse social discourse with a philosophical position. The latter, if one can manage it, is unable to concede to a position that it considers
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            CS,

                                            I think you confuse social discourse with a philosophical position. The
                                            latter, if one can manage it, is unable to concede to a position that it considers
                                            anathema to truth (or the Good, etc.) assuming such a conclusion has already
                                            been made and that that position culminates in something like what Kant called
                                            a "maxim". As I am on the left, there are some positions that have achieved
                                            such an axiomatic status and cannot be 'mediated' by anything, especially by
                                            some nebulous middle. We have already danced that tango, so I will leave it at
                                            that.

                                            The former, social discourse, is a space wherein a debate can take place, but
                                            if I am consigned a role in such, I do not see why I should celebrate any
                                            middle. The middle course in an 'evolution/creation' debate would be what? What
                                            is the middle course on 'Iraq is an illegal invasion', or 'torture is a crime
                                            against humanity', or 'the vice president is part of the executive'?

                                            And as a side in a debate, I have no regard for watering an ethical position
                                            down to that same middle, radical or not. Philosophy is, for me, a sublated
                                            manifestation of war. I am not of the mind to allow the right-wing, which has
                                            all but ruined this country and continues to do so still, to imagine that it has
                                            anything to say about god and country any longer.

                                            Finally, we are well aware of your libertarian position, as well as other
                                            specific positions. I haven't seen any change of mind since I have been at this
                                            group. You seem as certain, at times, as anyone else here, and on matters that
                                            I have an almost opposite position. What middle course there?

                                            'Debate' (what passes for debate in the US is a scandal) presumes a
                                            compromise between parties, but in many instances this is a mirage. Debates are usually
                                            held for the sake of affecting listeners, not for achieving a middle path.

                                            Wil

                                            In a message dated 7/2/07 9:36:21 PM, existlist1@... writes:


