I have been listening to the liberal Democrats solution to the energy crisis and have come to the conclusion they are full of, well let's say fertilizer of a human origin.
Let's face it, our demand for energy is growing, and it is not just because of SUVs. The economy along with the population is growing and the need is getting bigger. However the production has not kept pace. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize this.
So what is the solution. Several items come to mind, first more production, second more conservation, third more technology for renewable sources. Sounds easy but it will take time and of course money.
As for the environmentalists, their concerns should be appreciated but not to the point of extremism. There is a lot of oil in Alaska and some geologists claim there is a 250 year supply of coal in the United States alone. Utilization of these resources and enviromental conservation can be accomplished.
I don't know about you folks but the thought of frost bite this winter on my delicate parts does not appeal to me so that some polar bears will not be temporarily disturbed.
Now let's think of the children, the enviromentalists want the earth pollution free for our children, however how in God's name is a child going to learn in a classroom if there are icicles hanging off the tips of their runny little noses because there is no energy for heat.
As for my SUV, I agree it uses gasoline but I absolutely refuse to go back to the horse and carriage. A horse may not pollute the air but think of all the horse poop that will be on the road,especially the Los Angeles freeways.
The liberals and enviromental extremists cannot have their cake and eat it too. Research and new technology are needed for the utilization of energy without pollution but it is going to take time. Man was not walking on the moon three days after Wilbur and Orville Wright built the first airplane. Be realistic. oil, coal and nuclear energy are our best sources for now. I reiterate, for now.
Okay, I will not drive as much in order to conserve gasoline and I will keep the heat a little down in the winter along with the air conditioning in the summer. However if the wacko liberal democrats and enviromentalists keep up with their silly rhetoric I am going to insist that a pipeline be built from their rear ends into my home this winter. If it ends up being a really cold winter all that hot air could come in handy, especially with the price of natural gas these days.
Mr. Niceguy - 5/20/01 Gee, it has been long time since I've read a ''keep 'em barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen'' rant. I guess we all knew this suffrage think would come to no good. Imagine the nerve of those women trying to restructure a little slice of society to deal with their needs. And those single moms, including I guess widows and divorcees, why can't they just find a good man to settle down with and quit stirring things up for us men folk.
I'm reminded of a great line I came across I wish I remember where: Women control 50 percent of the wealth and 100 percent of the pussy.
Not a combination to mess with, my friend.
Mr Singleminded - 5/14/01 The government and our lives is a pretty deep subject. Where do we draw the line between necessity and intrusiveness? I am not quite sure. I do appreciate that we have a strong military and no foreign power would dare mess with us unless it wants its behind kicked in. What bothers me is how idiots like LBJ got us involved in the quagmire of Vietnam and a traitor like Nixon used it to pursue his own political interests. A strong military is to be used properly and is definitely a necessity. We need a Justice Department. I would not want to see this country run by the five families of New York and Mario Puzo. We need and EPA. Just think how great it would be to have a glass of water before bedtime and wake up with eleven fingers and toes. I could go on about other government agencies and organizations but that would take up too much space on my hard drive. So the bottom line is this, we need government but it has to be limited, efficient and fair. Have I solved this dilemma between you Sartre and Mr. Singleminded? Probably not, so why don't you guys just kiss and make up. There is no definite answer. But remember this, the beauty of our country is that we have the ability to change things as the times around us change through the free flow of ideas and communication. "A government of the people, by the people and for the people", so keep talking guys and be sure to let your elected representatives know how you feel. The biggest mistake we could make as a free people is not to criticize, discuss or even argue about the issues, the biggest mistake is to remain silent.
Mr Niceguy - 5/6/01 Bush got our people out of China and he is in political heaven because of it. The country is happy, the families of the air crew are happy and the Chinese are happy because they made our commander and chief cry "uncle". So ends the story, or does it?
Well now that the Chinese have saved face, what do we do? How about a war? No way, do you know how many countries including our own have big money invested in China? I think most people would find it staggering the amount of investment that has been dumped into that country. The Chinese have an awful lot of people we can sell our goods to and besides where are we going to buy our "made in china" goods from? I just bought a pair of shoes that were made in China for sixty bucks, I bet if they were made here by a good ol' Yankee they would cost me three hundred. Now sartre, you don't want me to go barefoot do you? And think of how stupid it would be for us to have our military bomb the factories we are building over there. And oh yes sartre, we are building factories over there. So let's forget the hard core rhetoric and ideas, it's just too expensive and silly.
The first thing I would recommend is that any new surveillance flights have fighter escorts and oh yes, let's try to keep the flights at a distance so that we won't make them nervous. After all I am sure if they came buzzing near our shores we would send up interceptors to intimidate them. The problem with the Chinese Air Force is that I don't think their pilots are very bright. Now a trained fighter pilot who cannot fly well enough to keep from bumping into another country's airplane can't be all that smart. Let's give them a little more breathing room when we start flying in their back yard again because I truly believe these guys are stupid and can't fly straight.
Perhaps we should approach this problem from an economic standpoint. One thing that talks much better than bombs is money. Have you ever tried to buy a new car with bullets and bombs? Money works so much better. People, no matter where they come from, want to enjoy the nice things life has to offer. Sartre, would you like to live in a cave again, how about driving to work on a horse or writing your articles on stone tablets. Of course you wouldn't. So let's show the Chinese what they are missing and before you know it those people will be telling their leaders to take their Mao philosophies and wrap it around their toilet paper dispensers. And most likely America will sell them the toilet paper dispensers along with other sanitary vehicles. I don't know about you but defecating into the Yangtze River can't be too pleasant, along with privacy considerations.
Are we to trust the Chinese completely? I don't think so. If they were dealing with Bill Clinton they definitely need surveillance. We'll send up a couple of satellites on the same rocket built by Bernie Schwartz, one will stay over Bejing and the other we will park over Bill's house in New York. That should plug one leak to the Chinese.
But all satire aside, we should let economics solve this problem. The more we show the Chinese what they have to gain with trade and good relations, most likely they will become our friends and not feared adversaries. If the Berlin Wall came down because the West had great economics and the Communist ideals of good living were empty bread shelves and cars with lawn mower engines, I would tend to think the Great Wall of China may be developing a few cracks in it.
Mr. Niceguy 4/14/2001 Mr SingleMinded,
Seems your love affair with the 'Beast' is NOT shared with a fellow compatriot! Instead of my reply, just what do you say in answer to Bob? Remember that Bob is clipping checks, so his slant on No 3 is off, just like yours . . . Mr NiceGuy, might have to settle this dispute. He pays for both of your check clearings. As for me, 'let them eat cake!'
SARTRE Regarding Mr. SingleMinded's remarks, my view is that he is off the mark with 1) and 2) and states things faily well in 3), then misses the point with 4). Perhaps many "bureaucrats" are too close to the federal government to appreciate that government doesn't exist to make things better for us, rather, to provide a stable basis upon which we can make things better for ourselves. Bottom line, Government should stay the hell out of our lives to the greatest extent possible. Those who think that cruel and heartless are too fixated on the poor souls who fail ... and, rather than exerting themselves to help those in need, would perfer "government" to do it for them (i.e., force everyone to do what they think is best).
People too often forget that the essence of freedom is freedom ... liberty means nothing as a word, it only matters if you've got it. Today, of all days, should remind everyone of just how little freedom we have ... when we are mandated to contribute to a horrible "retirment" scheme called "social security" and we are forced to pay into a failing "medical" care system. Government has become little more than good intentions run amuck ... and good intentions do nothing to make life better for anyone in the long run. We need more motivation and less "intention" ...
Excuse the rambling ...
-Bob Webster Editor, OpinioNet 4/16/01 1) I don't know about your history, but my history is replete with examples where the private sector relied upon government patents of authority and government funding to get established. I think we could safely lump the entire opening of the West under that category, from the land grants to the building of the railroads, to the creation of a central banking system, to the clearing out of those pesky Indians. Every major industry in this country has at some time or another benefitted from some form of government protection or help, be it cheap loans of public monies or protective tariffs to keep out foreign competition or tax breaks or laws to safeguard their interests.
2) I have no problem with the Tenth Amendment (or the Ninth Amendemt for that matter). But you are faced with a fundamental problem in that we are to some extent citizens of a particular state and citizens of the United States. At certain points in our history we have had to face the fact that some states were so deficient or so inequitable in their treatmenrt of its citizens or their fellow states that the only recourse was to find a solution at the Federal level. Welfare is a perfect example of this seesawing back and forth between states running it and the Federal govenrment running it.
