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

[existlist] Possibilities

Expand Messages
  • tom
    This is in line with my thoughts Think About This: Behold the Possibilian David Eagleman, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, is searching for a
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      This is in line with my thoughts



      Think About This: Behold the "Possibilian"

      David Eagleman, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, is searching for a middle place between the dogmatic certainties of both religion and science. Between the New Atheists' unequivocal rejection of God and traditional religious believers' embrace of the same, a whole host of other possibilities, according to Eagleman, are getting squeezed out of the picture. He even has a name for the person who occupies that middle place-a possibilian. A possibilian is a person who acknowledges that our understanding of how the universe works is extremely limited and our ignorance truly vast. A possibilian shies away from anything that even hints at dogma or final certainty and allows the tools of science to sort out truth from falsehood. The following talk, taken from TED Houston, is an eloquent call for a spirit of humility and an attitude of exploration as we move toward a deeper understanding of ourselves and the universe.



      Peace

      Tom




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • William
      The MIC provides secound tier weapons to fools who still find a need to kill each other. That will be third world primatives and I say great. You over bread
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        The MIC provides secound tier weapons to fools who still find a need to kill each other. That will be third world primatives and I say great. You over bread you over die. Now you play with fire when you build and sell weapons. We have been in the business since rifiled cannon and fast auto weapons. Gatling comes to mind.We float the false canard withg the F22. Please go chase us in the sub orbital regions, Lets button down and prepair for battle. If there is a warrior at the stick I applaude him , space cowboy. If there is a operator at space command Well I just do not know anything of that sort of operative. No need to know. Right, Bill
      • William
        I was not taught to type, I was prohibuted form the class . Sister Thjeckla was pleased because she hated me. She could tell I did not believe in her god, that
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I was not taught to type, I was prohibuted form the class . Sister Thjeckla was pleased because she hated me. She could tell I did not believe in her god, that I detested her cannon rules and she knew I was out to destroy her papal system. I could smell her indigneous attitude when she came about. I had fought it out with numerous nuns and knew I could whip them. They just don`t have the brains for high level ,mind fighting. Progress is a set of questions within an age. Of my time I think you will see my solutions are possible but also unavoidable. Can you imagine that what we started in 1959 might be solved by sol;utions formed at Bikini Atoll. The Super and Teller remain as symbols of anything but democracy. I will not miss them if we blow up, but have no memory if we became free . Bill
        • tom
          Bill Bipartisan support against war is beginning to emerge http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate II) Summary: U.S./Top News 1) The support of liberals and
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill

            Bipartisan support against war is beginning to emerge



            http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate





            II) Summary:
            U.S./Top News
            1) The support of liberals and conservatives - defying the leaders of both parties - for a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation, which led GOP leaders to shelve the bill, signaled how abruptly the politics of U.S. warmaking have changed, the Washington Post reports. On Wednesday, House discontent with the Libya military operation - and with warmaking in general - seemed to boil over, the Post says. An early warning came last week, when the House narrowly voted down a proposal to demand a speedy transition of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan.

            "There's been disquiet for a long time," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of those who supported the Kucinich resolution on Libya. "Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism."

            Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored Kucinich's bill, said he would press for GOP leadership to bring it up for a vote. "I think, in the House, there's probably enough votes to pass this," Burton said.

            Tom


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mary
            Tom, That s great news. I read last evening the recently retired director of Mossad is openly criticizing Netanyahu s policies concerning stalled peace
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Tom,

              That's great news. I read last evening the recently retired director of Mossad is openly criticizing Netanyahu's policies concerning stalled peace initiatives and recalcitrance regarding 1967 borders.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
              >
              > Bill
              >
              > Bipartisan support against war is beginning to emerge
              >
              >
              >
              > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > II) Summary:
              > U.S./Top News
              > 1) The support of liberals and conservatives - defying the leaders of both parties - for a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation, which led GOP leaders to shelve the bill, signaled how abruptly the politics of U.S. warmaking have changed, the Washington Post reports. On Wednesday, House discontent with the Libya military operation - and with warmaking in general - seemed to boil over, the Post says. An early warning came last week, when the House narrowly voted down a proposal to demand a speedy transition of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan.
              >
              > "There's been disquiet for a long time," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of those who supported the Kucinich resolution on Libya. "Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism."
              >
              > Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored Kucinich's bill, said he would press for GOP leadership to bring it up for a vote. "I think, in the House, there's probably enough votes to pass this," Burton said.
              >
              > Tom
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • tom
              Mary, Bill etc Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Mary, Bill etc

                Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.

