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

Perspectiveism follows existentialism

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    It could be that existentialism is closing. It has done a job in placing the sentient species of record in space time and hierarchical order. That has
    Message 1 of 20 , May 31, 2009
      It could be that existentialism is closing. It has done a job in placing the sentient species of record in space time and hierarchical order. That has been a long slog with most still on the trail, never to finish. For those of us who have this general understanding of life it seems incumbent upon us to refine and more precisely order this existence.
      Personal perspective may be easier to build than existentialism was to learn. Most of us already have an advanced personal philosophy. I may still have a copy of mine and I am sure several of you may have a similar document in the closet, so to speak.
      The perspective could stand above the existential and personal philosophies. It could be the proximate before action and as the pivot before motion would need constant tending and mending. It sounds like change demanding change but that is how I view temporality. Busy,busy, busy and then you fall dead.
      I do not think it ignobile that we argue and debate, it is part of the process of building a perspective. Luckily we are not within weapons range of each other on this list. Perspective building is a prickly business when the emotions of creativeness start flowing, I mean you get involved.
      Perspectivism gets involved with the others and that seems our central problem. Obama`s "no drama" modality has merit and seems to be working. The Kennedy`s taught us to never quit and now Obama teaches us to go lightly. The Clintons taught us to answer every charge immediately but Obama would rather hold for better perspective. He waits for that little change of angle that may give you a better chance of succeeding.
      I actually feel we are beginning to restore progress to our existence. I should hold back until what GM and the DOW do on Monday. I will remember Paul Simon`s line,"we`ve built so well, so long".I`m still waiting for the day I can list my phone number and unlock my doors. Until then, keep your powder dry. Bill
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Bill: It could be that existentialism is closing. It has done a job in placing the sentient species of record in space time and hierarchical order. That has
      Message 2 of 20 , May 31, 2009
        Bill: "It could be that existentialism is closing. It has done a job in placing the sentient species of record in space time and hierarchical order. That has been a long slog with most still on the trail, never to finish. For those of us who have this general understanding of life it seems incumbent upon us to refine and more precisely order this existence."

        Response: Our (the US) pseudo great awakening of recent years spawned by the GOP and the loony fundamentalist Christians has already crumbled into a handful of dangerous sociopaths and hysterics. God will vanish yet again, you wait and see. All that is needed is a good loud laugh. Gods cannot abide disrespect. They hate it even more than disbelief.

        Such are the seeds of Existentialism.

        Wil













        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • mary.josie59
        Wil, I ve opened an old closed door in my mind and decided to read Bulgakov s The Master and The Margarita. The notion that religious discussion is/was
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 2, 2009
          Wil,

          I've opened an old closed door in my mind and decided to read Bulgakov's "The Master and The Margarita." The notion that religious discussion is/was counterrevolutionary intrigues me. It's too bad communism gave atheism such a bad rap.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

          God will vanish yet again, you wait and see.
          All that is needed is a good loud laugh. Gods cannot abide disrespect. They hate
          it even more than disbelief.

          Such are the seeds of Existentialism.
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          It is too bad that communism gave socialism a bad name, or more specifically, that Stalin did. Wil ... From: mary.josie59 To:
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 2, 2009
            It is too bad that "communism" gave socialism a bad name, or more specifically, that Stalin did.

            Wil







            -----Original Message-----
            From: mary.josie59 <mary.josie59@...>
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:11 am
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Perspectiveism follows existentialism































            Wil,



            I've opened an old closed door in my mind and decided to read Bulgakov's "The Master and The Margarita." The notion that religious discussion is/was counterrevolutionary intrigues me. It's too bad communism gave atheism such a bad rap.



            Mary



            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:



            God will vanish yet again, you wait and see.

            All that is needed is a good loud laugh. Gods cannot abide disrespect. They hate

            it even more than disbelief.



            Such are the seeds of Existentialism.


























            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Exist List Moderator
            ... I m not sure all socialism has been so tainted. Europe, Israel, and Japan have generally adopted democratic socialism without panic over the label. The
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 2, 2009
              On Jun 02, 2009, at 10:42, eupraxis@... wrote:

              > It is too bad that "communism" gave socialism a bad name, or more
              > specifically, that Stalin did.

              I'm not sure all "socialism" has been so tainted. Europe, Israel, and
              Japan have generally adopted "democratic socialism" without panic over
              the label. The problem is that "socialism" in the United States has
              been stigmatized, plus there are definite cultural differences that
              are a result of history -- even if nobody alive today was part of that
              "Rugged Individualism" we celebrate.

              Even most libertarians are not anarchists or opposed to various safety
              nets. (We have to admit, there are some people who cannot be
              completely independent.) "Minimal government" has shifted greatly
              since we had presidents who refused to authorize aid during natural
              disasters. Some of us there there are too many safety nets, and some
              not really for essential aid.

              Still, socialism in the U.S. might struggle against perceptions, but
              most of the Western nations have no such problems with openly
              "socialist" political movements. In fact, I would rather we have an
              openly socialist party so at least there would be more debate. Right
              now, we have two major parties equally interested in distributing
              public largess -- just to different constituencies.

              It's just like the Supreme Court nonsense. Both parties call the other
              side "activist" when in reality they both want the courts to override
              *some* laws passed by legislatures and state voters. If you want to
              rhetorically swipe at someone in a debate, use the words socialist,
              fascist, activist, and something about "loyalty to party over the
              public."

              A real socialist party would at least be an interesting addition to
              the debates. Also, not very likely since the major parties are both
              dominated by advisers from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. (And no, I
              don't think of Wall Street as Capitalism, I think of it as corporatism.)

              Maybe there is a way to reform the label socialism? (I doubt "Marx"
              could be salvaged, but "socialism" seems distant enough for some
              hope.) Then again, does the label matter? What about some other label
              for the political movements?

              I'm unlikely to support many ideas put forth by a declared Socialist
              Party. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there would be a real debate,
              versus the idiotic name calling and nonsense you see on Fox News or
              MSNBC -- both of which I think are horrible and too "scream and shout"
              personality-driven. Real debate would require low-key and moderated
              discussions.

              Personally, I'm not optimistic that anyone would want serious debates.
              Shouting gets ratings and keeps people confused.


              - 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
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              I was speaking in terms of the US where both atheism and socialism are given the advisory labels of un-American or the like. My views on both subjects are well
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 2, 2009
                I was speaking in terms of the US where both atheism and socialism are given the advisory labels of un-American or the like. My views on both subjects are well known, so I will not belabor the point.

                I must say, though, that I have begun to pay attention to FOX-News lately, and I have come to fear those guys. Say what you want about MSNBC, by which one means Olbermann and Maddow, but their reasoned points of view cannot be compared with the rabble-rousing propoganda of the whole FOX-News schedule.

                Wil







                -----Original Message-----
                From: Exist List Moderator <existlist1@...>
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 2:13 pm
                Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Perspectiveism follows existentialism































                On Jun 02, 2009, at 10:42, eupraxis@... wrote:



                > It is too bad that "communism" gave socialism a bad name, or more

                > specifically, that Stalin did.



                I'm not sure all "socialism" has been so tainted. Europe, Israel, and

                Japan have generally adopted "democratic socialism" without panic over

                the label. The problem is that "socialism" in the United States has

                been stigmatized, plus there are definite cultural differences that

                are a result of history -- even if nobody alive today was part of that

                "Rugged Individualism" we celebrate.



                Even most libertarians are not anarchists or opposed to various safety

                nets. (We have to admit, there are some people who cannot be

                completely independent.) "Minimal government" has shifted greatly

                since we had presidents who refused to authorize aid during natural

                disasters. Some of us there there are too many safety nets, and some

                not really for essential aid.



                Still, socialism in the U.S. might struggle against perceptions, but

                most of the Western nations have no such problems with openly

                "socialist" political movements. In fact, I would rather we have an

                openly socialist party so at least there would be more debate. Right

                now, we have two major parties equally interested in distributing

                public largess -- just to different constituencies.



                It's just like the Supreme Court nonsense. Both parties call the other

                side "activist" when in reality they both want the courts to override

                *some* laws passed by legislatures and state voters. If you want to

                rhetorically swipe at someone in a debate, use the words socialist,

                fascist, activist, and something about "loyalty to party over the

                public."



                A real socialist party would at least be an interesting addition to

                the debates. Also, not very likely since the major parties are both

                dominated by advisers from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. (And no, I

                don't think of Wall Street as Capitalism, I think of it as corporatism.)



                Maybe there is a way to reform the label socialism? (I doubt "Marx"

                could be salvaged, but "socialism" seems distant enough for some

                hope.) Then again, does the label matter? What about some other label

                for the political movements?



                I'm unlikely to support many ideas put forth by a declared Socialist

                Party. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there would be a real debate,

                versus the idiotic name calling and nonsense you see on Fox News or

                MSNBC -- both of which I think are horrible and too "scream and shout"

                personality-driven. Real debate would require low-key and moderated

                discussions.



                Personally, I'm not optimistic that anyone would want serious debates.

                Shouting gets ratings and keeps people confused.



                - 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


























                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Exist List Moderator
                ... Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant in Western nations, generally. Quite a different matter than the U.S. lack of political variation. I m
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 2, 2009
                  On Jun 02, 2009, at 14:39, eupraxis@... wrote:

                  > I was speaking in terms of the US where both atheism and socialism
                  > are given the advisory labels of un-American or the like.

                  Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant in Western nations,
                  generally. Quite a different matter than the U.S. lack of political
                  variation. I'm still trying to determine, other than "moderately
                  liberal," what one might call the current administration. I don't
                  perceive a strong, ideological foundation. I heard Obama and Gibbs
                  both use the word "pragmatism" to describe the approach.