3) I would maintain that bureacrats are not the government. They are the AGENTS of the government. The government is between you and me and our elected representatives in Congress. Every single blessed thing that is done in the Federal government is the direct result of a law passed by Congress. The fact that we bureaucrats have to enforce laws that you don't like, well ... take it up with your Congressman.
We agents of the government are like the agents of any other large enterprise. We do our best to serve our masters following the rules set forth by them. We have our share of idiots and fools, just as every other enterprise does. We have managers who manage and managers who don't. We make good decisions and dumb decisions. We have some who loaf and some who work way harder than most people out their have any idea. Which is why most people wouldn't last two minutes under the conditions you would impose: no pension, no career, not much of a salary, and no respect.
4) I have no problem with people making a buck. I would remind you though that the founding fathers sought to create someting a little grander than a private enterprise zone. The goal was ''to form a more perfct union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and ourt posterity.'' Still sounds good to me.
Mr. SingleMinded - 4/14/01 Mr SingleMinded,
So glad to get a profession lesson on the mindset from the belly of the Beast! Is your comprehension of SARTRE'S article a result of some seminar technique that I'm not familiar with? Please identify where I state that I oppose legitimate functions of government? Using the crutch of comparison society to defend the sad record within the OUR Country, is like saying the US is the 'Python' and Russia is the 'Cobra'. The US must have a better masters, since it's snake is not poisonous!
ANSWER the issue presented. The theme is to offer a solid solution to a systemic problem. If you reread your history, this country was built upon private enterprise to develop the infrastructure. Your view in the example of the TVA may not be shared with those communities that were displaced to allow for the great social experiment. Ben Franklin could be trusted, but I would refer you to: Post Office Socialism by Peter J. Ferrara http://www.serve.com/pvbr/Issue_1/cvsty.htm I'm sure you will conclude this essay as 'wrongheaded' as mine!
As for the DoD, that will be the next topic for the 'View'. I'm not an Anarchist, nor should you imply that I oppose government at every level. Quite to the point, proper functions, to the greatest degree possible; should be the province of States. By your logic, we will be required to come to the assistance of California! At the very least tell them to buy from the TVA. The problem is primarily a FEDERAL Government gone crazy. If government's make the wrong choices, they need to pay the price for their failures. Please cite those benevolent "stabilizing influence that government plays"? Your 'Five Year Plans' never have an end.
The Cover Article on the BATR home page: Confessions of a Reactionary Utopian by Joseph Sobran http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran149.html is SARTRE'S position.
Debate is great, but you need to understand the language before you reply. Could it be you are thinking in Chinese, when you attempt to speak English? The collective will, if defined as Jeremy Bentham describes, altruist collectivism; has merit. See: 'Self Interest and Utilitarianism' http://members.fortunecity.com/sartre65/RULES/id3.html But it would be hard for me to accept that the Bureaucrat of today understands this concept.
Rationalization by the Bureaucrat is a common trait to justify their RICO enterprises. I request proof of the 'good' that the BS - BS do. (read the latest 'Wrack' article: When You Are Not Looking! )
The common method to tame the Python and the Cobra is to cut off their head. So tell me of all the good that the Cobra's serum does? As for the Python, just squeeze out another dollar for your version of the 'Five Year Plan'.
I can't wait to learn the wisdom that was shared at that Seminar . . .
SARTRE - April 11, 2001 It is hard to know where to begin in responding to your piece on the bureacratic syndrome. There is so much that is so wrongheaded that it is really quite breathtaking.
If you would really understand what it is with American bureacracy, take a look at Russia. They are where we were about 200 some odd years ago when we had no business laws, precious few civil protections, and not much of an infrastructure to support the nurturing of all that wealth that you value so highly. Corruption in Russia is rampant. Enforcement of laws is arbitrary. American businesses are very reluctant to invest. It is these obstacles to the orderly creation of wealth that a well run government helps reduce or eliminate.
A reliable postal system was the first major step towards creating a stable predictable environment within which commerce could be carried out. An evolving set of business laws and court rulings ensured that citizens could engage in interstate commerce without fear of having no recourse should they be swindled. Acting together through the instrumentality of their government, citizens used their taxes to build schools and roads and eventually sewer and water systems. A consistent supply of electricity was guaranteed by a combination of regulations and government sponsored activities like the TVA. On and on it goes, government providing the collective mechanism whereby we were one out of many and our combined resources were used to accomplish things that individuals, towns, even states couldn't do.
The generation of wealth is not the sole object of a society. That may be the object of the individual, but it is not the object of society. Society endeavors to provide a safe and stable economic and political environment within which individuals are free to pursue wealth. But those individuals need a set of rules to operate within. This is the proper role of government.
Does that mean that every government employee is a gem? Hell no. We have our overbearing pompous asses, our ideologues who try to shove their view of reality down someone else's throat, both on the right and the left. Government workers are no different from any other large group of workers. You've got the good, the bad, the smart, the stupid, the dedicated, the slacker, all in the same measure that you will find in any other large business. What you don't have are people who will work for no pay, for no chance of a stable career, for no pension, for no respect, all of which seem to be your answer to whatever problem you seem to see. What you are damn lucky to have are dedicated people who will take a cut in pay of massive proportion to do something simple like run the Defense Department.
I have pointed out previously the cycle of having a problem and coming up with a solution to the problem and then 20 years later, having forgotten the original problem, removing protections and dismantling reforms only to have the problem reappear. We have gotten so used to the environment that the government creates to ensure the orderly creation of wealth by individuals that we have forgotten the dangers those protections avoid. Look to Russia or China or other emerging economies and then be grateful for the stabilizing influence that government plays.
Work hard to change laws you don't like. Work hard to make the world the way you want it. But don't ever think that we can get by without some entity to leverage our collective will and strength to do the things that can't be done by individuals.
Mr SingleMinded - 4/11/01 Dear 'Separated at Birth' Twins:
So HilLAIRy is the topic? Then answers these three
questions:
1) What actions, deeds or conduct constitute
'OUTRAGE' for her (and her partner in crime) ?
2) When did you come to this conclusion, if you
have; that she is an embarrassment and a disgrace ?
3) Have you judged her to have committed any
crimes over the last decade, and if not; WHY Not ?
SARTRE - March 24, 2001 Mr. Nice Guy's comments on Hillary pretty much reflect my own thoughts. I am not a Hillary hater, but I'm not a complete idiot either. Bush the Elder was able to slide out of Iran contra with his ''out of the loop'' jive, but it stretches credulity to think that Hillary was totally unaware of what her worse half was doing. The one thing she has going for her is the forgetfulness of the average voter. Six years is a long time for damage control, something which she is very good at. And even when things were darkest, I noticed she was having no trouble getting her sound bites on the evening news. This tells me that in the land of the pygmy's it still doesn't take much to look like a giant.
Mr SingleMinded 3/24/01 Okay Sartre,
The eternal optimist is going to complain about the system, or at least a small part of it. Her name is Senator Clinton.
What a slap in the face to the American people. The cost of her office in Manhattan is totally outrageous!!!!!! The total arrogance of this representative is astounding. No doubt she feels she has nothing to lose since her husband's escapades along with her brother have placed her chances of the presidency in outer space. As one newspaper stated, "At least she doesn't have to face the voters until 2006". How comforting. Maybe this is why she opposes a badly needed tax cut, she wants to spend the people's money on herself.
The candidate to face her in the next election will have to use all of this as political ammo. I hope he or she will because unless Hillary's approval rating improves quickly, a shrewd political adversary should be able to replace her.
It is truly sad that the fine people of the State of New York elected this charlatan before the scandals of her husband's and brother's schemes surfaced. To add insult to injury she denies knowing anything about any of it. Yeah, right......tell me another fairy tale Hillary. After all, we the people are all morons and idiots.
It is trash like this that smells up the system. Fortunately though the system will survive and things will be all right. The press, the justice system, and the power of the vote will keep things in check as our founding fathers wanted it to be. We have survived sleazier politicians than this, believe me.
So sartre, I must bow to your pessimism this time but the ship is not sinking, only stuck in the mud a little bit. As for me, I am going to try to correct this mess the best way I know how. I am going to to vote against the Senator at the next election. So should you.
"Mr. Niceguy" 3/24/01 Mr Niceguy,
It looks you have a partner. Should I call both of you
the 'Odd Couple'? Which are you Oscar or Felix?
The long reply to your last post is on the 'View from
the Mount', So You Say I'm the Pessimist?
http://pages.zdnet.com/sartre/RULES/id10.html
I'll wait for your other half to jump in. This space is
intend for all of you . . .
