Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 What goes around comes around. Clinton's impeachment was nothing more than the Republicans getting even with the Democrats for Watergate and Nixon. If Dubya gets to be pres the Democrats will be like a horsefly buzzing around a cow's ass looking for payback. As soon as the bucks get big enough somebody will write a tell all about W and it'll make the DWI look like a parking ticket. Re: Bush video > ken, > i really dont care if he was really buzzed or not. he looked like he > was having a good time, and was fairly entertaining. but he has > gone the > record saying he quit drinking in 1986 and has abstained ever > since. even then i barley care at the dishonesty. its quite > irrelevant in larger > scheme of things. > > but this is from a man whose party preaches abstaining as a > righteous principle in life practically, and has dogged the clinton > administration for > every contradiction in personal behavior and public disclosure > for political gain and used it as examples of lack of fitness for 8 > years. > > for him to cry, when the same scrutiny is applied back at him, > seems like, well... whining. > > not to mention, if he claims he hasn't drank since 86 but did in > 92, what does he have to hide? afterall, he has made that an > issue himself by > claiming it as a sign of character. but wait, he wasn't being > honest! isn't that also a sign of character? he wants it both ways > as much as would > accuse gore of same. > how is that any different from him chastising gore for taking > credit for things he never accomplished solo? or waffling? this > is battle of public > perception, i wont cry for bush when the tools the republicans > perfected, are used back at them. > > dave > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 > He claims that he didn't bring it up because he didn't want his >daughters drinking and driving. He actually said that? What utter horseshit. In other words, he's going to be hypocrite with his daughters. What could make them more likely to do it once they find out! In reality warning them that he got into a scrape and was lucky to get off lightly might make them more cautious, not less. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 Re: Bush video > > > > *** Gore said in one of the debates that he favored the death > penalty. > > Clinton/Gore type 'Democrats' may believe (secretly, of course:-)) > that the death penalty is wrong, but they are perfectly willing to > kill a few people to get elected. > > Did he really go as far as that? Here is an excerpt from the 3rd debate. (btw, the transcripts are very easy to find on the net. A prime source is www.debates.org. Also if you do a google search on 'Al Gore death penalty' you'll get lots and lots of links): MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: I support the death penalty. I think that it has to be administered not only fairly with attention to things like DNA evidence, which I think should be used in all capital cases, but also with very careful attention. If, for example, somebody confesses to the crime and somebody is waiting on death row, there has to be alertness to say wait a minute, have we got the wrong guy? If the wrong guy is put to death, then that's a double tragedy. Not only has an innocent person been executed, but the real perpetrator of the crime has not been held accountable for it. And in some cases may be still at large. But I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases. MODERATOR: Do both of you believe the death penalty actually deters crime? Governor? BUSH: I do. It's the only reason to be for it. Let me finish, sir. I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives. GORE: I think it is a deterrent. I know that's a controversial view, but I do believe it's a deterrent. >I heard he was spineless on the issue > with Bush, but I didnt think he'd retracted that far. Fwiw, I've heard > that if ppl are suggested full lifetime prison with no parole as the > sentence for murder, then more ppl favor this than the death penalty, > but that might be just the UK. > > > > Actually, being very careful not to buck the popular wisdom has been > one of the leading characteristics of Gore's whole career. The story > goes that when his father lost his seat in the Senate for being too > liberal on civil rights and Vietnam it made an indelible impression on > young Al. > > Yep, again I've heard that he's spineless on these things. But heck, > I'd rather have a reluctant hang 'em high type than an ethusiastic > one. > > P. > > > > > --wally > > > > > > > > Youve got Govt backed steppism already; you want Govt backed > Xtianity > > > as well? > > > > > > I will tone down a previous Americanophobic quip of mine to say > that > > > this is a choice between the Conservatives and the > > > Ultra-Conservatives - take the lesser of two evils, please! > > > > > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 > Gore has repeatedly *endorsed* the death penalty. I'm not acusing you > of ignorance because even his most vocal critics have trouble keeping > up with his lies. Hey Jim, Dont blame me - blame the BBC. The way I took it from them was that Gore just didnt challenge Bush on this but now I realize that that wouldnt make sense - if he didnt bring it up Bush would, forcing him to jump one way or the other. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 > What goes around comes around. Clinton's impeachment was nothing more than > the Republicans getting even with the Democrats for Watergate and Nixon. Didn't Nixon avoid impeachment in office? I know he was pardoned by Ford, but I thought he resigned before impeachment - and heck, he didnt just carry on where JFK left off, Nixon broke the law to cheat in an election he won by a landslide anyway. What I think incredibly disgusting is that this bungling office-burglar on his death got honored as a great American hero! P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 He resigned before he was impeached. Ford pardoned him to keep the US from the embarrassment of having an ex-president a convicted felon, or even in prison. Re: Bush video > > > What goes around comes around. Clinton's impeachment was nothing > more than > > the Republicans getting even with the Democrats for Watergate and > Nixon. > > Didn't Nixon avoid impeachment in office? I know he was pardoned by > Ford, but I thought he resigned before impeachment - and heck, he > didnt just carry on where JFK left off, Nixon broke the law to cheat > in an election he won by a landslide anyway. What I think incredibly > disgusting is that this bungling office-burglar on his death got > honored as a great American hero! > > P. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 Ken - why try to see " glimmers of hope " in American politicians? Why not try to see what is actually there? When people TRY to see good where good does not exist, they usually have a motive to do this, eg, personal biases, social pressure, pecuniary gain, etc. All too many " good " Germans just tried to see " something good " in National Socialism. Gore or Bush, either will continue current policy, in Colombia, in the Ramparts Division, and elsewhere. You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing. But you do have to be willing to see what's there, even if the wind is blowing the wrong way. Re: Bush video > > > > This is not an argument for Bush. I'm just trying to see a _little_ > glimmer > > of hope _somewhere_ on the political scene. > > > So, we freedom fighters can get to put in a lot of spadework just to > get back to where we started? All " faith-based " stuff can possibly do > is help *legitimise* the " spiritual not religious " steppism. You > don't get to stop guys stealing pushbikes by getting them to steal > limos! > > P. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 paul diener wrote: > Ken - why try to see " glimmers of hope " in American politicians? Why not > try to see what is actually there? When people TRY to see good where good > does not exist, they usually have a motive to do this, eg, personal biases, > social pressure, pecuniary gain, etc. All too many " good " Germans just > tried to see " something good " in National Socialism. Gore or Bush, either > will continue current policy, in Colombia, in the Ramparts Division, and > elsewhere. You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is > blowing. But you do have to be willing to see what's there, even if the > wind is blowing the wrong way. , It is not a matter of not seeing what is there. Maybe an analogy that goes along with your excellent post on intuition in science is in order. If I'm Wilbur or Orville, challenged with the dauntin task of flying, it would have been not only pointless but counterproductive to frame the problem in terms of " what there is. " What there is is millenia of failure to fly, the obvious futility of any effort. What was necessary was to work at framing and reframing and reframing again the problem into one that had hope of a solution. That is what I am trying to do. If I give up all hope and fall into despair, then all is lost. I'll make no further effort. Not that I'm in danger of despairing with the matter at hand, there is too much to despair over things that are much, much more immediate. <1/2 G> And there is also another danger in allowing oneself to be overwhelmed with despair and hopelessness. Bill is an excellent example. He despaired over (and was helped to see " the hideousness of his own guilt " ) over his treatment of Lois. My guess is that his drinking problem was very much related to alcohol making him " lose control " and " forcing " him to have sex with women other than Lois. The AA literature speaks of his guilt being over how he treated Lois and aside from his affairs, he didn't work much and probably a host of other things. Once he was desperate, lost in despair, he was fair game for externally imposed solutions, in this case Oxford Group theology but it could just as well have been another theology or ideology. Did that stop his stepping out on Lois, solve the problem he had so much despair over? Of course not. He was merely coopted by the theology -- " when having trouble with sex, throw yourself all the harder into helping others. " When one allows oneself to become desparate, to be overwhelmed with despair, one is subject to clutch at the noose prepared for their own hanging. Ken Ragge P.S. I reserve the right to, the next time I post on despair, to post on the beneficial possiblities inherent in feeling great despair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 In this election, how many voted from despair? How many voted against the other guy than for their guy? Perhaps that is a possible benefit of despair, that