                  I'm trying to recall "pragmatism" within philosophy. I know Ed
                  Schiappa and a few others have written on pragmatism, philosophy, and
                  the law. With Obama being a legal scholar, I have thought he might be
                  influenced by various legal philosophers. Not sure, though.

                  Increasing numbers of U.S. adults are "unaffiliated" or even "agnostic/
                  atheistic" in surveys. Since I'm among those numbers, I guess I never
                  notice much stigma.

                  As for whatever each person thinks, I'd rather we have those thoughts
                  and debates than blind nationalism or loyalty to parties that stand
                  only for re-election. Of course, I'm openly cynical and distrustful of
                  authority. Debate and *actual reporting* would help.

                  A U.K. author I just read (Kamran Nazeer) summed it up well: Is it
                  really so horrible that only half of people vote? It implies that
                  things are "good enough" for the average citizen. We are a culture of
                  "good enough" when it comes to leadership. Only when things go wrong
                  do citizens get engaged. I think Nazeer might be right. I know I am
                  rather "ho-hum" about local issues and don't get excited over the
                  "Franken vs. Coleman" senate nonsense, unlike my neighbors with yard
                  signs for one or the other. My life won't change radically -- we live
                  near both men and they're roughly similar, ironically. (Neither polls
                  above 45% approval.) Hard to be passionate, but easy to be exhausted
                  by the system.


                  > I must say, though, that I have begun to pay attention to FOX-News
                  > lately...

                  I'm apparently in that fading minority of CNN and CNBC viewers. I was
                  shocked (horrified) to see that Fox Business News has gained viewers.
                  It's the worst "reporting" and interviewing I've seen. I watch CNBC
                  throughout the day, but switch it off after about 5 p.m. Eastern when
                  CNBC joins the "personality-driven" nonsense with shouting and over-
                  confidence.

                  I admit that I'm not a "prime time" viewer of news. We have been
                  watching History International (Life After People, 10000 BC) and a
                  fair amount of "HGTV" to get ideas for our home renovations.

                  Educational content aside, I'm all about procedurals. Nothing beats a
                  good mystery.

                  - 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
                • devogney
                  ... CS, You say, or at least agree with quote A U.K. author I just read (Kamran Nazeer) summed it up well: Is it really so horrible that only half of people
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 2, 2009
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator

                    CS,
                    You say, or at least agree with quote
                    A U.K. author I just read (Kamran Nazeer) summed it up well: Is it
                    really so horrible that only half of people vote? It implies that
                    things are "good enough" for the average citizen. We are a culture of
                    "good enough" when it comes to leadership

                    Maybe, and maybe not,

                    Like you say in other parts of post, there is often the belief that both candidates are largely controlled by the same corporate interests,therefore many people are dissatisfied but cynical that either candidate will attempt to correct the areas that they find unsatisfactory.

                    As for as Fox News and the various Clear Channel jocks, I see them as very close to the fictional Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 as truth can get to fiction.Their use of newspeak is amazing. Guys like Shaun Hannity play songs like "Let Freedom Ring", yet support the drug wars, porn wars, etc. Their idea of freedom only includes the right to go to the Judeo Christian church of your choice on Saturday or Sunday, and buy the 401k plan of your choice. The Heritage Foundation advertises on their shows, which claims to support the ideas of the founding fathers;however, Jefferson who wrote most of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was the total opposite of the warlike Neocon Heritage Foundation. He like Washington was against foreign entanglements, and saw a standing army as dangerous to the citizens' liberty.Like the judges who call themselves originalists, Jefferson would have called enemies. Jefferson said he'd rather have too much liberty than not enough;whereas Judge Scalia uses his legal mind to find some justification for expanding police powers.

                    As Hitler said about propaganda, it is geared to the lowest intelligences.


                    Hitler on Propaganda
                    In chapter six of Mein Kampf, Hitler reviewed the use of propaganda during World War I. In the course of his criticism of the German effort, he included comments on the function of propaganda in general. His statements offer insight into the methods used by the Nazi Party.

                    Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943.

                    The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.

                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                    All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.

                    The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.

                    The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

                    Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
                    It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

                    The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

                    Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                    What, for example, would we say about a poster that was supposed to advertise a new soap and that described other soaps as 'good'?

                    We would only shake our heads.

                    Exactly the same applies to political advertising.

                    The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly


                    Hitler believed that he who controlled the mass mind. controlled the world.Rupert Murdoch was able to buy up almost all radio stations, and get right wing talk radio to flourish as Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine and ceased to enforce anti trust legislation.

                    Tom


                    <existlist1@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > On Jun 02, 2009, at 14:39, eupraxis@... wrote:
                    >
                    > > I was speaking in terms of the US where both atheism and socialism
                    > > are given the advisory labels of un-American or the like.
                    >
                    > Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant in Western nations,
                    > generally. Quite a different matter than the U.S. lack of political
                    > variation. I'm still trying to determine, other than "moderately
                    > liberal," what one might call the current administration. I don't
                    > perceive a strong, ideological foundation. I heard Obama and Gibbs
                    > both use the word "pragmatism" to describe the approach.
                    >
                    > I'm trying to recall "pragmatism" within philosophy. I know Ed
                    > Schiappa and a few others have written on pragmatism, philosophy, and
                    > the law. With Obama being a legal scholar, I have thought he might be
                    > influenced by various legal philosophers. Not sure, though.
                    >
                    > Increasing numbers of U.S. adults are "unaffiliated" or even "agnostic/
                    > atheistic" in surveys. Since I'm among those numbers, I guess I never
                    > notice much stigma.
                    >
                    > As for whatever each person thinks, I'd rather we have those thoughts
                    > and debates than blind nationalism or loyalty to parties that stand
                    > only for re-election. Of course, I'm openly cynical and distrustful of
                    > authority. Debate and *actual reporting* would help.
                    >
                    > A U.K. author I just read (Kamran Nazeer) summed it up well: Is it
                    > really so horrible that only half of people vote? It implies that
                    > things are "good enough" for the average citizen. We are a culture of
                    > "good enough" when it comes to leadership. Only when things go wrong
                    > do citizens get engaged. I think Nazeer might be right. I know I am
                    > rather "ho-hum" about local issues and don't get excited over the
                    > "Franken vs. Coleman" senate nonsense, unlike my neighbors with yard
                    > signs for one or the other. My life won't change radically -- we live
                    > near both men and they're roughly similar, ironically. (Neither polls
                    > above 45% approval.) Hard to be passionate, but easy to be exhausted
                    > by the system.
                    >
                    >
                    > > I must say, though, that I have begun to pay attention to FOX-News
                    > > lately...
                    >
                    > I'm apparently in that fading minority of CNN and CNBC viewers. I was
                    > shocked (horrified) to see that Fox Business News has gained viewers.
                    > It's the worst "reporting" and interviewing I've seen. I watch CNBC
                    > throughout the day, but switch it off after about 5 p.m. Eastern when
                    > CNBC joins the "personality-driven" nonsense with shouting and over-
                    > confidence.
                    >
                    > I admit that I'm not a "prime time" viewer of news. We have been
                    > watching History International (Life After People, 10000 BC) and a
                    > fair amount of "HGTV" to get ideas for our home renovations.
                    >
                    > Educational content aside, I'm all about procedurals. Nothing beats a
                    > good mystery.
                    >
                    > - 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
                    >
                  • louise
                    Tom, I cannot join in any extended discussion at present. Would just like to ask whether people at the list consider that evil is a genuine category.
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                      Tom,

                      I cannot join in any extended discussion at present. Would just like to ask whether people at the list consider that evil is a genuine category. Nietzsche may have thought he passed beyond it, but none of us here are Nietszche. Evil appears in many guises, small and large. Hitler's National Socialists have indeed been traduced in some ways, but their collective actions are mired in the vilest of evil. The more so as time went on. Maybe the banality of evil continues in the air of hopeless cynicism and indifference so prevailing. I stand by all my writings, not because they are intrinsically defensible, but because I am subject to a form of torture out of my control. I happen to think that Hitler's legacy is not very important, except to those whose families have been affected by the events of the Second World War and surrounding times, and to those who bravely continue a fight against the odds for the ideal implicit within the Swastika. Understanding Nazism does not seem to help in combatting similar evils in different clothes.