SARTRE March 24, 2001 Sartre,
Why are you so pessimistic? Traitors, power grabbing, corruption......don't you have any good things to say about our government? Speaking personally I can honestly say that this country and government have been very good to me. I will not deny that there are deficiencies and problems in its operation but it works, and works well. The health of our nation in this world is a testament to that fact. Unfortunately idiots do come to power and abuse the system and sad as it may be to say violence and bloodshed have had to be used to change things. If this republic is as corrupt as you say it is do you honestly think we would have survived this long? Your negativity and complaining are a part of the great freedoms that you enjoy and are entitled to enjoy in this country.The Founding Fathers wanted it that way and they were right. I will not deny that freedoms and rights have been abused and denied to some of our citizens, an unfortunate mistake. Slavery, Japanese internment, civil rights violations are all wounds and scars on this country and what it is suppose to stand for. You talk about corruption in government, okay maybe there is, but checks and balances have been built into our constitution to help avoid it. One of those things is called freedom of the press. There goes that "freedom" word again. I suppose you are going to say the press is a bunch of liberal pigs and cannot be trusted either. Maybe, mistakes not, but the good they have done has certainly outweighed their abuses and shortfalls. So relax Sartre, the patient is fine and doing well. Continue your sarcasm and sad rhetoric about the state of things. It is your right, but remember one thing, go to a country like Iraq and say what you have been saying. I would bet every penny I own that you will be holding your head in your hands instead of having it connected to your shoulders.
Mr Niceguy - 03/18/01 Mr Single Minded,
So glad that raw nerves are so close to the surface.
Your argument sound quite similar to the WW II vet,
during the 60's, that kept shouting: "America, Love It
OR Leave It". Well, he was right on one point.
America we love, but it has left us. And those who
deny the direction and imposition of central control
on all its citizens, don't have a clue as to what
America is. Offering comparisons to other countries,
begs the issue. The question still is; "America,
RESTORE it, or lose it forever".
The concept of a melting pot has only limited validity.
If those who seek a better life are willing to
understand, accept and internalize those qualities that
made America unique in human history, they are
welcomed. It's not about the color one's skin or the
culture that they came from; it's about what is, or
SHOULD be between one's ears. Adjustments need
to be made by those who desire assimilation, not the
other way around. Your 'Ideology' attempts to
impose a distorted view upon a free people. The
common condition for mankind does not change, the
challenges are still the same; and the solutions to
achieve individual Liberty were once known by her
people. Today, advocates of the confused anabolism
of social integration of 'TC' Totalitarian Collectivism,
has created a plague of cancer, upon this land.
The Founding Fathers understood well the nature of
the beast of central government. That is why a
REPUBLIC was chosen as the form of government
for America. Sovereign States formed a federal
union, and secession was an acknowledged right.
Underlying your comments is an erroneous
acceptance that a majority of fools, can and
SHOULD be able to impose their vision upon those
who defend the rights of each individual; protected
by and with, the mechanism for small and limited
government. If the significance of the Electoral
College 'red and blue' map escapes you, the 'Idea of
America' is understood by very few within the
metropolis districts. I submit that those bewildered
souls, seek only the privileges and spoils of
citizenship and ignore their responsibilities, towards
the values and ideals that America were founded
upon.
SARTRE - March 18, 2001 Leo Rosten wrote a book several years (decades?) back
called ONLY IN AMERICA, and it seems to me that only in
America would someone refer to our present condition as
one of ''repressive subjugation by the State.'' Please. If you want to see examples of repressive subjugation by the state go visit places like Afghanistan or Iran or Iraq or North Korea or Zimbabwe. The United States at this point in history is at the top of the heap, politically and
economically. Does that mean we are perfect? No. Does
that mean life is simple or even easy here? No.
We have gone from a largely WASP nation that truly did
see itself as one nation under God to a complex mosaic of
not so melting pot cultures. In the process, we have had to
make adjustments to our notion of individual freedom.
When blacks were slaves, life was a lot simpler for whites in the South. When the slaves were freed and demanded
their politcal rights, life became more complicated. Adjustments had to be made. The unrestrained politcal freedom of whites in the South had to be constrained by the Federal government in order to ensure even a minimal amount of social and politcal equity for blacks. Has this made us a weaker nation or a stronger nation?
Whether the issue is voting rights or the environment or
gun control or abortion rights or school prayer, we have
gone back and forth over how to define or limit the
responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. To protect one class of freedom often necessitates constraining another class of freedoms. The Founding Fathers understood the fluid nature of the country they were building and created a structure designed to go with the flow. After a couple of hundred years of the type of change that brought many other civilizations to their knees, we are alive and doing fine.
Mr Single Minded 3/18/01 Mr Single Minded,
Your reply is most welcomed and have been posted
on the Forum Page. I appreciate limitations on time;
however, it should not take too long to dispel the
fallacies with your Ideology. I trust that my replies
will boil your blood to such levels that you will make
the time available to secure adequate responses. The
quality of your work is evident in the style and
subject topics, even if the substance is so misguided.
Its a mission of worth to debunk such delusions . . .
Such a noble term, continuum! The dictionary states;
" A continuous extent, succession, or whole no part
of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts
except by arbitrary division." Since your admiration
for the sophistic teaching of the preeminent globalist,
since John Ruskin; you should not hesitate to admit
the true nature of his desire to extent a uniform policy
upon the political culture and decisions in American
government? The issue is not if the color of the
nuisances have different hues, between the
DemoRATS and the RepubCAN'T, but whether
there is ANY real and true difference in their
respective positions on matters that are fundamental
to Foreign Policy? I submit that the evidence is
overwhelming that for well over the last century, the
merging of the doctrines of the two parties has been
well under way. The rhetoric may seem to be at
odds, but their actions are most often in unison. Both
parties serve the same master. The Corporate/State
is their god. And 'Statism' is the underpinnings that
drive the money and the power of all their charlatans.
The examples that you have cited in your writings,
are illusory. The transformation of America into a
'Collectivist' bureaucratic elite controlled criminal
enterprise, is self evident to those who have eyes to
see. The argument that conflicting factions are really
in competition is specious. The evidence does not
support that wishful position. The only battle that
periodically arises among those factions, is who is in
control for the moment. Madison was correct, the
question in forming a Constitutional Republic is how
to retard their corruption. The nature of that
coercion, is never questioned; only the next direction
to consolidate and extend that dominion, is ever in
play. One's view of human nature and the struggle of
the individual to retain his nature rights against the
repressive subjugation by the State, IS the crucial
issue. To this war, both parties are traitors to
America.
SARTRE - March 17, 2001 Sartre, you certainly bring a lot of energy to the table. I would be happy to write an article on a topic you might suggest or you may simply reprint anything from Singleminded. My time is very limited right now so don't expect a quick turnaround. That said, I can't help but comment on Mr. Buchanan's quote.
The idea that there are no real differences between Democrats and Republicans is pushed by third party candidates like Buchanan or Ralph Nader. Like the hucksters they are, they are trying to invent a need for their product where none really exists. Watching President Bush operate in the early weeks of his presidency, rolling back measures put in place during the Clinton years, it is clear that there are huge policy differences between Democrats and Republicans.
Carroll Quigley was a charasmatic figure on the Georgetown campus. One of his favorite words was continuum. I look at the Republican and Democratic parties as continuums rather than as monolithic sturctures. The Republican continuum stretches from the center to the right. The Democratic continuum stretches from the center to the left.
The diversity of political ideas encompassed by both
contiunuums is more than enough to ensure a healthy range of choices for the American voter. I dislike the idea of third parties and hope they never take root in this country.
g.j. lau Editor, Singleminded 3/17/01
http://www.singmind.com/singlemind Mr. Nice,
The dictionary states: "TRAITOR - A person who
betrays his country, a cause, or a trust, esp. one
who commits treason." I submit that a person's
country is NOT the same as the government of that
country. The record is clear that both FDR and
Churchill were devoted to expand the power of their
respective governments, at the expense of their own
countries. The details defy dispute from any serious
student of the historical FACTS. Only those who
are confused in their loyalities, and accept that their
country, IS their government; could express the
doubts that you have.
My argument is that both the US and Britain were
adversely and permanently altered by these two
quislings for their eagerness to fight another war.
The options existed to shape a very different conflict
that could have protected the America and England.
The desire to further their own power and the reach
of the 'STATE', is what these Judas' were all about.
Think this one over again. I will gladly provide all the
data and evidence that anyone would need to
accept this view.
"TREASON - Betrayal of one's country to an
enemy." The enemy is Socialism, and both men
were bent upon altering the fundamental nature of
their countries and traditions. There were NO
winners in WWII, except the 'Collectivists'. America
and England both lost in the most important ways.
They lost their own NATION.