                                            >
                                            > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@.Tr> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
                                            > > opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
                                            > > abiding US citizen?
                                            >
                                            > What I worry about is the certainty I hear from the "two sides" (though
                                            > there are more) in
                                            > various debates -- and the corresponding divisions in our society. Debate
                                            > has been
                                            > replaced by name calling and insinuations that one side alone if privy to
                                            > the "correct"
                                            > answers and views on issues.
                                            >
                                            > I long for someone, anyone, to come from the radical middle and change the
                                            > tone of
                                            > debate so it can be a genuine debate and not the noise that now echoes
                                            > across the media
                                            > and Web.
                                            >
                                            > > Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
                                            > > likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I.
                                            >
                                            > My involvement is to oppose almost anything that large organizations,
                                            > especially the
                                            > government, claims to be doing for my benefit. I am definitely opposed to
                                            > any
                                            > encroachments into my freedoms and those of others. I don't care for any
                                            > group trying to
                                            > dictate how private individuals should live.
                                            >
                                            > To me, freedoms are under assault from all sides. I think how they view e
                                            > vents becomes a
                                            > way to justify which rights will be taken.
                                            >
                                            > Free speech is always under assault. Choices in medical care are limited by
                                            > the FDA's
                                            > desire to "protect" me from dangerous treatments. (I was denied painkillers
                                            > here in MN
                                            > because the use I had in California was considered "off-label" here. Nice to
                                            > be protected,
                                            > isn't it?) The right to drink what I want, smoke what I want, or even
                                            > eventually decide how
                                            > to exit life are all dictated to me. It's absurd.
                                            >
                                            > I spent a lot of time working for the government. I'm a darn good data
                                            > analyst. From that
                                            > work, I learned a lot about other cultures and groups. I trust them even
                                            > less than our own
                                            > government, if that's possible.
                                            >
                                            > I vote, I write, I volunteer -- but I don't trust. I am a skeptic. That's my
                                            > nature.
                                            >
                                            > > laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
                                            > > neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
                                            > > an opinion.
                                            >
                                            > There is little debate in the mainstream. Political consultants, pollsters,
                                            > and media analysts
                                            > talk about politics in terms of horse races, winners and losers. The issues
                                            > get four
                                            > minutes, on a good night, and then we are told how leads in what poll by how
                                            > much. Polls
                                            > are not debate -- they are nothing but ways to create the impression a
                                            > polling agency
                                            > wants.
                                            >
                                            > I want debate and discussion, but I want it in a way I seldom see it or hear
                                            > it, even from
                                            > the sources I read every day. I am a loyal reader of both The Nation and
                                            > CATO Bulletin. I
                                            > read The New Republic and National Review, Telegraph.uk and Le Monde. I'm
                                            > now reading
                                            > more in Spanish and Hebrew -- but I admit I cannot read Arabic at all and my
                                            > business
                                            > partner (who served in the Middle East for several years speaking Arabic)
                                            > tells me the
                                            > English "translations" are nothing close to the real meanings.
                                            >
                                            > My radio buttons bounce from NPR and Nova M to Air America and several
                                            > conservative
                                            > stations. (I cannot stand Bill O'R and Sean Hannity. I try and try, but they
                                            > annoy me on
                                            > radio. Randy Rhodes is just as bad. Terrible radio.)
                                            >
                                            > There's just not a lot of real debate. That's why I still turn to S.F. radio
                                            > stations and
                                            > newspapers online.
                                            >
                                            > > Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society.
                                            >
                                            > Sadly.
                                            >
                                            > > above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
                                            > > state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
                                            > > American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
                                            > > this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.
                                            >
                                            > Sorry, but I want more science in politics and less religion. A lot less
                                            > religion.
                                            >
                                            > I am glad we have a republican form. I wish we actually respected that form
                                            > more, but then
                                            > all three branches would require some leadership.
                                            >
                                            > I'll go all the way back to the Greek ideal: a leader needs a moral compass.
                                            > Wish we had
                                            > that, but I'm not sure I see many with ethical ideals. We need philosophers
                                            > in government,
                                            > men and women with well-rounded educations and experiences. I'm not sure we
                                            > have
                                            > that, especially when I have had a chance to talk to leaders one-on-one.
                                            > Some turned out
                                            > to be much less intelligent than I had hoped. Some were just plain ignorant.
                                            >
                                            > Philosophy is something I support -- or I wouldn't have the Web site and
                                            > discussion list.
                                            > What I fear is that divisions have increased and debate has lost to name
                                            > calling and
                                            > stubborn egomania.
                                            >
                                            > - CSW
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >




                                            **************************************
                                            See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Trinidad Cruz
                                            Well Wil, in a real sense this is a dialectical problem of importance. CSW wants leadership with a moral compass, as he puts it. We have a moral and ethical
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Well Wil, in a real sense this is a dialectical problem of importance.
                                              CSW wants leadership with a moral compass, as he puts it. We have a
                                              moral and ethical compass here. It is our constitution and system of
                                              laws. It is in no way an absolute. It is a chosen consensus containing
                                              provision for change and adaptation through debate and new consensus
                                              by freely elected representatives. Because it cannot be taken as an
                                              absolute it seems to lose importance in the face of both science and
                                              religion. Neither naturalism nor theism should dictate to our
                                              synthesis here, only propose and debate; yet we find most often as CSW
                                              indicates hard-line uncompromising debate between the two. Such
                                              stubbornness and egotism in debate is not necessarily harmful, in fact
                                              I am generally encouraged by the fact that discussion in such areas is
                                              so uncompromising, as such futile discussion shifts importance to the
                                              synthesis we have developed to make way for such debate in a bloodless
                                              forum in the first place. As people are faced with the futility of
                                              absolutes they generally fall back toward a reliance on our synthesis
                                              here. It has ever been so in our history, and men have suited the
                                              times when the threat to it was real. It is simply grander than any
                                              absolute truth.