                Peace
                Tom
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Mary
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 10:46 AM
                Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                Tom,

                That's great news. I read last evening the recently retired director of Mossad is openly criticizing Netanyahu's policies concerning stalled peace initiatives and recalcitrance regarding 1967 borders.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                >
                > Bill
                >
                > Bipartisan support against war is beginning to emerge
                >
                >
                >
                > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > II) Summary:
                > U.S./Top News
                > 1) The support of liberals and conservatives - defying the leaders of both parties - for a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation, which led GOP leaders to shelve the bill, signaled how abruptly the politics of U.S. warmaking have changed, the Washington Post reports. On Wednesday, House discontent with the Libya military operation - and with warmaking in general - seemed to boil over, the Post says. An early warning came last week, when the House narrowly voted down a proposal to demand a speedy transition of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan.
                >
                > "There's been disquiet for a long time," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of those who supported the Kucinich resolution on Libya. "Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism."
                >
                > Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored Kucinich's bill, said he would press for GOP leadership to bring it up for a vote. "I think, in the House, there's probably enough votes to pass this," Burton said.
                >
                > Tom
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mary
                Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                Message 7 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Mary, Bill etc
                  >
                  > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                  >
                  > Peace
                  > Tom
                • tom
                  Mary George Soros s Open Society paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mary

                    George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.


                    Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----

                    The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.

                    So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.

                    Peace
                    Tom
                    From: Mary
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                    Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Mary, Bill etc
                    >
                    > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                    >
                    > Peace
                    > Tom





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • tom
                    Mary and Bill If someone like a Ron Paul got the Republican nomination, this would automatically cause the Democrats to shift to compete for the peace and
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mary and Bill

                      If someone like a Ron Paul got the Republican nomination, this would automatically cause the Democrats to shift to compete for the peace and civil liberties vote. Just as in football or basketball, political parties will adjust their positions depending on opponent.

                      Tom
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Mary
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                      Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Mary, Bill etc
                      >
                      > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                      >
                      > Peace
                      > Tom





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • William
                      Many things point to an attitude by authority that the people are worthy of greater liberty. That arrogance,in itself, is indicative of how much we have
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Many things point to an attitude by authority that the people are worthy of greater liberty. That arrogance,in itself, is indicative of how much we have lost,in time ,in liberty and wealth. Now these often self appointed leaders act as if they are a separate class with no obligations under the law.
                        I think any restoration of peace will come only if we take back our bill of rights. I do not know how maleable we will find Obama. What sort of concept of liberty lies at the base of his political philosophy. I think he is a constitutional law professor and so he has thought about it ,a lot. I hope he speaks of these matters on the campaign trail. I know it is boring to some but we need to know how he will steer the ship of state. Up to this point he has been wickedly rebuffed by the old guard money and conservativism. I think Obama could become very much more powerful and I hope his retaliation goes toward those who have twarted him and not at the rank and file. We need to hear if he is primarily a lawyer or libertarian. I think he will act as a liberal lawyer and thats ok with me. I know many of them and they are a decent sort that are at least, rational . Many of them feel they are cadged and will work for liberalization of the blue laws since most of them have been caught and sanctioned. I do not want to go back through "I did not inhale", bull shit. War has failed, War on Iraque, war on Afganistan, war on drugs ,war on our civil liberties. PEACE NOW!Bill
                      • Mary
                        Tom, Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Tom,

                          Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.

                          Mary

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Mary
                          >
                          > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                          >
                          >
                          > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                          >
                          > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                          >
                          > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                          >
                          > Peace
                          > Tom
                          > From: Mary
                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                          >
                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Mary, Bill etc
                          > >
                          > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                          > >
                          > > Peace
                          > > Tom
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • tom
                          Mary If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Mary

                            If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.

                            Peace
                            Tom
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Mary
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                            Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                            Tom,

                            Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.

                            Mary

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Mary
                            >
                            > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                            >
                            >
                            > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                            >
                            > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                            >
                            > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                            >
                            > Peace
                            > Tom
                            > From: Mary
                            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                            > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Mary, Bill etc
                            > >
                            > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                            > >
                            > > Peace
                            > > Tom
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Mary
                            Tom, The public (you and I) don t own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Tom,

                              The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.

                              Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!

                              Mary

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Mary
                              >
                              > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                              >
                              > Peace
                              > Tom
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: Mary
                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Tom,
                              >
                              > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                              >
                              > Mary
                              >
                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Mary
                              > >
                              > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                              > >
                              > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                              > >
                              > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                              > >
                              > > Peace
                              > > Tom
                              > > From: Mary
                              > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                              > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                              > >
                              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Mary, Bill etc
                              > > >
                              > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                              > > >
                              > > > Peace
                              > > > Tom
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • tom
                              Mary Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mary

                                Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give them the best raises, pensions, and most important expand rather than cut back their departments.I certainly favor not allowinjg corporations or unions to make political contributions.