SARTRE - January 30, 2001
I won't deny FDR was a socialist and Churchill was
unscrupulous in getting us into WWII. However I wonder
what would have happened if things went differently.
Suppose we knew about the attack at Pearl Harbor and we
bloodied the Japanese when they hit us. Would that have
stopped them? I doubt it. As for the Germans, didn't they
declare war on us? Yes we were helping the British with
Lend-Lease which probably infuriated Hitler to no end but
you cannot deny he was hell bent on world domination
along with Stalin. We had to defeat each one of these men
in proper order.
Political ideology interpretation cannot predict how things
might have been. Whatever ways history and individuals
judge these men one thing is for certain, I am glad we won
WWII instead of Hitler.
FDR was a socialist, no doubt about it. But in the great
depression when democracy and capitalism were being
strained to the limit something had to be done without
revolution. Unfortunately it was pushed to the extreme in
some cases by our goverment in the later years. LBJ's Great
Society proved to be a disaster in the long run but in the
1930's in the midst of the Great Depression it was needed.
Twenty-five percent of the population was unemployed.
People really do not give a damn about politics when they
are hungry.
I guess the bottom line is whether FDR and Churchill were
sin free and political left wingers? Maybe, maybe not, but I
do not think it is fair to call them traitors.
- Mr Nice 1/25/01
Mr Nice,
You are quite naive when it come to politics and
confused about your history. The British originated
concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer
War. Churchill was an avid supporter of the policy.
During WWI, his hatred for Germany distorted the
belligerency strategies that allowed the murder of
millions. Churchill started and advocated the
bombing of civilian populations, not Hitler. I you
contend that there is a moral high ground between
the two, you are in error. The true Satan was Stalin.
So you accept that the lies and murder of Churchill
is fine, because he need to get the US into WWII?
How foolish! What interest did the US have in
supporting England, once again. Anglophiles
sympathizers have sold out America, in both world
wars. You seem content to accept that reality? I'm
not . . .
You obviously have not studied the FACT to state:
"nothing in history shows that to be true". I would
glad direct you the the wealth of documentation that
clearly proves that FDR knew the specifics of the
attack. The real point of this discussion is to focus
on the real interests of the US. You imply that both
Churchill and FDR didn't have a plan of their own
and were victims of circumstances. Sorry, that
doesn't wash with the history. You would be well
served to keep your TV tuned to the History
channel, before you parrot the 'PC' line that is taught
in school. So study this topic. Power in the US was
transferred from States and local communities, to
the Federal Bureaucracy and our National debt rose
to the sky, BECAUSE of WWII. It was because of
design, not accident. The great depression was was
no accident either. And for you to justify that a total
commitment for war is justified to establish full
employment, is sick.
Rethink your position. The evidence and correct
conclusions are all available for you to see. Just
open your eyes.
SARTRE January 24, 2001
Churchill knew Britain could not survive without the help
of the United States. Hitler would have eventually
conqueredEngland had he used his head and not invaded
Russia. Unfortunately the Treaty of Versaille and the great
depression nurtured the seeds of Hitler's insanity.
Maybe FDR wanted to get us into the war, after all it
eliminated the great depression. Perhaps he knew about
Pearl Harbor although nothing in history shows that to be
true. Were they traitors or possibly just desparate men
living in desparate times?
- Mr Nice 1/23/01
Mr Nice,
Remember that that Churchill broke the Jap code
and knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor (never
told the US). To understand the reason why
England sided with Communist Russia against
German, one must be aware of the real reason for
WWI and the economic rivalry that brought about
that conflict. When WWII came about, the Socialist
elements within Britain (who helped finance Lenin)
advocated the destruction of German and a future
rival. (read the link by Raico).
I just listened to FDR first inaugural address in
1932. He stated in no uncertain terms his goal of
converting the US into a Socialist Federal
Government controlled society. His domestic record
is indisputable in its subversion of all that America
was build upon and the principles of the Founding
Fathers. He created the circumstances that caused
the Japs to finally, go to war against the US. The
Japs were considering to ally themselves with the
US against Nazi Germany, before their treaty pact
with Hitler. The US's response was to enact the oil
embargo, which was the primary immediate
economic cause to view the US as the enemy of
Japan. FDR knew the exact date and targets for the
attach at Pearl Harbor.
Both sold out Europe to Stalin. The very reason
that, they said that Hitler needed to be stopped,
became the reality of Stalin's aggression. Our entire
lives have been dominated under the threats of the
Cold War, which is a direct result of going to war
with Stalin as an ally. Both Socialists knew the
consequences of befriending Stalin. Both Socialists
were assisting a fellow travelers, in Stalin. And both
understood that the only real foe of International
Socialism was Hitler.
The American and British people bore the suffering
and pain from these two traitors to their own
Nations. Do you need more?
SARTRE January 20, 2001
The Real Churchill by Joseph Sobran
Rethinking Churchill by Ralph Raico
Why the dislike for these two men? I am very curious as to
hear your reasoning for your statement since the historians
are so kind to these two gentlemen. (Churchill and FDR)
Please enlighten.
- Mr Nice 1/20/01
Marriah Star
26 Beacon Ave #2
Jersey City, NJ 07306
201-386-9520
I want to briefly tell you why I have the views expressed
in my pieces, and believe that the "ends justify the
means".
First, I grew up, as you know, with hippie parents. That
meant the only thing I was ever sure of was that my
parents loved me. But I didn't know where I would
sleep, what I would eat, where I would live (with a
paripatetic lifestyle), or who my friends would be. I got
used to being my own best friend, using books as the
best means of relating to the world. I was at home most
in a library. I decided to go to school partly because all
the students were there, and partly because all the
books were there. I decided to stay in school because
this one institution provided all the assurances that my
parents could not: friends, food, a place to work and
stay. School grounded me, and more than that, teachers
grounded me. My stepmother grounded me at home,
school did the grounding outside of home.
Thus, I believe that in the midst of chaos, a standard
must be set by SOMEONE, no matter how arbitrary.
There must be some fixed reference point by which we
can orient ourselves, like the North Star. Descartes
thought much the same way, but he used doubt. That is
too negative for me. I used institutions instead. And
when it came right down to it - when the institutions
didn't work - I used my knowledge of my own
intellectual superiority and my wits, or I used brute
force to ground me. If I was to be the sole arbiter in the
midst of chaos, so be it. But usually I had school to do
that for me, and grades to provide assurance about my
mental superiority.
But in my sophomore year, grades went down hill, and
my confidence in institutions and friends was shaken
by my friends turning against me, and the institutions
were no longer being so friendly. So, I began to rely on
myself to an extreme extent. But, I had no guarantees of
my own intelligence, and even my brute force wasn't
good enough to provide grounding. So, I turned to
philosophy. I didn't go the Cartesian route though. It
didn't want to start with doubt. I wanted to know the
way the world works, in a positive sense, and I didn't
trust my own senses. So I became an extreme empiricist,
and I violated Aristotle's cardinal rule that A and not A
cannot exist at the same time. I allowed for all
possibilities, and I let the world sort itself out in my
mind. But, I knew I still had to do things. So, without
much grounding, I determined that I was willing to use
any means necessary to accomplish my goals, because
once I had reached the goal, I would be justified in the
means. Thus, I focused all my will power, actions,
thoughts, and philosophical inquiries on the best means
to reach my goal in particular, and any goal in general.
This proved to ground me. The only problem was that
philosphy didn't provide any direction for me, since
modern philosophy commited suicide in the 20th
century. So, I created my own philosophy, and
determined to validate it with others so I could create
my own universe. Descartes and Kant believed in God. I
became my own God, and I recognized other people as
their own gods.
Thus, the world, as I learned, is merely an interaction
between a multitude of individual gods, each in a stage
of either acknowledging their godliness, or denying it.
Those who deny it are powerless and miserable in life.
Those who acknowledge it are similarly powerless and
miserable if they fail to recognize others as gods. Thus,
in order to be happy (i.e. get what you want and make
sure everyone else gets what they want - pareto
efficiency) one must learn about systems, chaos theory,
and how people interact with each other. That is how
the world works.
And happiness, I concluded, is just that: enjoying life,
having fun. It is NOT being responsible, or DOING
ONE'S DUTY. It is having fun ALONG WITH
EVERYONE ELSE. Responsibility and Duty only come
into play when there is inequality in enjoyment and fun
- when my fun makes someone else miserable. When
everyone is happy, responsibility and duty become
irrelevant.
Why is it that children should have the first 18 years of
life having fun, but having no power over when and
where they have fun, while for the next 80 years they
have power over when and where to have fun, but they
never actually have fun because they work? That's
absurd.