                      Louise

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devogney" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                      >
                      > CS,
                      > You say, or at least agree with quote
                      > A U.K. author I just read (Kamran Nazeer) summed it up well: Is it
                      > really so horrible that only half of people vote? It implies that
                      > things are "good enough" for the average citizen. We are a culture of
                      > "good enough" when it comes to leadership
                      >
                      > Maybe, and maybe not,
                      >
                      > Like you say in other parts of post, there is often the belief that both candidates are largely controlled by the same corporate interests,therefore many people are dissatisfied but cynical that either candidate will attempt to correct the areas that they find unsatisfactory.
                      >
                      > As for as Fox News and the various Clear Channel jocks, I see them as very close to the fictional Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 as truth can get to fiction.Their use of newspeak is amazing. Guys like Shaun Hannity play songs like "Let Freedom Ring", yet support the drug wars, porn wars, etc. Their idea of freedom only includes the right to go to the Judeo Christian church of your choice on Saturday or Sunday, and buy the 401k plan of your choice. The Heritage Foundation advertises on their shows, which claims to support the ideas of the founding fathers;however, Jefferson who wrote most of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was the total opposite of the warlike Neocon Heritage Foundation. He like Washington was against foreign entanglements, and saw a standing army as dangerous to the citizens' liberty.Like the judges who call themselves originalists, Jefferson would have called enemies. Jefferson said he'd rather have too much liberty than not enough;whereas Judge Scalia uses his legal mind to find some justification for expanding police powers.
                      >
                      > As Hitler said about propaganda, it is geared to the lowest intelligences.
                      >
                      >
                      > Hitler on Propaganda
                      > In chapter six of Mein Kampf, Hitler reviewed the use of propaganda during World War I. In the course of his criticism of the German effort, he included comments on the function of propaganda in general. His statements offer insight into the methods used by the Nazi Party.
                      >
                      > Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943.
                      >
                      > The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.
                      >
                      > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                      >
                      > All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
                      >
                      > The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
                      >
                      > The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
                      >
                      > Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
                      > It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
                      >
                      > The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
                      >
                      > Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.
                      >
                      > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                      >
                      > What, for example, would we say about a poster that was supposed to advertise a new soap and that described other soaps as 'good'?
                      >
                      > We would only shake our heads.
                      >
                      > Exactly the same applies to political advertising.
                      >
                      > The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly
                      >
                      >
                      > Hitler believed that he who controlled the mass mind. controlled the world.Rupert Murdoch was able to buy up almost all radio stations, and get right wing talk radio to flourish as Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine and ceased to enforce anti trust legislation.
                      >
                      > Tom
                      >
                      >
                      > <existlist1@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > On Jun 02, 2009, at 14:39, eupraxis@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > > > I was speaking in terms of the US where both atheism and socialism
                      > > > are given the advisory labels of un-American or the like.
                      > >
                      > > Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant in Western nations,
                      > > generally. Quite a different matter than the U.S. lack of political
                      > > variation. I'm still trying to determine, other than "moderately
                      > > liberal," what one might call the current administration. I don't
                      > > perceive a strong, ideological foundation. I heard Obama and Gibbs
                      > > both use the word "pragmatism" to describe the approach.
                      > >
                      > > I'm trying to recall "pragmatism" within philosophy. I know Ed
                      > > Schiappa and a few others have written on pragmatism, philosophy, and
                      > > the law. With Obama being a legal scholar, I have thought he might be
                      > > influenced by various legal philosophers. Not sure, though.
                      > >
                      > > Increasing numbers of U.S. adults are "unaffiliated" or even "agnostic/
                      > > atheistic" in surveys. Since I'm among those numbers, I guess I never
                      > > notice much stigma.
                      > >
                      > > As for whatever each person thinks, I'd rather we have those thoughts
                      > > and debates than blind nationalism or loyalty to parties that stand
                      > > only for re-election. Of course, I'm openly cynical and distrustful of
                      > > authority. Debate and *actual reporting* would help.
                      > >
                      > > A U.K. author I just read (Kamran Nazeer) summed it up well: Is it
                      > > really so horrible that only half of people vote? It implies that
                      > > things are "good enough" for the average citizen. We are a culture of
                      > > "good enough" when it comes to leadership. Only when things go wrong
                      > > do citizens get engaged. I think Nazeer might be right. I know I am
                      > > rather "ho-hum" about local issues and don't get excited over the
                      > > "Franken vs. Coleman" senate nonsense, unlike my neighbors with yard
                      > > signs for one or the other. My life won't change radically -- we live
                      > > near both men and they're roughly similar, ironically. (Neither polls
                      > > above 45% approval.) Hard to be passionate, but easy to be exhausted
                      > > by the system.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > I must say, though, that I have begun to pay attention to FOX-News
                      > > > lately...
                      > >
                      > > I'm apparently in that fading minority of CNN and CNBC viewers. I was
                      > > shocked (horrified) to see that Fox Business News has gained viewers.
                      > > It's the worst "reporting" and interviewing I've seen. I watch CNBC
                      > > throughout the day, but switch it off after about 5 p.m. Eastern when
                      > > CNBC joins the "personality-driven" nonsense with shouting and over-
                      > > confidence.
                      > >
                      > > I admit that I'm not a "prime time" viewer of news. We have been
                      > > watching History International (Life After People, 10000 BC) and a
                      > > fair amount of "HGTV" to get ideas for our home renovations.
                      > >
                      > > Educational content aside, I'm all about procedurals. Nothing beats a
                      > > good mystery.
                      > >
                      > > - 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
                      > >
                      >
                    • Shel Bernstein
                      shelb@sonic.net From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mary.josie59 Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:11 AM To:
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                        shelb@...



                        From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                        Of mary.josie59
                        Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:11 AM
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: Perspectiveism follows existentialism








                        Wil,

                        I've opened an old closed door in my mind and decided to read Bulgakov's
                        "The Master and The Margarita." The notion that religious discussion is/was
                        counterrevolutionary intrigues me. It's too bad communism gave atheism such
                        a bad rap.

                        Mary

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                        eupraxis@... wrote:

                        God will vanish yet again, you wait and see.
                        All that is needed is a good loud laugh. Gods cannot abide disrespect. They
                        hate
                        it even more than disbelief.

                        Such are the seeds of Existentialism.





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Exist List Moderator
                        ... Not even controlled by corporate interests. I often wonder, why would anyone want to be a governor, a senator, or national leader? It seems that some level
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                          On Jun 02, 2009, at 19:44, devogney wrote:

                          > Like you say in other parts of post, there is often the belief that
                          > both candidates are largely controlled by the same corporate
                          > interests,therefore many people are dissatisfied but cynical that
                          > either candidate will attempt to correct the areas that they find
                          > unsatisfactory.

                          Not even controlled by corporate interests. I often wonder, why would
                          anyone want to be a governor, a senator, or national leader? It seems
                          that some level of self-delusion is necessary to think you have better
                          answers or any answers at all...

                          Think about what we expect of our leaders. They're supposed to know /
                          comprehend everything from scientific information to advanced macro
                          economics. The best leaders listen to experts, but even that means you
                          have to have an education well beyond what most leaders possess. It is
                          a paradox: I want a president, a senator, a prime minister, etc. much
                          smarter and wiser than the masses -- but I also have a mild respect
                          for the rights of the masses to be heard.

                          Of course, I don't understand the appeal of many professions that have
                          to deal with the public mood and shifting fancies.

                          I struggle with an inherent elitism versus democratic / republican
                          ideals. Do I trust the "average man" and his/her voting after watching
                          the mess that is California, with its version of hyper-democracy? I
                          like the republican model of not always letting the herd lead us off a
                          cliff. Yet, that makes me feel like an elitist snob. (I also feel that
                          way walking through a county fair or shopping at any major retailer.)

                          > As for as Fox News and the various Clear Channel jocks...

                          I cannot comment on Sean -- he annoys me more than Michael Savage, who
                          at least is so over the top you feel like you're in on the joke. Ten
                          minutes of Sean is enough for me to cringe and switch over to classic
                          rock or classical music.

                          Not sure how many are still under Clear Channel, either. Sean is owned
                          by Citadel, but Premier (a CC company) does distribute his show. Randi
                          Rhodes is also Clear Channel, as are several previous "Air America"
                          personalities. The odder mix is Salem Communications. Salem owns
                          "Townhall.com" along with various magazines, blogs, radio stations,
                          and a huge syndication system.

                          Fox is all about money. Rupert Murdoch, quoting Michael Wolff, cares
                          only about money. If Air America or MSNBC made millions, Murdoch would
                          emulate them within days.

                          I guess people like those talking heads. I definitely prefer to be
                          entertained by mysteries on television, old-time radio shows, and
                          classic rock. More than an hour or two of talk radio and I can sense
                          my IQ dropping and brain locking.

                          The shows I ddid like where all out of San Francisco. They were as
                          much about entertainment and fun topics as they were about politics.
                          I'd rather hear a show on "best Bay Area Burger" -- information I can
                          really use.


                          - 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
                        • tom
                          Louise, The reason I quoted Hitler is that I consider him one of the most effective propagandist of the 20th century. In the page I quote he is affect defines
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                            Louise,

                            The reason I quoted Hitler is that I consider him one of the most effective propagandist of the 20th century. In the page I quote he is affect defines propaganda as communication which is primarily designed to influence rather than inform. Hitler uses the example of a commercial for a soap powder, saying What, for example, would we say about a poster that was supposed to advertise a new soap and that described other soaps as 'good'?

                            We would only shake our heads.

                            Exactly the same applies to political advertising.


                            The fact that someone so proficient at propaganda appears in these paraghraphs to be rather candid makes it quite interesting to me. The fact that Nazism has not been a contender in the last 64 years or so is to me rather irrelevent since his discussion of propaganda goes beyond the ideology or product being pedaled. Hitler in Germany and J Edgar Hoover in the US were among the first and the most proficient at using what was at the time the emerging electronic media to promote their political agenda. Whither we consider evil a genuine category or merely a strategy to me is irrelevent to understanding the impact of agendized communication. I was responding to CS's comments in a previous post which said

                            I'm unlikely to support many ideas put forth by a declared Socialist
                            Party. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there would be a real debate,
                            versus the idiotic name calling and nonsense you see on Fox News or
                            MSNBC -- both of which I think are horrible and too "scream and shout"
                            personality-driven. Real debate would require low-key and moderated
                            discussions.

                            Personally, I'm not optimistic that anyone would want serious debates.
                            Shouting gets ratings and keeps people confused.

                            Hitler says propaganda should

                            The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

                            Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

                            I believe that seeing Fox News and a number of other media outlets in this sense makes sence of the idiotic name calling and shouting. As Hitler says The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.