                                              Philosophy cannot reject theism out of hand; only monotheism and its
                                              attendant concepts of omnipotence, omniscience, and creationism.
                                              Philosophy cannot reject naturalism out of hand; only its
                                              functionalist arguments for an absolute materialism. Philosophy cannot
                                              allow for solutions that are absolute. The synthesis becomes of the
                                              greatest importance. This is not epiphenomenalism because the
                                              synthesis is not taken as an absolute, only as something of greater
                                              importance than absolutes and subject to change. It is in this, an
                                              ethic in a continuously developmental frame. Hobbes, inspired by
                                              Plato, struggled through the bare bones of this proposition here 400
                                              years ago; so we cannot argue that philosophy has not been shaping the
                                              world here all along. The constitution, our system of laws, are a
                                              philosophy. This cannot be taken, as it so often mistakenly is, as an
                                              idealism. Idealism is a process of casting ideas as absolutes. In such
                                              a case then, lower forms in the dialectic to be believed in rather
                                              than known. All we can ever know are synthetic forms changing with
                                              consensus. We can believe anything. We may not cast our synthesis here
                                              as an ideal, as something to believe in; because in doing so we will
                                              never know it. Its importance is not even in knowing it as an
                                              experience; but rather in individually working at its continuing
                                              synthesis. It will not age well. To store it, is to sour it to an
                                              ideal, and make it dialectically less. It is good that the struggle
                                              for absolutes is loud. Such a circumstance will push us to attend to
                                              our synthesis. Only in that attention will it remain healthy and
                                              sweet, because it cannot be believed in and remain important, only
                                              worked at. Working at it, is knowing it for what it is.

                                              Trinidad
                                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                                              TC, Agreed. I think. WS ... From: Trinidad Cruz To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 9:55 am Subject: [existlist] My views
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                TC,

                                                Agreed. I think.

                                                WS







                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>
                                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 9:55 am
                                                Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics

























                                                Well Wil, in a real sense this is a dialectical problem of importance.

                                                CSW wants leadership with a moral compass, as he puts it. We have a

                                                moral and ethical compass here. It is our constitution and system of

                                                laws. It is in no way an absolute. It is a chosen consensus containing

                                                provision for change and adaptation through debate and new consensus

                                                by freely elected representatives. Because it cannot be taken as an

                                                absolute it seems to lose importance in the face of both science and

                                                religion. Neither naturalism nor theism should dictate to our

                                                synthesis here, only propose and debate; yet we find most often as CSW

                                                indicates hard-line uncompromising debate between the two. Such

                                                stubbornness and egotism in debate is not necessarily harmful, in fact

                                                I am generally encouraged by the fact that discussion in such areas is

                                                so uncompromising, as such futile discussion shifts importance to the

                                                synthesis we have developed to make way for such debate in a bloodless

                                                forum in the first place. As people are faced with the futility of

                                                absolutes they generally fall back toward a reliance on our synthesis

                                                here. It has ever been so in our history, and men have suited the

                                                times when the threat to it was real. It is simply grander than any

                                                absolute truth.



                                                Philosophy cannot reject theism out of hand; only monotheism and its

                                                attendant concepts of omnipotence, omniscience, and creationism.

                                                Philosophy cannot reject naturalism out of hand; only its

                                                functionalist arguments for an absolute materialism. Philosophy cannot

                                                allow for solutions that are absolute. The synthesis becomes of the

                                                greatest importance. This is not epiphenomenalism because the

                                                synthesis is not taken as an absolute, only as something of greater

                                                importance than absolutes and subject to change. It is in this, an

                                                ethic in a continuously developmental frame. Hobbes, inspired by

                                                Plato, struggled through the bare bones of this proposition here 400

                                                years ago; so we cannot argue that philosophy has not been shaping the

                                                world here all along. The constitution, our system of laws, are a

                                                philosophy. This cannot be taken, as it so often mistakenly is, as an

                                                idealism. Idealism is a process of casting ideas as absolutes. In such

                                                a case then, lower forms in the dialectic to be believed in rather

                                                than known. All we can ever know are synthetic forms changing with

                                                consensus. We can believe anything. We may not cast our synthesis here

                                                as an ideal, as something to believe in; because in doing so we will

                                                never know it. Its importance is not even in knowing it as an

                                                experience; but rather in individually working at its continuing

                                                synthesis. It will not age well. To store it, is to sour it to an

                                                ideal, and make it dialectically less. It is good that the struggle

                                                for absolutes is loud. Such a circumstance will push us to attend to

                                                our synthesis. Only in that attention will it remain healthy and

                                                sweet, because it cannot be believed in and remain important, only

                                                worked at. Working at it, is knowing it for what it is.



