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

My views Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.