                            I believe that seeing so much of media coverage as propaganda rather than scientific training makes sence of things that looked at from an intellectual point of view are senseless.

                            Tom







                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: louise
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:08 AM
                            Subject: [existlist] Re: Perspectiveism follows existentialism





                            Tom,

                            I cannot join in any extended discussion at present. Would just like to ask whether people at the list consider that evil is a genuine category. Nietzsche may have thought he passed beyond it, but none of us here are Nietszche. Evil appears in many guises, small and large. Hitler's National Socialists have indeed been traduced in some ways, but their collective actions are mired in the vilest of evil. The more so as time went on. Maybe the banality of evil continues in the air of hopeless cynicism and indifference so prevailing. I stand by all my writings, not because they are intrinsically defensible, but because I am subject to a form of torture out of my control. I happen to think that Hitler's legacy is not very important, except to those whose families have been affected by the events of the Second World War and surrounding times, and to those who bravely continue a fight against the odds for the ideal implicit within the Swastika. Understanding Nazism does not seem to help in combatting similar evils in different clothes.

                            Louise

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "devogney" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                            >
                            > CS,
                            > You say, or at least agree with quote
                            > A U.K. author I just read (Kamran Nazeer) summed it up well: Is it
                            > really so horrible that only half of people vote? It implies that
                            > things are "good enough" for the average citizen. We are a culture of
                            > "good enough" when it comes to leadership
                            >
                            > Maybe, and maybe not,
                            >
                            > Like you say in other parts of post, there is often the belief that both candidates are largely controlled by the same corporate interests,therefore many people are dissatisfied but cynical that either candidate will attempt to correct the areas that they find unsatisfactory.
                            >
                            > As for as Fox News and the various Clear Channel jocks, I see them as very close to the fictional Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 as truth can get to fiction.Their use of newspeak is amazing. Guys like Shaun Hannity play songs like "Let Freedom Ring", yet support the drug wars, porn wars, etc. Their idea of freedom only includes the right to go to the Judeo Christian church of your choice on Saturday or Sunday, and buy the 401k plan of your choice. The Heritage Foundation advertises on their shows, which claims to support the ideas of the founding fathers;however, Jefferson who wrote most of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was the total opposite of the warlike Neocon Heritage Foundation. He like Washington was against foreign entanglements, and saw a standing army as dangerous to the citizens' liberty.Like the judges who call themselves originalists, Jefferson would have called enemies. Jefferson said he'd rather have too much liberty than not enough;whereas Judge Scalia uses his legal mind to find some justification for expanding police powers.
                            >
                            > As Hitler said about propaganda, it is geared to the lowest intelligences.
                            >
                            >
                            > Hitler on Propaganda
                            > In chapter six of Mein Kampf, Hitler reviewed the use of propaganda during World War I. In the course of his criticism of the German effort, he included comments on the function of propaganda in general. His statements offer insight into the methods used by the Nazi Party.
                            >
                            > Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943.
                            >
                            > The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.
                            >
                            > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                            >
                            > All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
                            >
                            > The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
                            >
                            > The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
                            >
                            > Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
                            > It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
                            >
                            > The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
                            >
                            > Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.
                            >
                            > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                            >
                            > What, for example, would we say about a poster that was supposed to advertise a new soap and that described other soaps as 'good'?
                            >
                            > We would only shake our heads.
                            >
                            > Exactly the same applies to political advertising.
                            >
                            > The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly
                            >
                            >
                            > Hitler believed that he who controlled the mass mind. controlled the world.Rupert Murdoch was able to buy up almost all radio stations, and get right wing talk radio to flourish as Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine and ceased to enforce anti trust legislation.
                            >
                            > Tom
                            >
                            >
                            > <existlist1@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > On Jun 02, 2009, at 14:39, eupraxis@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > > > I was speaking in terms of the US where both atheism and socialism
                            > > > are given the advisory labels of un-American or the like.
                            > >
                            > > Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant in Western nations,
                            > > generally. Quite a different matter than the U.S. lack of political
                            > > variation. I'm still trying to determine, other than "moderately
                            > > liberal," what one might call the current administration. I don't
                            > > perceive a strong, ideological foundation. I heard Obama and Gibbs
                            > > both use the word "pragmatism" to describe the approach.
                            > >
                            > > I'm trying to recall "pragmatism" within philosophy. I know Ed
                            > > Schiappa and a few others have written on pragmatism, philosophy, and
                            > > the law. With Obama being a legal scholar, I have thought he might be
                            > > influenced by various legal philosophers. Not sure, though.
                            > >
                            > > Increasing numbers of U.S. adults are "unaffiliated" or even "agnostic/
                            > > atheistic" in surveys. Since I'm among those numbers, I guess I never
                            > > notice much stigma.
                            > >
                            > > As for whatever each person thinks, I'd rather we have those thoughts
                            > > and debates than blind nationalism or loyalty to parties that stand
                            > > only for re-election. Of course, I'm openly cynical and distrustful of
                            > > authority. Debate and *actual reporting* would help.
                            > >
                            > > A U.K. author I just read (Kamran Nazeer) summed it up well: Is it
                            > > really so horrible that only half of people vote? It implies that
                            > > things are "good enough" for the average citizen. We are a culture of
                            > > "good enough" when it comes to leadership. Only when things go wrong
                            > > do citizens get engaged. I think Nazeer might be right. I know I am
                            > > rather "ho-hum" about local issues and don't get excited over the
                            > > "Franken vs. Coleman" senate nonsense, unlike my neighbors with yard
                            > > signs for one or the other. My life won't change radically -- we live
                            > > near both men and they're roughly similar, ironically. (Neither polls
                            > > above 45% approval.) Hard to be passionate, but easy to be exhausted
                            > > by the system.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > I must say, though, that I have begun to pay attention to FOX-News
                            > > > lately...
                            > >
                            > > I'm apparently in that fading minority of CNN and CNBC viewers. I was
                            > > shocked (horrified) to see that Fox Business News has gained viewers.
                            > > It's the worst "reporting" and interviewing I've seen. I watch CNBC
                            > > throughout the day, but switch it off after about 5 p.m. Eastern when
                            > > CNBC joins the "personality-driven" nonsense with shouting and over-
                            > > confidence.
                            > >
                            > > I admit that I'm not a "prime time" viewer of news. We have been
                            > > watching History International (Life After People, 10000 BC) and a
                            > > fair amount of "HGTV" to get ideas for our home renovations.
                            > >
                            > > Educational content aside, I'm all about procedurals. Nothing beats a
                            > > good mystery.
                            > >
                            > > - 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
                            > >
                            >





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • tom
                            CS, They are mostly in it for money, power, and prestige. Over half of congressmen who either retire or get defeated go to work as lobbyist these days. They
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                              CS,

                              They are mostly in it for money, power, and prestige. Over half of congressmen who either retire or get defeated go to work as lobbyist these days. They trade in a $175,000 a year job for one usually paying a million or more. About 3 and a half years ago, I heard the guy who is now our US representative, but was then a state senator say that most politicians are short term opportunists.During the Bush years, about 18 Republican congressmen and about 7 or 8 Democtatic congressmen were either indited, convicted, or forced to resign due to scandal[my figures may be off a bit but not a lot]. In any case, its about 4 or 5% of the representatives and senators. Whither taking bribes or speeding, only a small percent of the time are violators caught[otherwise people wouldn't do it]. Then you add in various things that are not specifically illegal, but are certainly means of profiting from their office like getting high paying jobs as lobbyists after their time in congress, their children and spouses getting high paying jobs, and various other things of which we can only guess, and it is easy to see the profitability of being in elective office. Look all around the country. In Illinois the last two governors have had major scandals. The former Republican governor of Illinois is in prison, and the recent Democratic governor has been forced to resign due to trying to sell a senate seat. Here in Tennessee, a few years ago a bunch of state senators and representatives were popped in an FBI sting. It goes on and on; and as I said above I suspect the % caught is no higher than the % of speeders caught.

                              I dont think most concern themselves with having better answers or any answers. I think most just do what their party leaders want, their big contributors, and what polls show is popular. A Libertarian online organization over the last few years has pushed for a read the bills act, which would require congressmen to read what they sign. At present, no one would have the time to read all the lenghthy legalese that passes capital hill. The fact that as baby boomers retire, a Social Security crisis will occur is because for years as we had a large work force of babyboomers to pay taxes to pay a smaller number of retirees much more than they contributed .In affect, it was similar to the Madoff scheme of paying large dividends by robbing Peter to pay Paul.


                              I'm sure Murdoch is very into money, but I suspect that more than advertising revenues are involved in their agenda. Since the Iraq War, most Clear Channel stations will not play any peace songs like "Imagine" etc. Clear Channel in one way or another is affiliated with record companies which no longer promote charismic personalities; and about the only rock that is available is 20, 30 or 40 years old.Certainly large profits were made by various corporations that made and promoted singers like Lennon, Jagger, Dylan, etc.Rupert's kingdom grew during the Reagan years due to the ending of the fairness doctrine, and not enforcing anti trust laws. I believe they have had bigger fish to fry than just immediate profits from radio revenues. Another right wing media outlet, the Washington Times[founded by Sun Myong moon has never made money

                              By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion in subsidies for the Times. The paper has lost money every year that it has been in business.[5] In 2003, The New Yorker reported that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception, as Moon himself had noted in a 1991 speech, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times"[6]. In 2002, Columbia Journalism Review suggested Moon had spent nearly $2 billion on the Times.[7] In 2008, Thomas F. Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer mentioned competition from the Times as a factor moving the Washington Post to the right, and said that Moon had "announced he will spend as many future billions as is needed to keep the paper competitive."[8]


                              Tom
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Exist List Moderator
                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:24 PM
                              Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Perspectiveism follows existentialism





                              On Jun 02, 2009, at 19:44, devogney wrote:

                              > Like you say in other parts of post, there is often the belief that
                              > both candidates are largely controlled by the same corporate
                              > interests,therefore many people are dissatisfied but cynical that
                              > either candidate will attempt to correct the areas that they find
                              > unsatisfactory.