                                Peace
                                Tom
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Mary
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:00 PM
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                                Tom,

                                The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.

                                Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!

                                Mary

                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Mary
                                >
                                > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                                >
                                > Peace
                                > Tom
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: Mary
                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                                > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Tom,
                                >
                                > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                                >
                                > Mary
                                >
                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Mary
                                > >
                                > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                                > >
                                > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                                > >
                                > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                                > >
                                > > Peace
                                > > Tom
                                > > From: Mary
                                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                                > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                                > >
                                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Mary, Bill etc
                                > > >
                                > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                                > > >
                                > > > Peace
                                > > > Tom
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Mary
                                Tom, You don t understand socialism. Employees wouldn t exist; everyone would be an owner. Are you saying a citizen isn t free to vote in their own best
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Tom,

                                  You don't understand socialism. Employees wouldn't exist; everyone would be an owner. Are you saying a citizen isn't free to vote in their own best interest?!?

                                  Mary

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Mary
                                  >
                                  > Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give them the best raises, pensions, and most important expand rather than cut back their departments.I certainly favor not allowinjg corporations or unions to make political contributions.
                                  >
                                  > Peace
                                  > Tom
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: Mary
                                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:00 PM
                                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Tom,
                                  >
                                  > The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.
                                  >
                                  > Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!
                                  >
                                  > Mary
                                  >
                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Mary
                                  > >
                                  > > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                                  > >
                                  > > Peace
                                  > > Tom
                                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > > From: Mary
                                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                                  > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Tom,
                                  > >
                                  > > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                                  > >
                                  > > Mary
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Mary
                                  > > >
                                  > > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                                  > > >
                                  > > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Peace
                                  > > > Tom
                                  > > > From: Mary
                                  > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                                  > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Mary, Bill etc
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Peace
                                  > > > > Tom
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                • tom
                                  Mary I am saying that one of the factors that is responsible for the growth in various governmental agencies is the capacity for employeees to vote for
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jun 3, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Mary

                                    I am saying that one of the factors that is responsible for the growth in various governmental agencies is the capacity for employeees to vote for politicians that expand their agencies, and give them fat salaries, good benefits, and great retirements. In the 010 California election, the famous words heard being said by a Brown aid,[some say it was Brown's wife] about Meg Whitman "You can say she is a whore". Of course, Brown was calling the cops group himself seeking their support. I certainly don't deny the negative impact of corporate money on the expanding military and police prison complex;however, the voting powers and lobbying by employee unions are also big factors. The late USSR certainly had a highly developed police state and prison complex without any other privatization than the black markets. China was represive when totally Communistic; and still repressive as it has privatized. I don't by any means totally disagree with you;however, I don't see socialism as being any guarantee against police state or military industrial complex growth.

                                    Peace
                                    Tom
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Mary
                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:17 PM
                                    Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities



                                    Tom,

                                    You don't understand socialism. Employees wouldn't exist; everyone would be an owner. Are you saying a citizen isn't free to vote in their own best interest?!?

                                    Mary

                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Mary
                                    >
                                    > Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give them the best raises, pensions, and most important expand rather than cut back their departments.I certainly favor not allowinjg corporations or unions to make political contributions.
                                    >
                                    > Peace
                                    > Tom
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: Mary
                                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:00 PM
                                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Tom,
                                    >
                                    > The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.
                                    >
                                    > Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!
                                    >
                                    > Mary
                                    >
                                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Mary
                                    > >
                                    > > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                                    > >
                                    > > Peace
                                    > > Tom
                                    > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > > From: Mary
                                    > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                                    > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Tom,
                                    > >
                                    > > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                                    > >
                                    > > Mary
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Mary
                                    > > >
                                    > > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                                    > > >
                                    > > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Peace
                                    > > > Tom
                                    > > > From: Mary
                                    > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                                    > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Mary, Bill etc
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Peace
                                    > > > > Tom
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Mary
                                    Tom, I have so many objections to libertarianism, this could go on forever. Here s a little primer on why. And since neither socialists nor libertarians are
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jun 4, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Tom,

                                      I have so many objections to libertarianism, this could go on forever.

                                      Here's a little primer on why. And since neither socialists nor libertarians are likely to be represented sufficiently in any election, let's just say my objections are primarily moral and philosophical, and leave it at that.