The only way to make everything correct is to simplify
the world enough so that
a) everyone recognizes their godliness and everyone
else's godliness which
b) encourages everyone to have fun without it being at
the expense of others.
Thus, I advocate the elimination of work, the abolition
of all concepts of responsibility and adulthood, the
abolition of all concepts of individuality and
self-reliance, and to have everything be replaced by a
belief that all people should get what they wish in the
easiest and most efficient ways possible, which entails
either a state or a family member doing it for you, or a
mechanism being in place for you to do it by yourself as
swiftly as possible.
Why should I have to toil for 30 years in a stupid job to
get a car and house if my great grandparents could have
set up a trust fund 100 years ago, allowing me to buy a
house or move into one easily, and purchase a car
easily? Why should I have to labor and invest wisely if
the investments have already been taken care of
through labor produced 100 years ago? I shouldn't have
to. Instead, I should be able to use those assets to go to
the best colleges and become a leader in my community,
working with other gods to make life as enjoyable as
possible. Everyone else should have the same ability. If
I have to bend a rule just so I can accomplish this, so be
it. It's the end result that counts, not the process,
especially if the process is aimed at such an end.
The problem is, the process is not oriented toward such
ends today, and it should be. So I am working to at least
set my family up for the next 200 years, and when I run
for office, I am going to try to help other families do the
same thing. |
 |
 |
|
|
| |
Conversation with a 'Collectivist' - 11/28/00
sartre: Bob knows you well !
marriahstar: he does?
sartre: So why don't you become more like Bob ?
marriahstar: Because I don't want to become more like
Bob - or you for that matter. I would rather boh of you
be like me!
sartre: That answer is exactly why you need help !
marriahstar: You're the patient here!
sartre: So you can infect me with your disease?
marriahstar: I make the blind capable of sight. No
disease there.
sartre: You are living in an environment that denies
Reality.
marriahstar: My environment IS reality.
sartre: Maybe for you, but you are SICK . . .
marriahstar: Who says?
sartre: BOB
marriahstar: BOB don't know SQUAT!
sartre: You surely, don't think Bob is wrong, now do
you?
marriahstar: You surely don't think I am wrong, do you?
sartre: He is the only person who knows you better than
yourself. You need to contact him.
marriahstar: Like I said: he knows nothing. There is zip
to learn from him.
sartre: You are SICK
marriahstar: Who says?
marriahstar: I want proof.
sartre: So what do you offer?
sartre: You don't even see the proof when its put before
you.
marriahstar: clear evidence and reasoning. I don't do
what Bob does: state a conclusion and then offer
evidence for the conclusion. His reasoning is circular.
sartre: A Socialist is a person who lives off the
production of others.
marriahstar: I state evidence, then offer conclusions.
sartre: And your isn't?
sartre: NO you don't. Its all conclusions and very little
supporting details.
sartre: I have pointed that out to you are numerous
occasions.
sartre: You don't seek the Truth, only your idea for
power.
marriahstar: Well, your conclusion about socialism is
incorrect. A Socialist is not a person who lives off the
production of others. It is a person who asks people to
produce together, because the whole ends up being
greater than the sum of the parts, or the capacity of the
producer to consume.
sartre: Sure it is! And you will just tell the rest of us
what is productive.
marriahstar: Ok: how do you define productivity?
sartre: Creating value from labor, capital and inspiration.
sartre: Making something from where nothing existed
before.
sartre: The VALUE is the point!
marriahstar: I agree. But there is a threshold of labor, so
that once you put a certain amount of capital and
inspiration in, it keeps producing without extra effort.
sartre: The end product, service or idea, must have merit
that benefits the creator and in most case the others
that buy.
sartre: DREAMER
marriahstar: The producer is only entitled to the equal
amount that he puts in. The surplus beyond the
threshold is not the property of the producer.
marriahstar: The producer turns dreams into reality.
sartre: Investments are ongoing, only in the short run.
sartre: The businessman is the creator.
sartre: Not the Corporation.
marriahstar: I agree with those statements.
sartre: I knew you would. Where you go wrong is in
your false notion that society SHOULD be organized to
require everyone to accept your vision.
sartre: BOB is a leader. You haven't even been in the
race, as yet.
marriahstar: There are no REQUIREMENTS. I simply
say everyone should accept my vision, but not by
force.
marriahstar: I simply state the vision - the dream.
sartre: YOUR vision is wrong.
marriahstar: Thus, I won't force it on you. But let me live
my own vision.
sartre: You need to understand for yourself, before you
can teach others.
sartre: Your vision wants to steal from me!
marriahstar: That's an empty statement.
sartre: What's empty is your understanding.
marriahstar: If you and I are the only people on the
planet, possibly. But there are people unlike you who
also dream.
sartre: You may read words, but you don't understand
their meaning.
marriahstar: we share amongst ourselves.
marriahstar: Explicate!
sartre: I'm building a higher wall with Bob's help. We will
lay more block.
sartre: You are not invited on our turf.
sartre: You don't produce anything of value.
marriahstar: I am going nowhere near your turf. Stay
away from me.
sartre: You only want us to supply you with your
requirements.
marriahstar: I produce lots of products of value. But my
paper money is worthless compared to your gold.
sartre: You will never see me in your 'Community'.
marriahstar: I don't want you in my community!!!!
sartre: I'm not talking about money, but VALUE.
sartre: Breakup this country! Go your own way. Stay
out of the Heartland.
marriahstar: The analogy is the same. You envision a
world of individual, separate producers, with each
product assign value accoridng the the investment of
each producer. I assign value according to the benefits
of the product.
sartre: But you produce NOTHING!
marriahstar: A product can have value without
investment.
sartre: You need to go back to school soon.
marriahstar: You are in my school.
sartre: You PRODUCE NOTHING.
marriahstar: I am reeducating you.
sartre: But I'm not the teacher that I know I am; you
don't learn.
marriahstar: or - I am brainwashing you.
sartre: Don't think so.
marriahstar: I don't want to learn from you!!!!!!!!!!
sartre: And that's the point. You are unwilling to change
when the errors are illustrated in your system.
marriahstar: LET ME BE SICK!!!!
sartre: Finally, we can agree! You are sick, and I will
gladly let you to your own achievements.
sartre: So when I point out that you agree that you are
sick, just remember this last statement.
marriahstar: I am only using your words. In other words,
let me be myself.
sartre: NO NO, you acknowledge that you are sick!
marriahstar: You are the only person calling me sick. But
1 out of 1000 does no constitute he truth.
sartre: BOB can help you . . .
marriahstar: If you think I am sick, then let me be sick.
marriahstar: But I am quite healthy.
sartre: Bob thinks you are sick, as well.
sartre: Socialism is a sickness.
marriahstar: Besides, where the fuck do you get off
calling anyone sick when you don't even possess a
medical degree?
sartre: Such language? A sign of a disturbed person.
sartre: I should save these comments for the Forum.
marriahstar: Socialism is just one way of life. Actually, I
am a fascist.
sartre: REALLY. What a surprise . . .
marriahstar: I am not saying socialism is right. But it isn't
wrong either.
sartre: Sure, as long as you are pulling the strings.
marriahstar: Or, to put it more simply, I believe in
kingdoms.
marriahstar: I just want to be advisor to the king.
sartre: Than divide up the land.
sartre: Like 'Bore'?
marriahstar: If giving you a plot will prevent an
insurrection, so be it.
sartre: Insurrection implies that you hold authority. You
are the foreigner.
marriahstar: Then who has he authority? God?
sartre: In America, its the people who believe and
accept in the Constitutional Republic.
marriahstar: Wrong. People want a democracy, not a
Republic,
sartre: That's the reason you are the enemy.
sartre: Its a REPUBLIC and all those who want a
Democracy need to find another land.
marriahstar: If it comes to Civil War, we will destroy
you. Right now, we are fighting in the courts.
sartre: Its long over due.
marriahstar: We will turn this republic into a democracy
before 2010.
sartre: You will be starved out first.
sartre: No you won't. It will be shut down before we will
knee.
marriahstar: It's time to start building our respective
armies.
marriahstar: TOTAL WAR.
marriahstar: Then blood will flow in the streets.
sartre: You side doesn't speak English. How will they
follow orders?
marriahstar: uerilla warfare!
marriahstar: Guerilla Warfare!
sartre: Your roots?
marriahstar: huh?
sartre: Went over your head, again.
marriahstar: what roots?
sartre: Animals in the jungle . . .
marriahstar: I don't come from the jungle. But you
belong there.
sartre: You are the one that love Darwin.
sartre: Sure you do!
sartre: That's where you came from.
