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

Re: [existlist] politics

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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.