                              Not even controlled by corporate interests. I often wonder, why would
                              anyone want to be a governor, a senator, or national leader? It seems
                              that some level of self-delusion is necessary to think you have better
                              answers or any answers at all...

                              Think about what we expect of our leaders. They're supposed to know /
                              comprehend everything from scientific information to advanced macro
                              economics. The best leaders listen to experts, but even that means you
                              have to have an education well beyond what most leaders possess. It is
                              a paradox: I want a president, a senator, a prime minister, etc. much
                              smarter and wiser than the masses -- but I also have a mild respect
                              for the rights of the masses to be heard.

                              Of course, I don't understand the appeal of many professions that have
                              to deal with the public mood and shifting fancies.

                              I struggle with an inherent elitism versus democratic / republican
                              ideals. Do I trust the "average man" and his/her voting after watching
                              the mess that is California, with its version of hyper-democracy? I
                              like the republican model of not always letting the herd lead us off a
                              cliff. Yet, that makes me feel like an elitist snob. (I also feel that
                              way walking through a county fair or shopping at any major retailer.)

                              > As for as Fox News and the various Clear Channel jocks...

                              I cannot comment on Sean -- he annoys me more than Michael Savage, who
                              at least is so over the top you feel like you're in on the joke. Ten
                              minutes of Sean is enough for me to cringe and switch over to classic
                              rock or classical music.

                              Not sure how many are still under Clear Channel, either. Sean is owned
                              by Citadel, but Premier (a CC company) does distribute his show. Randi
                              Rhodes is also Clear Channel, as are several previous "Air America"
                              personalities. The odder mix is Salem Communications. Salem owns
                              "Townhall.com" along with various magazines, blogs, radio stations,
                              and a huge syndication system.

                              Fox is all about money. Rupert Murdoch, quoting Michael Wolff, cares
                              only about money. If Air America or MSNBC made millions, Murdoch would
                              emulate them within days.

                              I guess people like those talking heads. I definitely prefer to be
                              entertained by mysteries on television, old-time radio shows, and
                              classic rock. More than an hour or two of talk radio and I can sense
                              my IQ dropping and brain locking.

                              The shows I ddid like where all out of San Francisco. They were as
                              much about entertainment and fun topics as they were about politics.
                              I'd rather hear a show on "best Bay Area Burger" -- information I can
                              really use.