                                      http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

                                      Mary

                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Mary
                                      >
                                      > I am saying that one of the factors that is responsible for the growth in various governmental agencies is the capacity for employeees to vote for politicians that expand their agencies, and give them fat salaries, good benefits, and great retirements. In the 010 California election, the famous words heard being said by a Brown aid,[some say it was Brown's wife] about Meg Whitman "You can say she is a whore". Of course, Brown was calling the cops group himself seeking their support. I certainly don't deny the negative impact of corporate money on the expanding military and police prison complex;however, the voting powers and lobbying by employee unions are also big factors. The late USSR certainly had a highly developed police state and prison complex without any other privatization than the black markets. China was represive when totally Communistic; and still repressive as it has privatized. I don't by any means totally disagree with you;however, I don't see socialism as being any guarantee against police state or military industrial complex growth.
                                      >
                                      > Peace
                                      > Tom
                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: Mary
                                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:17 PM
                                      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Tom,
                                      >
                                      > You don't understand socialism. Employees wouldn't exist; everyone would be an owner. Are you saying a citizen isn't free to vote in their own best interest?!?
                                      >
                                      > Mary
                                      >
                                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > Mary
                                      > >
                                      > > Yes, I see it; but I also see the impact having tens of thousands of employees voting, for and their unions giving money to the politician who will give them the best raises, pensions, and most important expand rather than cut back their departments.I certainly favor not allowinjg corporations or unions to make political contributions.
                                      > >
                                      > > Peace
                                      > > Tom
                                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > > From: Mary
                                      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:00 PM
                                      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Tom,
                                      > >
                                      > > The public (you and I) don't own, operate, or make any decisions regarding these enterprises. Governments tax us to subsidize their operations, and/or hire private contractors (other capitalists). This is not socialism. If profit is eliminated from this, the M.I.C., and the drug trade, many of these issues you are so passionate about will disappear. As it is now, they are completely interwoven. Prison corporations trade stock publicly, drum up business via criminal justice system, and pay lobbyists.
                                      > >
                                      > > Don't you see the connection between capital and oppression? MSNBC, the media's token Liberal network, is owned by General Electric, and they build prisons and airs prison programming on the weekends!
                                      > >
                                      > > Mary
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Mary
                                      > > >
                                      > > > If we take the profit out, I guess you mean to change from private to public ownership. By so doing, you get large numbers of people to form voting blocks to give them raises and expand their departments. I am not denying problems with private ownership, but public ownership tends to create large well paid machines that soon become the master rather than the servant. In reality, it is usually a combination of both public employess and private contractors pushing expensive cash cows. The police state prison complex is a great example. Private construction companies and sometimes private prison systems are part of it, but police and guards unions provide the large voting blocks, p-lus often cash contributions just like private interests.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Peace
                                      > > > Tom
                                      > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > > > From: Mary
                                      > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:55 PM
                                      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Tom,
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Taking the opportunity for profit out of all these enterprises will solve much. By constantly endorsing the status quo, you will never even come close to the idealistic society you envision.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Mary
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Mary
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > George Soros's "Open Society" paradigm is that our thoughts can never completely match reality, an open society would be one in which there is an awareness that no ideas are 100% describing reality, so ongoing debates and elections between relatively liberal, and relatively conservative forces are hoped to result in ideas that more nearly describe and deal with the challenges that are being faced. Certainly the problem of the huge vested interests that have successfully engineered the massive growth of the military industrial complex over our life times is extreme. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980;whereas violent crime has remained fairly stable.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. wikipedia----- -----
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > The expenses for so called defense is much higher than in the days of the cold war. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year for more missiles, jets and nuclear bombs allegedly to fight terrorists is like getting canons to fight spiders.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > So I see any voting blocks of both liberals and conservatives to fight either of these evils as a possible beginning of a place where people of good will could debate the advantages and disadvantages of more socialization or more privatization. So much of the present debates are not about matters of opinion as much as the paid lackeys justifying their sugar daddies.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Peace
                                      > > > > Tom
                                      > > > > From: Mary
                                      > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:03 PM
                                      > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Possibilities
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Socialists would push agendas which eliminate most the root cause of these problems :)
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Mary, Bill etc
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Liberals can push for reducing military scope to move money from war toward health, education, welfare etc; and conservatives as a way of reducing government. Then debates and votes could occur as to the disposition of saved sums. Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul pushing anti war agenda allows other Republicans to do so without being seen as leftists. The military industrial complex just like police state prison complex is a monster that feeds on the body politic like a cancer.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Peace
                                      > > > > > Tom
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.