it gets people interested in something they normally would only curse or laugh about. Re: Re: Bush video Ken RaggeP.S. I reserve the right to, the next time I post on despair, to post on thebeneficial possiblities inherent in feeling great despair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 Keep hoping, Ken. Just don't put you hope onto Gore or Bush. And leaven the hope with cold observation. Step back and look at the big picture. Gore is MUCH more reactionary than was Eisenhower. Now, doesn't that tell you something? Re: Re: Bush video > paul diener wrote: > > > Ken - why try to see " glimmers of hope " in American politicians? Why not > > try to see what is actually there? When people TRY to see good where good > > does not exist, they usually have a motive to do this, eg, personal biases, > > social pressure, pecuniary gain, etc. All too many " good " Germans just > > tried to see " something good " in National Socialism. Gore or Bush, either > > will continue current policy, in Colombia, in the Ramparts Division, and > > elsewhere. You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is > > blowing. But you do have to be willing to see what's there, even if the > > wind is blowing the wrong way. > > , > > It is not a matter of not seeing what is there. Maybe an analogy that goes > along with your excellent post on intuition in science is in order. > > If I'm Wilbur or Orville, challenged with the dauntin task of flying, it would > have been not only pointless but counterproductive to frame the problem in > terms of " what there is. " What there is is millenia of failure to fly, the > obvious futility of any effort. What was necessary was to work at framing and > reframing and reframing again the problem into one that had hope of a solution. > > That is what I am trying to do. If I give up all hope and fall into despair, > then all is lost. I'll make no further effort. > > Not that I'm in danger of despairing with the matter at hand, there is too much > to despair over things that are much, much more immediate. <1/2 G> > > And there is also another danger in allowing oneself to be overwhelmed with > despair and hopelessness. Bill is an excellent example. He despaired > over (and was helped to see " the hideousness of his own guilt " ) over his > treatment of Lois. My guess is that his drinking problem was very much related > to alcohol making him " lose control " and " forcing " him to have sex with women > other than Lois. > > The AA literature speaks of his guilt being over how he treated Lois and aside > from his affairs, he didn't work much and probably a host of other things. > > Once he was desperate, lost in despair, he was fair game for externally imposed > solutions, in this case Oxford Group theology but it could just as well have > been another theology or ideology. Did that stop his stepping out on Lois, > solve the problem he had so much despair over? Of course not. He was merely > coopted by the theology -- " when having trouble with sex, throw yourself all > the harder into helping others. " > > When one allows oneself to become desparate, to be overwhelmed with despair, > one is subject to clutch at the noose prepared for their own hanging. > > Ken Ragge > > P.S. I reserve the right to, the next time I post on despair, to post on the > beneficial possiblities inherent in feeling great despair. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 paul diener wrote: > Keep hoping, Ken. Just don't put you hope onto Gore or Bush. And leaven > the hope with cold observation. Step back and look at the big picture. > Gore is MUCH more reactionary than was Eisenhower. Now, doesn't that tell > you something? , You yourself, who probably has a far less gloomy view of things than I, seem to believe that the current course of events will play themselves out in much the same way as they played out in Germany. I have no argument to counter that view. As far as Gore goes, I think that given half a chance he will lead us further into 12-Step Hell. There is little way of challenging do gooders, no matter how horrible the results of the good they do. (Like the war on drugs, coerced treatment, etc.) We already have one to two million people a year coerced into treatment and a huge prison population. How much more coerced treatment and how many more prison beds will be built and filled by our benevolent leaders if Gore is elected? I see Bush, given half a chance, leading us into Fundie Hell. The only difference being that Bush will be directly challenged on his efforts to break down the separation of church and state. No one challenges the " liberal democratic " threats to First Amendment rights. What surprises, perhaps disappoints me is the better word, is that on this list of almost 300 people, the 12 Step Free Zone, it is all partisan politics and no mention of Clinton and Gore's participation in, endorsement of, and support for not just the Step groups but also coercion into those groups. It is not like everyone has to believe that there has to be a good authority that needs to be defended at all costs, is it? Ken Ragge tree-hugger and civil rights advocate, former self-identified liberal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 ----- Original Message ----- [snip] > What surprises, perhaps disappoints me is the better word, is that on this list > of almost 300 people, the 12 Step Free