                              - 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





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • bhvwd
                              ... Obama seems to be fighting back with his two night expo-see of internal White House life. We are shown an orderly and even happy situation. Do the
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > CS,
                                >
                                > They are mostly in it for money, power, and prestige. Over half of congressmen who either retire or get defeated go to work as lobbyist these days. They trade in a $175,000 a year job for one usually paying a million or more. About 3 and a half years ago, I heard the guy who is now our US representative, but was then a state senator say that most politicians are short term opportunists.During the Bush years, about 18 Republican congressmen and about 7 or 8 Democratic congressmen were either indited, convicted, or forced to resign due to scandal[my figures may be off a bit but not a lot]. In any case, its about 4 or 5% of the representatives and senators. Whither taking bribes or speeding, only a small percent of the time are violators caught[otherwise people wouldn't do it]. Then you add in various things that are not specifically illegal, but are certainly means of profiting from their office like getting high paying jobs as lobbyists after their time in congress, their children and spouses getting high paying jobs, and various other things of which we can only guess, and it is easy to see the profitability of being in elective office. Look all around the country. In Illinois the last two governors have had major scandals. The former Republican governor of Illinois is in prison, and the recent Democratic governor has been forced to resign due to trying to sell a senate seat. Here in Tennessee, a few years ago a bunch of state senators and representatives were popped in an FBI sting. It goes on and on; and as I said above I suspect the % caught is no higher than the % of speeders caught.
                                >
                                > I dont think most concern themselves with having better answers or any answers. I think most just do what their party leaders want, their big contributors, and what polls show is popular. A Libertarian online organization over the last few years has pushed for a read the bills act, which would require congressmen to read what they sign. At present, no one would have the time to read all the lenghthy legalese that passes capital hill. The fact that as baby boomers retire, a Social Security crisis will occur is because for years as we had a large work force of babyboomers to pay taxes to pay a smaller number of retirees much more than they contributed .In affect, it was similar to the Madoff scheme of paying large dividends by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
                                >
                                >
                                > I'm sure Murdoch is very into money, but I suspect that more than advertising revenues are involved in their agenda. Since the Iraq War, most Clear Channel stations will not play any peace songs like "Imagine" etc. Clear Channel in one way or another is affiliated with record companies which no longer promote charismic personalities; and about the only rock that is available is 20, 30 or 40 years old.Certainly large profits were made by various corporations that made and promoted singers like Lennon, Jagger, Dylan, etc.Rupert's kingdom grew during the Reagan years due to the ending of the fairness doctrine, and not enforcing anti trust laws. I believe they have had bigger fish to fry than just immediate profits from radio revenues. Another right wing media outlet, the Washington Times[founded by Sun Myong moon has never made money
                                >
                                > By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion in subsidies for the Times. The paper has lost money every year that it has been in business.[5] In 2003, The New Yorker reported that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception, as Moon himself had noted in a 1991 speech, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times"[6]. In 2002, Columbia Journalism Review suggested Moon had spent nearly $2 billion on the Times.[7] In 2008, Thomas F. Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer mentioned competition from the Times as a factor moving the Washington Post to the right, and said that Moon had "announced he will spend as many future billions as is needed to keep the paper competitive."[8]
                                >
                                >
                                > Tom
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: Exist List Moderator
                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:24 PM
                                > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Perspectivism follows existentialism
                                > Tom, Your post would suggest that things are too muddled in monetary and governmental affairs to allow any rational perception building.
                                Obama seems to be fighting back with his two night expo-see of internal White House life. We are shown an orderly and even happy situation. Do the Hanratty crew consider it propaganda? I think yes they do.
                                I notice a series on discovery that seems to aim to sensitize us to conditions in black Africa. It is the pictures of mosquitoes and flies on the baby`s face. If they just had more they could be saved from AIDS and Malaria and social devastation caused by the earlier white colonialism. So after I salvage my own mortgage and fuel my Detroit cars and refund my broken pension I am to revitalise tropical Africa.
                                I fear the world of organised reporting is fragmenting into gibberish. How can we make choices when all is propaganda.
                                It seems time to care about those things that can be accomplished and with our present global work force it seems we will be caring about damn little. Osama is screaming hate from his cave while Obama tries reconciliation in Egypt. Are these men the actual representations of evil and good. Can a true perception of all this yet possible? Bill
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > On Jun 02, 2009, at 19:44, devogney wrote:
                                >
                                > > Like you say in other parts of post, there is often the belief that
                                > > both candidates are largely controlled by the same corporate
                                > > interests,therefore many people are dissatisfied but cynical that
                                > > either candidate will attempt to correct the areas that they find
                                > > unsatisfactory.
                                >
                                > Not even controlled by corporate interests. I often wonder, why would
                                > anyone want to be a governor, a senator, or national leader? It seems
                                > that some level of self-delusion is necessary to think you have better
                                > answers or any answers at all...
                                >
                                > Think about what we expect of our leaders. They're supposed to know /
                                > comprehend everything from scientific information to advanced macro
                                > economics. The best leaders listen to experts, but even that means you
                                > have to have an education well beyond what most leaders possess. It is
                                > a paradox: I want a president, a senator, a prime minister, etc. much
                                > smarter and wiser than the masses -- but I also have a mild respect
                                > for the rights of the masses to be heard.
                                >
                                > Of course, I don't understand the appeal of many professions that have
                                > to deal with the public mood and shifting fancies.
                                >
                                > I struggle with an inherent elitism versus democratic / republican
                                > ideals. Do I trust the "average man" and his/her voting after watching
                                > the mess that is California, with its version of hyper-democracy? I
                                > like the republican model of not always letting the herd lead us off a
                                > cliff. Yet, that makes me feel like an elitist snob. (I also feel that
                                > way walking through a county fair or shopping at any major retailer.)
                                >
                                > > As for as Fox News and the various Clear Channel jocks...
                                >
                                > I cannot comment on Sean -- he annoys me more than Michael Savage, who
                                > at least is so over the top you feel like you're in on the joke. Ten
                                > minutes of Sean is enough for me to cringe and switch over to classic
                                > rock or classical music.
                                >
                                > Not sure how many are still under Clear Channel, either. Sean is owned
                                > by Citadel, but Premier (a CC company) does distribute his show. Randi
                                > Rhodes is also Clear Channel, as are several previous "Air America"
                                > personalities. The odder mix is Salem Communications. Salem owns
                                > "Townhall.com" along with various magazines, blogs, radio stations,
                                > and a huge syndication system.
                                >
                                > Fox is all about money. Rupert Murdoch, quoting Michael Wolff, cares
                                > only about money. If Air America or MSNBC made millions, Murdoch would
                                > emulate them within days.
                                >
                                > I guess people like those talking heads. I definitely prefer to be
                                > entertained by mysteries on television, old-time radio shows, and
                                > classic rock. More than an hour or two of talk radio and I can sense
                                > my IQ dropping and brain locking.
                                >
                                > The shows I ddid like where all out of San Francisco. They were as
                                > much about entertainment and fun topics as they were about politics.
                                > I'd rather hear a show on "best Bay Area Burger" -- information I can
                                > really use.
                                >
                                > - 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
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • bhvwd
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > CS,
                                  > >
                                  > > They are mostly in it for money, power, and prestige. Over half of congressmen who either retire or get defeated go to work as lobbyist these days. They trade in a $175,000 a year job for one usually paying a million or more. About 3 and a half years ago, I heard the guy who is now our US representative, but was then a state senator say that most politicians are short term opportunists.During the Bush years, about 18 Republican congressmen and about 7 or 8 Democratic congressmen were either indited, convicted, or forced to resign due to scandal[my figures may be off a bit but not a lot]. In any case, its about 4 or 5% of the representatives and senators. Whither taking bribes or speeding, only a small percent of the time are violators caught[otherwise people wouldn't do it]. Then you add in various things that are not specifically illegal, but are certainly means of profiting from their office like getting high paying jobs as lobbyists after their time in congress, their children and spouses getting high paying jobs, and various other things of which we can only guess, and it is easy to see the profitability of being in elective office. Look all around the country. In Illinois the last two governors have had major scandals. The former Republican governor of Illinois is in prison, and the recent Democratic governor has been forced to resign due to trying to sell a senate seat. Here in Tennessee, a few years ago a bunch of state senators and representatives were popped in an FBI sting. It goes on and on; and as I said above I suspect the % caught is no higher than the % of speeders caught.
                                  > >
                                  > > I dont think most concern themselves with having better answers or any answers. I think most just do what their party leaders want, their big contributors, and what polls show is popular. A Libertarian online organization over the last few years has pushed for a read the bills act, which would require congressmen to read what they sign. At present, no one would have the time to read all the lenghthy legalese that passes capital hill. The fact that as baby boomers retire, a Social Security crisis will occur is because for years as we had a large work force of babyboomers to pay taxes to pay a smaller number of retirees much more than they contributed .In affect, it was similar to the Madoff scheme of paying large dividends by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I'm sure Murdoch is very into money, but I suspect that more than advertising revenues are involved in their agenda. Since the Iraq War, most Clear Channel stations will not play any peace songs like "Imagine" etc. Clear Channel in one way or another is affiliated with record companies which no longer promote charismic personalities; and about the only rock that is available is 20, 30 or 40 years old.Certainly large profits were made by various corporations that made and promoted singers like Lennon, Jagger, Dylan, etc.Rupert's kingdom grew during the Reagan years due to the ending of the fairness doctrine, and not enforcing anti trust laws. I believe they have had bigger fish to fry than just immediate profits from radio revenues. Another right wing media outlet, the Washington Times[founded by Sun Myong moon has never made money
                                  > >
                                  > > By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion in subsidies for the Times. The paper has lost money every year that it has been in business.[5] In 2003, The New Yorker reported that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception, as Moon himself had noted in a 1991 speech, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times"[6]. In 2002, Columbia Journalism Review suggested Moon had spent nearly $2 billion on the Times.[7] In 2008, Thomas F. Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer mentioned competition from the Times as a factor moving the Washington Post to the right, and said that Moon had "announced he will spend as many future billions as is needed to keep the paper competitive."[8]
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Tom
                                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > > From: Exist List Moderator
                                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:24 PM
                                  > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Perspectivism follows existentialism
                                  > > Tom, Your post would suggest that things are too muddled in monetary and governmental affairs to allow any rational perception building.
                                  > Obama seems to be fighting back with his two night expo-see of internal White House life. We are shown an orderly and even happy situation. Do the Hanratty crew consider it propaganda? I think yes they do.
                                  > I notice a series on discovery that seems to aim to sensitize us to conditions in black Africa. It is the pictures of mosquitoes and flies on the baby`s face. If they just had more they could be saved from AIDS and Malaria and social devastation caused by the earlier white colonialism. So after I salvage my own mortgage and fuel my Detroit cars and refund my broken pension I am to revitalise tropical Africa.
                                  > I fear the world of organised reporting is fragmenting into gibberish. How can we make choices when all is propaganda.
                                  > It seems time to care about those things that can be accomplished and with our present global work force it seems we will be caring about damn little. Osama is screaming hate from his cave while Obama tries reconciliation in Egypt. Are these men the actual representations of evil and good. Can a true perception of all this yet possible? Bill
                                  > >
                                  > > P.S. The "can" in the last sentance above should read"Is" . Bill
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > On Jun 02, 2009, at 19:44, devogney wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > > Like you say in other parts of post, there is often the belief that
                                  > > > both candidates are largely controlled by the same corporate
                                  > > > interests,therefore many people are dissatisfied but cynical that
                                  > > > either candidate will attempt to correct the areas that they find
                                  > > > unsatisfactory.
                                  > >
                                  > > Not even controlled by corporate interests. I often wonder, why would
                                  > > anyone want to be a governor, a senator, or national leader? It seems
                                  > > that some level of self-delusion is necessary to think you have better
                                  > > answers or any answers at all...
                                  > >
                                  > > Think about what we expect of our leaders. They're supposed to know /
                                  > > comprehend everything from scientific information to advanced macro
                                  > > economics. The best leaders listen to experts, but even that means you
                                  > > have to have an education well beyond what most leaders possess. It is
                                  > > a paradox: I want a president, a senator, a prime minister, etc. much
                                  > > smarter and wiser than the masses -- but I also have a mild respect
                                  > > for the rights of the masses to be heard.
                                  > >
                                  > > Of course, I don't understand the appeal of many professions that have
                                  > > to deal with the public mood and shifting fancies.
                                  > >
                                  > > I struggle with an inherent elitism versus democratic / republican
                                  > > ideals. Do I trust the "average man" and his/her voting after watching
                                  > > the mess that is California, with its version of hyper-democracy? I
                                  > > like the republican model of not always letting the herd lead us off a
                                  > > cliff. Yet, that makes me feel like an elitist snob. (I also feel that
                                  > > way walking through a county fair or shopping at any major retailer.)
                                  > >
                                  > > > As for as Fox News and the various Clear Channel jocks...
                                  > >
                                  > > I cannot comment on Sean -- he annoys me more than Michael Savage, who
                                  > > at least is so over the top you feel like you're in on the joke. Ten
                                  > > minutes of Sean is enough for me to cringe and switch over to classic
                                  > > rock or classical music.
                                  > >
                                  > > Not sure how many are still under Clear Channel, either. Sean is owned
                                  > > by Citadel, but Premier (a CC company) does distribute his show. Randi
                                  > > Rhodes is also Clear Channel, as are several previous "Air America"
                                  > > personalities. The odder mix is Salem Communications. Salem owns
                                  > > "Townhall.com" along with various magazines, blogs, radio stations,
                                  > > and a huge syndication system.
                                  > >
                                  > > Fox is all about money. Rupert Murdoch, quoting Michael Wolff, cares
                                  > > only about money. If Air America or MSNBC made millions, Murdoch would
                                  > > emulate them within days.
                                  > >
                                  > > I guess people like those talking heads. I definitely prefer to be
                                  > > entertained by mysteries on television, old-time radio shows, and
                                  > > classic rock. More than an hour or two of talk radio and I can sense
                                  > > my IQ dropping and brain locking.
                                  > >
                                  > > The shows I ddid like where all out of San Francisco. They were as
                                  > > much about entertainment and fun topics as they were about politics.
                                  > > I'd rather hear a show on "best Bay Area Burger" -- information I can
                                  > > really use.
                                  > >
                                  > > - 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
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • tom
                                  Bill, Obama has said that the US could use more soft power like foreign aid to allow us to cut back on so called defense.{The term defense itself is
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jun 3, 2009
                                    Bill,

                                    Obama has said that the US could use more soft power like foreign aid to allow us to cut back on so called defense.{The term "defense" itself is newspeak]. A few years after WW2, the Dept of War became the Dept of Defense to justify expanding military budgets; whereas after other wars military was cut to the bone. Neocons may laugh at soft power, and consider it effete; but its been used by groups from Al Capone gang, Columbian drug lords, to Hamas. In the Bush years Africa was one of the few places that in polls showed approval of US, and that was due to US AIDS program there. Al Capone financed soup kitchens during depression, drug lords build hospitals, feed people etc, and Hamas after Lebanon war helped Lebanese rebuild.

                                    In my opinion, as citizens we look through a glass darkly. Exactly whats true I cant say. However, the fact that Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq for no betterr reason than a big thug beats up a little guy in prison was obvious to me. As Machiavelli pointed out 500 years ago, leaders are by nature a devious lot, but think Bush/Cheney were worse than most. The US started with some idealists like Washington and Jefferson, but it didnt last long. Both Washington and Jefferson died with their plantations buried in debt. They dont appear to have enriched themselves at public's expense. Bu the time of Jackson, we were moving in the direction that things were to become with spoils system.

                                    As the Simon/Garfield song used to say"The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls". Other communication usually has agendas.]