marriahstar: I don't love Darwin. Darwin revealed the
truth. There's nothing to love or hate.
sartre: So you acknowledge that your 'Roots' are from
the jungle?
sartre: Where is my link on your web page?
sartre: My views are need for your readers.
marriahstar: There is no link, yet.
sartre: Slow . . .
sartre: Comes from the jungle heat.
marriahstar: I don't want to send my readers to a
garbage dump.
sartre: Oh, so you won't put my link on your page, now?
marriahstar: Not yet.
sartre: WHY? Not part of your vision?
marriahstar: Put some interesting articles on, and
perhaps. No political diatribes. Readers want to be
educated, not converted.
sartre: I'm not converting anyone. And my questions
are timely and real.
sartre: You seem to lack respect!
sartre: A taker, but never a given back . . .
sartre: let the reader decide for themselves.
marriahstar: Your questions were answered in 1789, with
the constitutional convention, and in 1865 with the Civil
War. No one asks them anymore.
sartre: But then again, you don't have many viewers.
marriahstar: Not yet. Not seeking any.
sartre: And that makes them false, by your loose
standards.
sartre: That's good, because you won't get many.
marriahstar: The answers are there, regardless of
veracity.
sartre: Answers for the SICK?
marriahstar: Answers for people, sick and well.
sartre: Oh, jungle folks . . . Depending on foreign aid for
their food.
sartre: Any schools willing to take you yet?
marriahstar: Haven't applied. But GRE scores are high.
sartre: The sooner the better, that you find a place.
marriahstar: Yes, then I can start indoctrinating pupils.
A state college is best. more students.
sartre: Your social skills are limited. You need to be with
your own kind.
marriahstar: how do YOU know?
sartre: Just the types that will listen to a Totalitarian.
sartre: I went to a State Graduate School. The quality of
the students was so poor that you could even get a job
as a teacher.
marriahstar: I am not Totalitarian. I want everyone to be
his own king.
sartre: Sorry, lie to someone else. YOU WANT to RULE
over others.
marriahstar: Have I ever said that?
sartre: All the time . . .
marriahstar: I seek power, but only if people ive it to me.
sartre: The SICK want the acceptance from the SICK.
marriahstar: Until you get a doctor to cerify me as sick,
you are sick for calling me sick.
sartre: Is that right. Now we need professional unions to
place their seal on what is an illness. We read your
thoughts and we can think for ourselves. Herr Star;
YOU ARE SICK!
marriahstar: Only Professional unions can give credence
to personal opinions. One can think for one's self, but
one cannot be sure that thought is correct unless many
other people agree.
sartre: Just like a good Socialist! Sure . . .
marriahstar: That's the way the real world works.
sartre: And you think you have an idea of how the
world works? Where did you get your experience?
HARVARD!
marriahstar: Which reminds me, if you got your MA or
Ph.D. in political science at a state school, why the hell
did you choose to go into business? Why not get you
MBA somewhere, like Harvard or UPenn, and then go
into business? You only need to get a graduate degree
if you plan to teach, and you obviously have not taught
yet.
marriahstar: And further, I know of know academics,
current or retired, who became born-again Christians.
There is something incongruous about your life
experience. So you have some explaining to do if I am
going to take you seriously.
sartre: I was groomed to teach and go on to study for
the PhD. But what makes me different from you is that I
have intellectual integrity. The profession is full of liars
and whores. That can take the truth.
sartre: And I'm NOT 'Hired Help'.
marriahstar: How do you know? What do you define as
a lie?
sartre: Your garbage. Liberal insanity. Denial of Human
Nature.
marriahstar: You still have not defined a lie. You cannot
say something is a lie by saying it is a lie. Circular
reasoning again.
sartre: A lie is the denial of TRUTH!
sartre: And all these people knew it was the Truth and
refused to change their positions.
marriahstar: For that, you need to define truth. So let's
see you do it.
marriahstar: All the academics? What is "it"?
sartre: When a person acknowledges and accepts the
validity of an idea, and continues to act out their lives in
opposition to that idea; they lie to themselves.
sartre: The one's that were educated at all the best
schools, like you in the political science department.
marriahstar: I agree. That is bad faith. But, you are still
beating around the bush about which ideas are valid
and why.
marriahstar: You show smoke, but no fire.
sartre: There were several men of principle at my
undergraduate college. A private school. The STATE
School was a joke.
marriahstar: Then why did you go to the state school?
And who were these men of principle? What were their
principles?
sartre: I have provided you all the background that any
person needs to see the FACTS. You dismiss them
when they conflict with your vision. You will not
change. You aspire to be one of them!
marriahstar: The facts are your background. They
provide a way to understand your INTERPRETATION
of facts. But you have not provided your Herr Star,
Once again you fail to understand the use of language. If one is able to overcome a tendency that is in the very fabric of his nature, doesn't negate that its at the core of that nature. We still have 'Free Will', and I hold out hope that an individual CAN control his barbaric urges. You see, Herr Star; I have hope for each of us. However, as for the 'Collective' of the entire race, that wish for virtue, does not bear out with the record.
What is your answer to these FACTS?
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Gulf/2140/ http://www.people.memphis.edu/~genocide/link2.htm#rwanda http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/mmreviews/showrev.cgi?path=184
Reflect before you look even more foolish. The defination you request stands before you. Are you that brazen to deny what is so obvious? This is the Reality of the world we both live in. You may wish to dream of another realm, but your day will come when you will not be able to do the escaping.
Its your burden to explain and defend this evidence to support your notion. The proof is here for all to see. But you will never accept evidence if it conflict with your obsession to distort FACTS that exist.
SARTRE - 12/06/00 Well, I am going to make you play the game then!
If you are going to talk about history as providing evidence of man's evil nature, then you have to say which history provides this evidence? But, before you bring in historical examples, you have to talk about what you define as an "evil nature" or "base" tendencies. If you define an evil nature as killing another person, I respond that simply killing a person and taking away their freedom is not evil if that person threatens to deprive one's self or a quality life. War is not by definition evil, unless it is waged by an aggressor with superior strength to conquer a weaker foe with provokation.
You contradict yourself if you say "I firmly believe that an 'Individual Person' can overcome that tendency, but cannot escape the deep and compelling urges to revert to his basic drives." If a person can overcome that tendency, then they HAVE escaped those deep and compelling urges. Just look at Buddhist monks. Evil includes only those negative acts which you do to other people. That which you do to yourself is by definition not evil unless other people rely on you. There must be a victim for evil to exist. I cannot be a victim of my own actions, but other people can be a victim of my actions.
If you define evil according to the notion of sin, or the ten commandments, then you are also not proving your case. Sin only exists to regulate society by showing people what they should not do if they wish to maintain a sound and stable social order. But, when people show each other the way to a better life, without compelling them, then evil ceases to exist.
Marriah Star - 12/6/00 Herr Star,
Pray tell, a second clone of yourself? The first is bad enough. Don't you have any compassion for the rest of humanity?
You may think that the jury is still out on the essence of Human Nature, but I submit; the evidence all points, in the strongest way possible that little has change in all recorded history. Now does that mean that this common nature can't be affected by one's envirnoment. Don't be silly; of course, external conditions can mold a persons values and outlooks. Just look to yourself for that deviation from the norm of civilized society. But to acknowlege that FACT, hardly, implies that man can run away from that substance, and essence that makes him human.
The games you are playing are with yourself. And all the rhetoric avoids the central issue. Has 'Man' demonstrated that his conduct is evil by inclination? Is that his tendency? And if one expects any different behavior, one risks severe disappointment.
Now my conclusion may surprise you. I firmly believe that an 'Individual Person' can overcome that tendency, but cannot escape the deep and compelling urges to revert to his basic drives. Some can come to control those drives, while most fall short. And to conclude that you can mold any society or the entire world, into a utopia by changing the envirnoment where people interact within, is nuisance. The quicker you come to realize this REALITY, the sooner will not need the therapy that Bob's has offered, and you reject. But you are playing your own game, and you are free to loose it all by yourself . . .
SARTRE - 12/05/00 This is cute. The proper definition of a game is (a) an activity that has no connection to reality. Under this definition, a game is an activity whose consequences don't actually matter, such as playing Basketball. Whoever wins, there is no real consequence for the winner or the loser except to be able to say that he/she is the loser/winner. A game does not actually affect reality. It does not make you healthy when you are sick, it does not make you smart when you are stupid. It does not make you rich when you are poor. I could play monopoly with my family, but if I win everyone's money, that doesn't mean I get money in the "real"world. Similarly, if I lose money in monopoly, that doesn't mean I become poorer in the real world. Thus, a "sore loser" or "sore winner" is someone who thinks the outcome of a game has some consequence in the real world. Yet, a game can be a simulation of real-life activity. You can recreate the environments that are found in life, or recreate the dynamics that are found in life. Granted, recreation takes place under the heading "ceteris parabis", all other things being equal or remaining the same, and that limits the effectiveness of recreation or simulation because some part may reflect reality, and some part may not, but you are not really sure which is which. Thus, the measure of the effectiveness of any simulation is how closely it approximates reality. In that case, there must be a way of correlating the simulation with significant parts of reality.