Zone, it is all partisan politics and no > mention of Clinton and Gore's participation in, endorsement of, and support for > not just the Step groups but also coercion into those groups. [snip] To a large extent that is because we take it for granted. Opposition to coerced treatment is is (incredibly) still too radical an idea for a national-level politician to take on. For that matter, even Nader talks about how addicts " need treatment, " and I have to presume that he would favor spending government money on 12-step indoctrination. Nor was I able to find any reference to his voicing opposition to compulsory treatment. --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 Hi Ken; At 62 I'm consider myself a conservative democrat. You might say that's a contradiction in terms. But on your terms I see it as I'd rather see more filled prison beds than more filled Death Rows. Bush refused to even talk to an international delegation on clemency for that young woman executed a couple of years ago. Do you want a man who spurns diplomats from countries like France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany making our foriegn Policy? I don't and thank God or Goddess that he won't have a mandate. Bush won't put drunks in treatment, he'll put them in prison. I believe this defeats your argument on filled prison cells. While he and his friends find exceptions in the law to avoid the fate of us peasants. Now, having said all that, I believe Bush will likely do OK. After all he hasn't been elected KING. Besides, he has his mother, whom I have undying respect for, to advise him. GWB said it this morning. We americans have a way of coming together after the election is over. That I believe will happen, even as hotly contested as this race was or is. I believe in us and the rule of Law rather than Men. If GWB is elected by law, he will be Mister President to me, and I will listen closely to him. I didn't like Reagan ( " ZAP " ) Do you remember " He's got him a medal that he won in the war, it weighs 500 pounds and it sleeps by the door. " From Drug Store Truck Drivin' Man, by Country Joe Mc.? However, while I was in prison, Hinkley shot Reagan. A friend of mine said " This country doesn't need a good 5 cent cigar, it needs an assasin with better aim. " I was on him like white on rice. This is the president of The United States you're talking about, if he's not safe, who is? Sometime perhaps we'll meet F2F Ken. I love a good arguement and I believe you do also. Problem is we have so little to argue about, but it would be enlightening anyway. You know I don't buy forced 12 steps. However, there are more and more centers springing up here that pay homage to the 12 step model, but don't follow it. I got comitted to one of these and not only was it treatment, it was fun! Regardless of who wins the white house, I believe these centers will be shown to be more effective and thus win out. So I'll get out of here with something maybe you and I only remember. " He's a drug store truck drivin' man. he's the head of The Ku Klux Klan, and when summertime rolls back around, we'll be lucky to get out of town. " (Country Joe Mc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 wally wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > [snip] > > > What surprises, perhaps disappoints me is the better word, is that on this > list > > of almost 300 people, the 12 Step Free Zone, it is all partisan politics > and no > > mention of Clinton and Gore's participation in, endorsement of, and > support for > > not just the Step groups but also coercion into those groups. > > [snip] > > To a large extent that is because we take it for granted. Opposition to > coerced treatment is is (incredibly) still too radical an idea for a > national-level politician to take on. For that matter, even Nader talks > about how addicts " need treatment, " and I have to presume that he would > favor spending government money on 12-step indoctrination. Nor was I able to > find any reference to his voicing opposition to compulsory treatment. > > --wally Wally, And it seems to radical of an idea to be discussed here in terms of real-world politics. It's like it's not on their agenda so we don't take it into account, it doesn't exist. However, if it doesn't exist here, on this list, when and where might it be a topic of discussion? I don't think waiting for a party to decide its an issue to respond is helpful. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 D Hall wrote: > Hi Ken; > > At 62 I'm consider myself a conservative democrat. You might say > that's a contradiction in terms. Hi , Welcome back! Hardly. > But on your terms I see it as I'd rather see more filled prison beds > than more filled Death Rows. Bush refused to even talk to an > international delegation on clemency for that young woman > executed a couple of years ago. Do you want a man who spurns > diplomats from countries like France, Belgium, The Netherlands > and Germany making our foriegn Policy? I don't and thank God or > Goddess that he won't have a mandate. > > Bush won't put drunks in treatment, he'll put them in prison. I > believe this defeats your argument on filled prison cells. While he > and his friends find exceptions in the law to avoid the fate of us > peasants. > That is NOT the good-old-boy, Deep South way. Drunks are not put in prison. They are put in jail overnight and let