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

Motivations, was Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Jul 1, 2007
      --- 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 2 of 24 , Jul 1, 2007
        --- 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 3 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
          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 4 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
            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 5 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
              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 6 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                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 7 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                  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 8 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                    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 9 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                      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 10 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                        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 11 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                          "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 12 of 24 , Jul 2, 2007
                            --- 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 13 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                              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 14 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                                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 15 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                                  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 16 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                                    --- 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 17 of 24 , Jul 3, 2007
                                      --- 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.