Game theory is one way of doing approximate simulations. Academic research is another way of doing appoximate simulations, since you study phenomena with the expectation that the phenomena will repeat, and thus you see to understand the dynamics and the environment of the phenomena.
But, this requires a very specific mindset that is most often only found in academia, and very seldom found in the real world. The phenomena that people experience is either expected to repeat, and therefore capable of being simulated and being understood with greater precision, or the phenomena are not expected to repeat, and therefore any simulations will never allow a person to understand future phenomena, though they may allow an understanding of past phenomena.
This difference is crucial, and it ultimately hinges on what is to be considered a phenomenon. How do we define an experience or a phenomenon? This question is by no means esoteric. If a scientist decides to clone my DNA and create another Marriah, will Marriah number 2 actually be me? Or will it be someone completely different, or even slightly different? How do you define something as that thing? In academia, all things are capable of being duplicated, all phenomena either lose their defining characteristics, or lose the stickiness of their defining characteristics. Thus, in academia, we can ask, is fire still fire if it is cold instead of hot? Is water still water if it is dry instead of wet? Thus, the key aspect of any phenomena - the qualities that make it that phenomenon - come into quesiton, and may even be rearranged. This is where philosophy comes in, because we are forced to ask, what constitutes a phenomenon? Are there transcendent qualities that we associate with the things around use, and that can change, therefore changing the nature of the things, or is there an essence that is fixed, regardless of the qualities of the phenomena?
In academia, we ask these questions, but the very act of asking these questions implies that we can reassociate the qualities of a phenomenon. But that is only done by means of ideas. When the only phenomena we are working with are ideas, and not physical objects, we can easily change the qualities associated with those ideas, and thus change the ideas. But, in the "real world", we cannot make a fire cold, no matter how hard we try to reassociate the qualities of fire. That's because, in the real world, we are delaing with physical objects, and not ideas. Ideas may communicate the properties of physical objects, but they don't change the properties. In academia, since the objects are not physical, the ideas both communicate and change the properties of the objects.
But, in academia, there are connections with the "real" physical world. People, money and resources flow into academic institutions. If the academic institutions are communicating ideas, they may choose to associate the physical resources with those changed ideas. This may influence which students the universities acept, what they spend money on, who they employ as professors, and what kind of subjects they teach. This, in turn, influences the nature of the graduates that are produced, which affects the job market. This impact is amplified when the ideas produced by universities are connected with political institutions, which control even more people, money and physical resources.
The key issue, though, is how do we know that the ideas the universities are attempting to communicate and change are actually associated with mutable physical properties? A university could say that the Earth is flat, and it would be wrong. No matter how many professors proclaimed the earth to be flat, their ideas would never correspond to reality. But, we know this because we know the Earth is round. But there is a limit to what we know about fixed, immutable physical properties. Is it possible to change the way people act? Perhaps, if we know the basis on which people act. Is it possible to cause or prevent war? Perhaps, if we know the basis on which wars are fought. Our knowledge of fixed, immutable physical properties is limited to the physical world around us, and inside us. But we have not yet concluded whether humans have fixed, immutable properties, and that is important because humans interact so much with their fixed environments.
Games are played when ideas are bounced around with no ability to change immutable physical qualities. But that is only the case when we know that a quality is immutable. And, even if we know that a quality is mutable, does that mean the essence remains the same? Is human nature contingent on the environments we find ourselves in, or does our essence remain the same regardless of changing environments? If we conclude the latter, then we are playing games when speaking about humanity in the social sciences. If we conclude the former, then we are conducting approximate simulations, and thus we are not playing games. But we have not yet decided which one is true.
Marriah Star - 11/27/00 Herr Star,
I'm shocked! Could you be playing mind games? I hope you have read all of Mr Kocker's articles, since they are written just for you. Here is what he concludes:
"With reference to your recent Harvard graduate (see Part 1): The chances are ten to one against the kid's taking a word that has been said here seriously. What is typically to be expected in response is 'But . . .' or the equivalent, followed by an obstinate refutation. If the kid is seriously disturbed let him prove his sincerity by going to a good hard-ass analytically trained therapist, provided the therapist consents to be bothered with him. By listening to the kid, you are only diluting his need for treatment. If he is not sincere, he's only playing mind games with you. Maybe he's playing mind games with you because he's been taught to play mind games by professors or other people who have played mind games with him. Mind games and the world of mind games become a way of life under those circumstances. But that doesn't change anything, and it's not a healthy game to become involved with. Don't play his game. Tell him to get lost."
Tell me you take all this effort on our part, seriously? Are YOU serious? Have you sought out a therapist, yet? So should I take Bob's advice and tell you to get lost?
SARTRE - 11/27/00 Reality is both objective in that it exists independent of us, and subjective in that we are free to interpret and create it. The fundamental aspect of this that you are missing is the notion of TIME. The passage of time allows for a person to form interpretations about phenomena, and orient their actions accordingly.
Take this passage from Malcolm Gladwell's book, "The Tipping Point:.
"One of the most infamous incidents in New York City history was the 1964 stabbing death of a young Queens woman by the name of Kitty Genovese. Genovese was chased by her assailant and attacked three times on the street, over the course of half an hour, as thirty-eight of her neighbors watched from their windows. During that time, however, none of the 38 witnesses called the police. The case provoked rounds of self-recrimination. It became symbolic of the cold and dehumanizing effects of urban life.
But the truth is a little more complex. Two New York City psychologists - Bibb Latane of Columbia University and John Darley of New York University - subsequently conducted a series of studies to try to understand what they dubbed "the bystander problem". They staged emergencies of one kind or another in different situations in order to see who would come and help. What they found, surprisingly, was that the one factor above all else that predicted helping behavior was how many witnesses there were to the event.
In one experiment, for example, Latane and Darley had a student alone in a room stage an epileptic fit. When there was just one person next door, listening, that person rushed to the student's ait 85 percent of the time. But when subject thought that there were four others also overhearing the seizure, they came to the student's aid only 31 percent of the time. In another experiment, people who saw smoke seeping out from under a doorway would report it 75 percent of the time when they were on their own, but the incident would be reported only 38 percent of the time when they were in a group. When people are in a group, in other words, responsibility for acting is diffused. They assume that someone else will make the call, or they assume that because no one else is acting, the apparent problem isn't really a problem.
In the case of Kitty Genovese, then, social psychologists like Latane and Darley argue, the lesson is not that no one called despite the fact that 38 people heard her scream; it's that no one called because 38 people heard her scream. Ironically, had she been attacked on a lonely street with just one witness, she might have lived."
In international relations theory, there is one ruling premise: we exist in a state of chaos, or no controlling authority. Some theorists, like Waltz, try to construct a theoretical paradigm under which nations act according to predictable rules, which are determined by their history, their economic well-being, and their standing in the world. But other theorists, such as Alexander Wendt, have determined that in the face of anarchy, countries adopt scripts that tell them how to behave. If Canada accidently bombs the US, the US thinks that Canada is a friend, it asks Canada why it did that. But, if Russia accidently launches a nuclear missile at us, and apologizes that it was a mistake, we are liable to see Russia as an enemy, and the attack as intentional. Thus, we fire back and start world war III.
People operate on scripts all the time, and thus create reality through system effects. System effects are those where the inputs do not match the output, and where there is a feedback mechanism, so that your action influences the context, and changes the outcome that would otherwise have taken place if you had not acted.
The same is true with law. I say something to a lawyer that I believe to be the truth, but in fact turns out not to be true. The lawyer accuses me of perjury - not simply lying, but the intent to lie - and shows the judge that my statement was contrary to reality. But, if I believed that what I said was in fact true, then perjury cannot be proven.
But then, what exactly is reality? The president says that Oral sex is not sex. Most students across the nation agree with him, and say oral sex is not sex. It's just fooling around. sex only occurs with penetration. Thus, the president is correct because most people do not believe that oral sex is sex. Or, consider the definition of IS. The president declares that he is not having an affair. But does that mean at the moment he is answering the question, or in general. The question never specifies. So, the president answers that at that specific moment, he is not having an affair. And he is correct.