                                    Tom
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: bhvwd
                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:58 PM
                                    Subject: [existlist] Re: Perspectiveism follows existentialism





                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > CS,
                                    > >
                                    > > They are mostly in it for money, power, and prestige. Over half of congressmen who either retire or get defeated go to work as lobbyist these days. They trade in a $175,000 a year job for one usually paying a million or more. About 3 and a half years ago, I heard the guy who is now our US representative, but was then a state senator say that most politicians are short term opportunists.During the Bush years, about 18 Republican congressmen and about 7 or 8 Democratic congressmen were either indited, convicted, or forced to resign due to scandal[my figures may be off a bit but not a lot]. In any case, its about 4 or 5% of the representatives and senators. Whither taking bribes or speeding, only a small percent of the time are violators caught[otherwise people wouldn't do it]. Then you add in various things that are not specifically illegal, but are certainly means of profiting from their office like getting high paying jobs as lobbyists after their time in congress, their children and spouses getting high paying jobs, and various other things of which we can only guess, and it is easy to see the profitability of being in elective office. Look all around the country. In Illinois the last two governors have had major scandals. The former Republican governor of Illinois is in prison, and the recent Democratic governor has been forced to resign due to trying to sell a senate seat. Here in Tennessee, a few years ago a bunch of state senators and representatives were popped in an FBI sting. It goes on and on; and as I said above I suspect the % caught is no higher than the % of speeders caught.
                                    > >
                                    > > I dont think most concern themselves with having better answers or any answers. I think most just do what their party leaders want, their big contributors, and what polls show is popular. A Libertarian online organization over the last few years has pushed for a read the bills act, which would require congressmen to read what they sign. At present, no one would have the time to read all the lenghthy legalese that passes capital hill. The fact that as baby boomers retire, a Social Security crisis will occur is because for years as we had a large work force of babyboomers to pay taxes to pay a smaller number of retirees much more than they contributed .In affect, it was similar to the Madoff scheme of paying large dividends by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > I'm sure Murdoch is very into money, but I suspect that more than advertising revenues are involved in their agenda. Since the Iraq War, most Clear Channel stations will not play any peace songs like "Imagine" etc. Clear Channel in one way or another is affiliated with record companies which no longer promote charismic personalities; and about the only rock that is available is 20, 30 or 40 years old.Certainly large profits were made by various corporations that made and promoted singers like Lennon, Jagger, Dylan, etc.Rupert's kingdom grew during the Reagan years due to the ending of the fairness doctrine, and not enforcing anti trust laws. I believe they have had bigger fish to fry than just immediate profits from radio revenues. Another right wing media outlet, the Washington Times[founded by Sun Myong moon has never made money
                                    > >
                                    > > By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion in subsidies for the Times. The paper has lost money every year that it has been in business.[5] In 2003, The New Yorker reported that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception, as Moon himself had noted in a 1991 speech, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times"[6]. In 2002, Columbia Journalism Review suggested Moon had spent nearly $2 billion on the Times.[7] In 2008, Thomas F. Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer mentioned competition from the Times as a factor moving the Washington Post to the right, and said that Moon had "announced he will spend as many future billions as is needed to keep the paper competitive."[8]
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Tom
                                    > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > > From: Exist List Moderator
                                    > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:24 PM
                                    > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Perspectivism follows existentialism
                                    > > Tom, Your post would suggest that things are too muddled in monetary and governmental affairs to allow any rational perception building.
                                    > Obama seems to be fighting back with his two night expo-see of internal White House life. We are shown an orderly and even happy situation. Do the Hanratty crew consider it propaganda? I think yes they do.
                                    > I notice a series on discovery that seems to aim to sensitize us to conditions in black Africa. It is the pictures of mosquitoes and flies on the baby`s face. If they just had more they could be saved from AIDS and Malaria and social devastation caused by the earlier white colonialism. So after I salvage my own mortgage and fuel my Detroit cars and refund my broken pension I am to revitalise tropical Africa.
                                    > I fear the world of organised reporting is fragmenting into gibberish. How can we make choices when all is propaganda.
                                    > It seems time to care about those things that can be accomplished and with our present global work force it seems we will be caring about damn little. Osama is screaming hate from his cave while Obama tries reconciliation in Egypt. Are these men the actual representations of evil and good. Can a true perception of all this yet possible? Bill
                                    > >
                                    > > P.S. The "can" in the last sentance above should read"Is" . Bill
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > On Jun 02, 2009, at 19:44, devogney wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > > Like you say in other parts of post, there is often the belief that
                                    > > > both candidates are largely controlled by the same corporate
                                    > > > interests,therefore many people are dissatisfied but cynical that
                                    > > > either candidate will attempt to correct the areas that they find
                                    > > > unsatisfactory.
                                    > >
                                    > > Not even controlled by corporate interests. I often wonder, why would
                                    > > anyone want to be a governor, a senator, or national leader? It seems
                                    > > that some level of self-delusion is necessary to think you have better
                                    > > answers or any answers at all...
                                    > >
                                    > > Think about what we expect of our leaders. They're supposed to know /
                                    > > comprehend everything from scientific information to advanced macro
                                    > > economics. The best leaders listen to experts, but even that means you
                                    > > have to have an education well beyond what most leaders possess. It is
                                    > > a paradox: I want a president, a senator, a prime minister, etc. much
                                    > > smarter and wiser than the masses -- but I also have a mild respect
                                    > > for the rights of the masses to be heard.
                                    > >
                                    > > Of course, I don't understand the appeal of many professions that have
                                    > > to deal with the public mood and shifting fancies.
                                    > >
                                    > > I struggle with an inherent elitism versus democratic / republican
                                    > > ideals. Do I trust the "average man" and his/her voting after watching
                                    > > the mess that is California, with its version of hyper-democracy? I
                                    > > like the republican model of not always letting the herd lead us off a
                                    > > cliff. Yet, that makes me feel like an elitist snob. (I also feel that
                                    > > way walking through a county fair or shopping at any major retailer.)
                                    > >
                                    > > > As for as Fox News and the various Clear Channel jocks...
                                    > >
                                    > > I cannot comment on Sean -- he annoys me more than Michael Savage, who
                                    > > at least is so over the top you feel like you're in on the joke. Ten
                                    > > minutes of Sean is enough for me to cringe and switch over to classic
                                    > > rock or classical music.
                                    > >
                                    > > Not sure how many are still under Clear Channel, either. Sean is owned
                                    > > by Citadel, but Premier (a CC company) does distribute his show. Randi
                                    > > Rhodes is also Clear Channel, as are several previous "Air America"
                                    > > personalities. The odder mix is Salem Communications. Salem owns
                                    > > "Townhall.com" along with various magazines, blogs, radio stations,
                                    > > and a huge syndication system.
                                    > >
                                    > > Fox is all about money. Rupert Murdoch, quoting Michael Wolff, cares
                                    > > only about money. If Air America or MSNBC made millions, Murdoch would
                                    > > emulate them within days.
                                    > >
                                    > > I guess people like those talking heads. I definitely prefer to be
                                    > > entertained by mysteries on television, old-time radio shows, and
                                    > > classic rock. More than an hour or two of talk radio and I can sense
                                    > > my IQ dropping and brain locking.
                                    > >
                                    > > The shows I ddid like where all out of San Francisco. They were as
                                    > > much about entertainment and fun topics as they were about politics.
                                    > > I'd rather hear a show on "best Bay Area Burger" -- information I can
                                    > > really use.
                                    > >
                                    > > - 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
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > >
                                    >





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • mary.josie59
                                    When you discard the delusion that either a god and/or a devil is ruling the universe, you re left with human governments vying with the individual. In the
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jun 4, 2009
                                      When you discard the delusion that either a god and/or a devil is ruling the universe, you're left with human governments vying with the individual. In the introductory chapters of the satire, "The Master and the Margarita," the Devil suggests that no one governs their own life. I would say, no, not absolutely. I would also suggest that Nothing governs absolutely.

                                      Existentialism is also concerned with governance, who and how. We can micromanage within the swirling chaos of political idealism and civil laws. No one entity could possibly know what is best, or even expedient, for each human being, or our entire ecosystem, for that matter. The pursuit of happiness/self-governance can be terrifying, even within constructs as simple as "couple" or a "family."

                                      Watching television for anything other than entertainment deludes us into thinking we are actually participants in the madness presented to us as reality.

                                      Mary

                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator <existlist1@...> wrote:

                                      I often wonder, why would anyone want to be a governor, a senator, or national leader? It seems that some level of self-delusion is necessary to think you have better answers or any answers at all...
                                    • Exist List Moderator
                                      ... I checked. The party in power generally has twice the number of members under investigations that lead to either resignation or removal from office. If we
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jun 4, 2009
                                        On Jun 03, 2009, at 22:53, tom wrote:

                                        > opportunists.During the Bush years, about 18 Republican congressmen
                                        > and about 7 or 8 Democtatic congressmen were either indited,
                                        > convicted, or forced to resign due to scandal[my figures may be off
                                        > a bit but not a lot]. In any case, its about 4 or 5% of the
                                        > representatives and senators.

                                        I checked. The party in power generally has twice the number of
                                        members under investigations that lead to either resignation or
                                        removal from office. If we add those those do not resign, but are
                                        under investigation, it gets murky -- William Jefferson held on for a
                                        long time and John Murtha is expert at letting everyone around him sink.

                                        So, this supports your contention that people in power either tend
                                        towards or already were corrupt.

                                        Here, then is the question: do people get corrupted by the power or
                                        are people interested in power more likely to tend towards the
                                        corruption? I think the mess in the U.K shows that people in power
                                        start to think of themselves as somehow entitled to special treatment
                                        and endless expense accounts. In other words, the power and authority
                                        lead to a sense of being above and beyond normal ethics?

                                        > I'm sure Murdoch is very into money, but I suspect that more than
                                        > advertising revenues are involved in their agenda. Since the Iraq
                                        > War, most Clear Channel stations will not play any peace songs like
                                        > "Imagine" etc. Clear Channel in one way or another is affiliated
                                        > with record companies which no longer promote charismic
                                        > personalities...