                                                Trinidad

















                                                ________________________________________________________________________
                                                AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • C. S. Wyatt
                                                ... To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow evolutionary steps. My very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                  > The former, social discourse, is a space wherein a debate can take place, but
                                                  > if I am consigned a role in such, I do not see why I should celebrate any
                                                  > middle.

                                                  To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow evolutionary steps. My
                                                  very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely to be a position adopted
                                                  by most voters / politicians. Instead of trying for an "outright win" in the political arena, I
                                                  try to argue other elements of the problem. For example, it is hard to argue that the
                                                  application reveals social and political biases in the courts. Also, one can point to those
                                                  freed thanks to DNA and modern forensics. In other words, I shift the debate to those
                                                  areas I think there might be consensus.

                                                  Do I surrender my philosophical notion that the state shouldn't take a life? No. But, I also
                                                  realize there is a more effective approach politically.

                                                  I've shifted a lot in life, from the normal "left" of undergraduate years to a libertarian
                                                  approach. The more I worked in / around government, the less I trusted it.

                                                  My philosophical approach is to still dream of a time when people get along and help each
                                                  other voluntarily. I still imagine people have a responsibility to mutually respect each
                                                  other's rights and freedoms.

                                                  Politically? I see government in all nations is about the powerful elites, not idealism.

                                                  Philosophical grounding would help our leaders, as it would any group of people. I want
                                                  people to consider "The Other" and how our choices impinge on the other. I want people
                                                  to consider, "What if country/group X did Y to me? What of my rights, then?"

                                                  Yes, I'm definitely more libertarian than I was two decades ago. I'm also more pro-union,
                                                  I'm generally more ambivalent about my support for the ACLU (I cannot believe they are
                                                  supporting the installation of foot baths in our colleges in Minnesota -- uhg), and still a
                                                  devoted supporter of the National Wildlife Federation (but not the Sierra Club).

                                                  My philosophy remains apart from political action because I have to compromise to get
                                                  things done at the university and in our schools. You cannot go in with "I think we should
                                                  shift taxes collected from one district to the inner city schools" -- a position I hold.
                                                  Instead, you have to explain to the suburbs why they don't want inner city schools
                                                  collapsing and failing. My beliefs have to be mediated to get action.

                                                  I am not a politician, since I couldn't compromise nearly as often as it is required. But, I
                                                  have been much better at compromise in the last four years than in the past.

                                                  Pragmatism becomes more appealing when I need to accomplish something. At those
                                                  moments, Rorty and Schiappa guide my reasoning. When I shift to freedoms, I still turn to
                                                  a mix of Continental thinkers.

                                                  Philosophy and the reality conflict. I support republican ideals, with limits on the majority.
                                                  I always fear the majority and its ability to abuse power -- even when my views might be
                                                  in the majority.

                                                  When we implement a philosophy, it changes. What is good in the ideal is always off when
                                                  men and women try to implement those ideals.

                                                  Politics is about getting things done. It means terrible choices, like which houses must
                                                  give way to new roads and transit lines. Politics is not philosophy, at those moments. But, I
                                                  think philosopher-leaders would ask, "Is it really fair that we always put the roads through
                                                  poor or middle-income neighborhoods?" I want politicians to feel some internal agony
                                                  over every choice, while still making a choice.