Or consider this: the Supreme Court rules on a case that a right to privacy exists. And therefore, women cannot by law be kept from having an abortion, since that goes against their right to privacy, and people cannot be tracked on the Internet or on cell phones, since that also violates their right to privacy. Interpretation is now reality.
Reality is subjective while we are creating it. But, we choose to objectify it after we form an interpretation of that creation, and the interpretation is shared by others. But this is only true for social reality and law. Physical reality - such as the law of gravity - is indeed completely objective, until we start wearing anti-gravity boots ( which probably isn't too far off in the future).
Marriah Star - 11/19/00 Herr Star,
Objective Reality exists, quite separate to the actuality of any single mind. In order to understand that Reality, one must possess and use the facilities of your mind. We have very different views. This FACT is indisputable when a
comprehensive comparison of our writings are assessed. Chaos is not a condition that I embrace or desire, it is a basis in fact that exists. It does not stem from individuality, but from the confusion that people adopt. The world is known through empirical experience AND through revealed knowledge. People are affected by reality and sometimes may be able to influence the course of events, but to conclude that Reality can: "only comes about through consensus of subjective views", is specious.
Your insistence that 'Man' is able to create Reality and God's guidance is limited to achieving a consensus is nothing but sophistry. We are distinct entities, while having the same nature; we have irreconcilable Cosmologies. Your notions offer no substance! Your leaps in dialectics are flawed. Your conclusions are inaccuracy. And the consequences of your dogma are alarming.
The shared consciousness that you seek, is the residue of the madman; and the tyranny of all of humanity. God's endowment of HIS love IS the 'so called' shared consciousness that you wish to attribute to your Unified Theory. But this Reality, doesn't require lessor pretenders to achieve its gifts. One needs to humble themselves to share in that wisdom. Surely, the world does not need another 'Collectivist' to impose your own vision upon the rest of us. I know who I serve; and its not a 'Reality' that you will create . . . .
SARTRE - 11/19/00 I think I understand your perspective. The two primary components of your philosophy entail (1) recognition of and respect for the individual, and the rights of the; individual, and (2) a recognition of reality as something apart from the individual, that the individual does not determine and has no control over.
If you simply focused on the individual, then there would be no place for an objective reality because there would simply be mass chaos, with each individual determining his own law, no right or wrong existing. That is largely the theme of Kocher's writings.
On the other hand, if you focused exclusively on an
objective fixed reality, there would be no room for the individual. Plus, following Kant, there would be no way for the individual to know that fixed reality, so there would be no way for the individual to have a relationship with the world around him.
That's where God comes in for you. Christianity provides the bridge between the individual and the rest of the world, as well as between one individual and another. But it is only through a leap of faith in God that the individual can establish that relationship. But this leap of faith isn't hard to take, since the individual is powerless, and alone without God to help him see the world, and thus it is in the individual's best interest to have faith in God, so that he can both interact with the world around him, and interact with other individuals. God also provides a buffer between individuals because they are focused to recognize the rights endowed by God.
Under that logic, war is stupid because war is essentially an attempt by individuals to control each other, and control their environments. But if they cannot know their environments, or other individuals, then all attempts at war are futile. Further, even attempting to change other people or one's environment without going through God is to act as God, which inevitably leaves one alone and powerless, and thus in misery. Thus, the fundamental, and unchangeable reality for you is that the individual is powerless and alone in the world, without the abililty to acquire knowledge about the world or relate to it, and that the only solution is to go with Berekeley's concept of God as mind, and thus come to know the world through God. God is fixed, and thus reality is fixed. But god is the only path to that reality.
If I am correct in this assessment, then I see the conflict between us.
First, I think Kant is absolutely wrong about our inability to know the world. Second, with regard to the individual and reality, I have observed numerous times that individuals and reality are inherently linked, with one affecting the other. There is no separation, but an ongoing interaction. Reality is not objective, but very subjective, and only comes about through consensus of subjective views. But those views can be changed, and thus reality can be changed. The issue though, is that views have a certain structure that cannot be changed. The way we interact and perceive is based on fixed rules. This doesn't prevent us from knowing reality, but provides parameters for interacting with it. We create reality, but we can only do it in so many ways. Thus, God is irrelevant to this scheme, but not irrelevant to humans. Instead of being the only bridge to reality, God is an enhancer of individual powers by providing a way to reach a consensus. God helps us create reality. Without God, we cannot form a consensus, and thus reality becomes unknowable and falls apart. Thus, I see reality and the individual as the same thing, which means that individuals are not separate, distinct entities, but are automatically merged into one consciousness. The objective part is provided by the way that consciousness operates.
What you see as collectivism is the attempt to erase
individuality and replace God with Man, which in your mind inevitably leaves man alone in the universe. But I see collectevism as merely a recognition of the shared consciousness, while philosophy is an exploration of how that consciousness operates, and how we create reality together. Collectivism thus provides true power and ability to shape reality.
Marriah Star 11/15/00 Herr Star,
Since you attribute omniscience to 'Man', and deny that 'The Eternal' is SOVEREIGN; it is no wonder you have earned the mantel of 'Mattoid'. For those of you who are not sure of the meaning, from the dictionary of difficult words: mattoid n. congenital idiot. This characterization is not a slur, but an observation. In you recent letter on your background, you express the goal is to be happy. Well that is where you succeed in your 'Phantasm'. And your desire to flee from work, at the expense of those who do, awards you with the 'Collectivist' label. Now put them all together and you have Chaos.
SARTRE - 11/15/00 Excuse me, but I am not denying that rights are endowed by God. Rights are indeed endowed by God. BUT WE ARE GOD.
And whoever said anything about authority or control? It seems that it is either God who is telling you what to do, or someone else, and you want God to be the authority.
BUT GOD IS NOT SOVEREIGN. God exists, but God obeys our commands, not vice-versa. We are not part of God's plan, God is part of our plans. You keep confusing the relationship. God helps us, we do not help God.
God helps us when we help ourselves. We are the sole creative beings who have Gods power. God simply magnifies that power by connecting us. God is the flow, or the stream
that connects allow of us. Without that stream, there is no God. Without connections to each other, there is no God.
Marriah Star - 11/13/00 Herr Star,
Since you deny that 'Rights' are endowed by God, and
claim that role for yourself; does that means we must
worship you in HIS place? Does your 'so called' natural
ability extend to molding the rest of us? Quite possible,
some who read your thoughts, may disagree!
Where does your Jedi training has turned to the 'Dark Side' ? From your own words, it seems that the Empire can do no wrong. And your solution is to command another 'Death Star'. Is that were you take your name from?
Since your last sentiments seek to ELIMINATE, its no surprise that we stand on opposite sides. Just who's 'Force' will endure? Mine of Reason and Virtue, or yours of control and compliance? When 'RIGHTS' are arbitratory, 'Justice' is relative to the dispenser. I am not willing to allow YOU to adopt that role . . . .
SARTRE - 11/6/00 Marriah Star - 11/4/00
Since you care so much about rights, let's at least define them, and examine what they are supposed to achieve.
A right is merely a tool which enables a person to achieve some form of happiness/well-being/fullfillment in life, either by giving them tools they would not otherwise have, or preventing other people from taking the tools that they automatically have.
In your mind, a right is automatic, given by God, because the tools that men have to create their own form of happiness are also given by God. It is other men who take those tools away through organizations, such as the state. To you, the use of the tool, and the recognition that God gave it to you, is happiness and well-being.
But I define God as man. Man is merely a conduit for God, or creative, conscious energy. Thus, God indeed does give me the tools, because I have the natural ability to use them, while God, through man, gives me the medium through which I can use the tools. I have the basic skills, the paint brush or the hammer and chisel, but man is the canvas for me to paint on; man is the clay that I have to mold.
I automatically have the ability, but I don't always have the canvas. The concept of right is what gives me the ability to draw on the canvas, or mold the clay.
A right only exists in positive form (enabling a person to create something) when people actually have the tools. But, not all people have the tools in equal amounts. Thus, is a right is what allows me to get more tools from someone who
is not using them at the moment. On the negative side, a right prevents a person from taking the tools from me when I am using them.
Rights only exist to regulate the flow of society. Thus, where there is a natural and unbroken flow that reaches everybody, rights don't exist because there is no need for them. Everyone is happy. But, when the flow between people is broken, then rights come into being as a way of preventing tools from being taken away (stopping a virus or parasite) or helping the flow to continue (eliminating a blood clot). Once everything is back to normal, rights cease to exist.
You can only conceive of the virus or parasite, and you call me one. But I see you as a blood clot because you inhibit the flow. You need to be eliminated, not me. I maintain it, you disrupt it.
|
|
|
|