                                        Separate -- very separate -- topic...

                                        Murdoch has no association with Clear Channel. Clear Channel is what
                                        it is, in large part, because it is a product of Texas. The
                                        corporation and most of its decisions are out of Texas, and like so
                                        much radio today the satellite feeds overwhelm local markets. There
                                        simply aren't many locally owned, locally operated, media outlets due
                                        to the expenses involved. (When I saw the operations budget for a
                                        small FM/AM country combo, it was near $1M in 1988 -- for a rural
                                        station! Electricity, satellites, and equipment are not cheap.)

                                        I've worked for several large media companies and can tell you that we
                                        were never told what to do. The problem is that the culture of any
                                        organization attracts like-minded individuals, so you end up with an
                                        echo chamber.

                                        My coworkers at newspapers and magazines were almost universally to
                                        the center-left. In radio, all three stations I've been at were
                                        universally to the right, even the heavy metal station.

                                        We know professions attract, generally not universally, certain
                                        outlooks, beliefs, and general philosophies. The people around me in
                                        the humanities departments at the university are, overwhelmingly, to
                                        the left. Some are quite far to the left and some are just quite far
                                        out there. If I were in a business school, more instructors might be
                                        to the center and right. The computer industry is generally centrist,
                                        while the "open source" advocates tend slightly more left.

                                        In other words, to say there is a bias among a group might not be any
                                        grand plot or scheme. Similar people end up at similar places. There
                                        are outliers, but rarely.

                                        > By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion in
                                        > subsidies for the Times.

                                        It looks like you grabbed the Washington Times section from Wikipedia.
                                        You can check the Times history directly via the UPI / NewsWorld
                                        Communications. Moon does indeed own the majority of shares in the
                                        Times, UPI, and NewsMax. UPI also supplies news to Salem
                                        Communications and several "conservative" publishers.

                                        The bigger question is if any of this is really new or reflects a
                                        social change. In reality, we have had "media magnates" since (and
                                        before) Wm. Randolph Hearst. Most newspaper and media chains were
                                        dominated by specific families, from the Chandlers in Los Angeles to
                                        the Grahams in D.C.

                                        Until the 1940s, most regional newspapers were party-controlled and
                                        named accordingly. There is a reason newspapers included "Press
                                        Democrat" and "Daily Republican" in their mastheads. The media were,
                                        until WWII, unabashedly biased and proud of those biases. I don't have
                                        a problem with that, since you knew exactly what to expect.

                                        If you want information, it is out there. The Nation, New Republic,
                                        Mother Jones, Utne Reader, and so on exist and are easier than ever to
                                        access online. If citizens choose to live sheltered from information,
                                        that's definitely a person choice.

                                        People opt for American Idol over BBC World Service. Britain's Got
                                        Talent spread across the globe like a virus... it was a choice people
                                        made.

                                        - 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
                                      • tom
                                        CS, I don t think it is likely that a very candid person adverse to corruption can progress in the US political scene. If a person does not show a willingness
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Jun 4, 2009
                                          CS,

                                          I don't think it is likely that a very candid person adverse to corruption can progress in the US political scene. If a person does not show a willingness to be a part of various intriges, I suspect they will not be supported by the forces necesary for political progress. It is also true people tend to identify with the values of the subcultures thery are in. As corruption increases, political subcultures become more and more permissive of various shenanigans. For many years, congressmen turning lobbyists was seen as rather tacky. However, beginning with the Clinton administration and continuing in the Bush administration, it has become increasingly prevalent with now over half of former congressmen now becoming lobbyists, as well as many congressional aides and cabinet and subcabinet people. Certainly the political subculture considers themselves entitled, and look upon bribes of various kinds as waiters and waitresses do tips. Their values are more a reflection of their subculture than that of John Q Public. As a Chicago cop told me one time when I said in regard to a speeding violation that I'd appreciate it if hed give me a break. He said" Everybody appreciates it, but that don't do the cop no good". I gave him a $20 and went on my way.

                                          Tom.
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: Exist List Moderator
                                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:32 AM
                                          Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Perspectiveism follows existentialism





                                          On Jun 03, 2009, at 22:53, tom wrote:

                                          > opportunists.During the Bush years, about 18 Republican congressmen
                                          > and about 7 or 8 Democtatic congressmen were either indited,
                                          > convicted, or forced to resign due to scandal[my figures may be off
                                          > a bit but not a lot]. In any case, its about 4 or 5% of the
                                          > representatives and senators.

                                          I checked. The party in power generally has twice the number of
                                          members under investigations that lead to either resignation or
                                          removal from office. If we add those those do not resign, but are
                                          under investigation, it gets murky -- William Jefferson held on for a
                                          long time and John Murtha is expert at letting everyone around him sink.

                                          So, this supports your contention that people in power either tend
                                          towards or already were corrupt.

                                          Here, then is the question: do people get corrupted by the power or
                                          are people interested in power more likely to tend towards the
                                          corruption? I think the mess in the U.K shows that people in power
                                          start to think of themselves as somehow entitled to special treatment
                                          and endless expense accounts. In other words, the power and authority
                                          lead to a sense of being above and beyond normal ethics?

                                          > I'm sure Murdoch is very into money, but I suspect that more than
                                          > advertising revenues are involved in their agenda. Since the Iraq
                                          > War, most Clear Channel stations will not play any peace songs like
                                          > "Imagine" etc. Clear Channel in one way or another is affiliated
                                          > with record companies which no longer promote charismic
                                          > personalities...

                                          Separate -- very separate -- topic...

                                          Murdoch has no association with Clear Channel. Clear Channel is what
                                          it is, in large part, because it is a product of Texas. The
                                          corporation and most of its decisions are out of Texas, and like so
                                          much radio today the satellite feeds overwhelm local markets. There
                                          simply aren't many locally owned, locally operated, media outlets due
                                          to the expenses involved. (When I saw the operations budget for a
                                          small FM/AM country combo, it was near $1M in 1988 -- for a rural
                                          station! Electricity, satellites, and equipment are not cheap.)

                                          I've worked for several large media companies and can tell you that we
                                          were never told what to do. The problem is that the culture of any
                                          organization attracts like-minded individuals, so you end up with an
                                          echo chamber.

                                          My coworkers at newspapers and magazines were almost universally to
                                          the center-left. In radio, all three stations I've been at were
                                          universally to the right, even the heavy metal station.

                                          We know professions attract, generally not universally, certain
                                          outlooks, beliefs, and general philosophies. The people around me in
                                          the humanities departments at the university are, overwhelmingly, to
                                          the left. Some are quite far to the left and some are just quite far
                                          out there. If I were in a business school, more instructors might be
                                          to the center and right. The computer industry is generally centrist,
                                          while the "open source" advocates tend slightly more left.

                                          In other words, to say there is a bias among a group might not be any
                                          grand plot or scheme. Similar people end up at similar places. There
                                          are outliers, but rarely.

                                          > By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion in
                                          > subsidies for the Times.

                                          It looks like you grabbed the Washington Times section from Wikipedia.
                                          You can check the Times history directly via the UPI / NewsWorld
                                          Communications. Moon does indeed own the majority of shares in the
                                          Times, UPI, and NewsMax. UPI also supplies news to Salem
                                          Communications and several "conservative" publishers.

                                          The bigger question is if any of this is really new or reflects a
                                          social change. In reality, we have had "media magnates" since (and
                                          before) Wm. Randolph Hearst. Most newspaper and media chains were
                                          dominated by specific families, from the Chandlers in Los Angeles to
                                          the Grahams in D.C.

                                          Until the 1940s, most regional newspapers were party-controlled and
                                          named accordingly. There is a reason newspapers included "Press
                                          Democrat" and "Daily Republican" in their mastheads. The media were,
                                          until WWII, unabashedly biased and proud of those biases. I don't have
                                          a problem with that, since you knew exactly what to expect.

                                          If you want information, it is out there. The Nation, New Republic,
                                          Mother Jones, Utne Reader, and so on exist and are easier than ever to
                                          access online. If citizens choose to live sheltered from information,
                                          that's definitely a person choice.

                                          People opt for American Idol over BBC World Service. Britain's Got
                                          Talent spread across the globe like a virus... it was a choice people
                                          made.

                                          - 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





                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • louise
                                          Mary, What are you saying, please? Where is the connection between ruling the universe , and the alleged contest between human governments and the
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Jun 5, 2009
                                            Mary,

                                            What are you saying, please? Where is the connection between 'ruling the universe', and the alleged contest between human governments and the individual? This whole subject seems wholly muddled as to categories.

                                            Louise

                                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > When you discard the delusion that either a god and/or a devil is ruling the universe, you're left with human governments vying with the individual. In the introductory chapters of the satire, "The Master and the Margarita," the Devil suggests that no one governs their own life. I would say, no, not absolutely. I would also suggest that Nothing governs absolutely.
                                            >
                                            > Existentialism is also concerned with governance, who and how. We can micromanage within the swirling chaos of political idealism and civil laws. No one entity could possibly know what is best, or even expedient, for each human being, or our entire ecosystem, for that matter. The pursuit of happiness/self-governance can be terrifying, even within constructs as simple as "couple" or a "family."
                                            >
                                            > Watching television for anything other than entertainment deludes us into thinking we are actually participants in the madness presented to us as reality.
                                            >
                                            > Mary
                                            >
                                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator <existlist1@> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > I often wonder, why would anyone want to be a governor, a senator, or national leader? It seems that some level of self-delusion is necessary to think you have better answers or any answers at all...
                                            >
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.