                                                  Isn't that the core of existentialism? Most choices have a negative, Sartre said, but we tend
                                                  to ignore the negatives so we can act free of guilt. I want more guilt from our leaders. Lots
                                                  more guilt.
                                                • bhvwd
                                                  ... take place, but ... celebrate any ... evolutionary steps. My ... to be a position adopted ... win in the political arena, I ... to argue that the ...
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...>
                                                    wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                    > > The former, social discourse, is a space wherein a debate can
                                                    take place, but
                                                    > > if I am consigned a role in such, I do not see why I should
                                                    celebrate any
                                                    > > middle.
                                                    >
                                                    > To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow
                                                    evolutionary steps. My
                                                    > very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely
                                                    to be a position adopted
                                                    > by most voters / politicians. Instead of trying for an "outright
                                                    win" in the political arena, I
                                                    > try to argue other elements of the problem. For example, it is hard
                                                    to argue that the
                                                    > application reveals social and political biases in the courts.
                                                    Also, one can point to those
                                                    > freed thanks to DNA and modern forensics. In other words, I shift
                                                    the debate to those
                                                    > areas I think there might be consensus.
                                                    >
                                                    > Do I surrender my philosophical notion that the state shouldn't
                                                    take a life? No. But, I also
                                                    > realize there is a more effective approach politically.
                                                    >
                                                    > I've shifted a lot in life, from the normal "left" of undergraduate
                                                    years to a libertarian
                                                    > approach. The more I worked in / around government, the less I
                                                    trusted it.
                                                    >
                                                    > My philosophical approach is to still dream of a time when people
                                                    get along and help each
                                                    > other voluntarily. I still imagine people have a responsibility to
                                                    mutually respect each
                                                    > other's rights and freedoms.
                                                    >
                                                    > Politically? I see government in all nations is about the powerful
                                                    elites, not idealism.
                                                    >
                                                    > Philosophical grounding would help our leaders, as it would any
                                                    group of people. I want
                                                    > people to consider "The Other" and how our choices impinge on the
                                                    other. I want people
                                                    > to consider, "What if country/group X did Y to me? What of my
                                                    rights, then?"
                                                    >
                                                    > Yes, I'm definitely more libertarian than I was two decades ago.
                                                    I'm also more pro-union,
                                                    > I'm generally more ambivalent about my support for the ACLU (I
                                                    cannot believe they are
                                                    > supporting the installation of foot baths in our colleges in
                                                    Minnesota -- uhg), and still a
                                                    > devoted supporter of the National Wildlife Federation (but not the
                                                    Sierra Club).
                                                    >
                                                    > My philosophy remains apart from political action because I have to
                                                    compromise to get
                                                    > things done at the university and in our schools. You cannot go in
                                                    with "I think we should
                                                    > shift taxes collected from one district to the inner city schools" -
                                                    - a position I hold.
                                                    > Instead, you have to explain to the suburbs why they don't want
                                                    inner city schools
                                                    > collapsing and failing. My beliefs have to be mediated to get
                                                    action.
                                                    >
                                                    > I am not a politician, since I couldn't compromise nearly as often
                                                    as it is required. But, I
                                                    > have been much better at compromise in the last four years than in
                                                    the past.
                                                    >
                                                    > Pragmatism becomes more appealing when I need to accomplish
                                                    something. At those
                                                    > moments, Rorty and Schiappa guide my reasoning. When I shift to
                                                    freedoms, I still turn to
                                                    > a mix of Continental thinkers.
                                                    >
                                                    > Philosophy and the reality conflict. I support republican ideals,
                                                    with limits on the majority.
                                                    > I always fear the majority and its ability to abuse power -- even
                                                    when my views might be
                                                    > in the majority.
                                                    >
                                                    > When we implement a philosophy, it changes. What is good in the
                                                    ideal is always off when
                                                    > men and women try to implement those ideals.
                                                    >
                                                    > Politics is about getting things done. It means terrible choices,
                                                    like which houses must
                                                    > give way to new roads and transit lines. Politics is not
                                                    philosophy, at those moments. But, I
                                                    > think philosopher-leaders would ask, "Is it really fair that we
                                                    always put the roads through
                                                    > poor or middle-income neighborhoods?" I want politicians to feel
                                                    some internal agony
                                                    > over every choice, while still making a choice.
                                                    >
                                                    > Isn't that the core of existentialism? Most choices have a
                                                    negative, Sartre said, but we tend
                                                    > to ignore the negatives so we can act free of guilt. I want more
                                                    guilt from our leaders. Lots
                                                    > more guilt.
                                                    >CSW, With the people we have at the top there is no guilt.
                                                    Caligula rules and look out if you are his horse or sister. Bill
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.