go. > > Now, having said all that, I believe Bush will likely do OK. After all > he hasn't been elected KING. Besides, he has his mother, whom I > have undying respect for, to advise him. > I do wish his mother had of run instead. <G> > > GWB said it this morning. We americans have a way of coming > together after the election is over. That I believe will happen, even > as hotly contested as this race was or is. I just don't see such a hotly contested race, not by the majority of people. Certainly there are people who are intensely interested and involved, but don't you think for most people it was rather ho-hum? > > I believe in us and the rule of Law rather than Men. If GWB is > elected by law, he will be Mister President to me, and I will listen > closely to him. > So will I. And also voice my opinion as ever. One thing nice if he is elected, I can be more in tune with everyone else in criticizing his actions. <G> > > I didn't like Reagan ( " ZAP " ) Do you remember " He's got > him a medal that he won in the war, it weighs 500 pounds and it > sleeps by the door. " From Drug Store Truck Drivin' Man, by > Country Joe Mc.? > > However, while I was in prison, Hinkley shot Reagan. A > friend of mine said " This country doesn't need a good 5 cent cigar, > it needs an assasin with better aim. " I was on him like white on > rice. This is the president of The United States you're talking > about, if he's not safe, who is? > > Sometime perhaps we'll meet F2F Ken. I love a good arguement > and I believe you do also. Problem is we have so little to argue > about, but it would be enlightening anyway. > Try me. <G> > > You know I don't buy forced 12 steps. However, there are more > and more centers springing up here that pay homage to the 12 > step model, but don't follow it. I got comitted to one of these and > not only was it treatment, it was fun! > > Regardless of who wins the white house, I believe these centers > will be shown to be more effective and thus win out. > Hearing about your good experience was _very_ encouraging. I hope it is a trend that continues. Ken > > So I'll get out of here with something maybe you and I only > remember. " He's a drug store truck drivin' man. he's the head of > The Ku Klux Klan, and when summertime rolls back around, we'll > be lucky to get out of town. " (Country Joe Mc.) > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2000 Report Share Posted November 8, 2000 > > Wally, > > And it seems to radical of an idea to be discussed here in terms of real-world > politics. It's like it's not on their agenda so we don't take it into account, > it doesn't exist. However, if it doesn't exist here, on this list, when and > where might it be a topic of discussion? I don't think waiting for a party to > decide its an issue to respond is helpful. What would be helpful is if I started putting in my 2 cents and stop being a shirker. Shirk Main Entry: shirk Pronunciation: 'sh & rk Function: verb Etymology: origin unknown Date: 1681 intransitive senses 1 : to go stealthily : SNEAK 2 : to evade the performance of an obligation transitive senses : AVOID, EVADE <shirk one's duty> - shirk·er noun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2000 Report Share Posted November 9, 2000 When Clinton/Gore favor blurring the distinction between church and state, and Gore picks a running mate who says that freedom from religion isn't in the Constitution, when they enthusiastically prosecute the war on drugs and accept campaign money from prison corporations, then indeed I believe that as a national issue 12-step coercion pales into insignificance. Logically as well as practically the broader " rights and liberties " issues take precedence. --wally [snip] > > > > To a large extent that is because we take it for granted. Opposition to > > coerced treatment is is (incredibly) still too radical an idea for a > > national-level politician to take on. For that matter, even Nader talks > > about how addicts " need treatment, " and I have to presume that he would > > favor spending government money on 12-step indoctrination. Nor was I able to > > find any reference to his voicing opposition to compulsory treatment. > > > > --wally > > Wally, > > And it seems to radical of an idea to be discussed here in terms of real-world > politics. It's like it's not on their agenda so we don't take it into account, > it doesn't exist. However, if it doesn't exist here, on this list, when and > where might it be a topic of discussion? I don't think waiting for a party to > decide its an issue to respond is helpful. > > Ken Ragge > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2000 Report Share Posted November 9, 2000 > What surprises, perhaps disappoints me is the better word, is that on this list > of almost 300 people, the 12 Step Free Zone, it is all partisan politics and no > mention of Clinton and Gore's participation in, endorsement of, and support for > not just the Step groups but also coercion into those groups. We are a fringe group, Ken. A focus on the harm done by 12 step treatment is a radical focus in the US right now. National politics is the wrong forum in which to address this issue. We need to do it as locally as possible, because that's where we all have the most power. Also we have freedom because we are not a well-organized " movement, " unlike democrats or republicans we are united by a more-or-less undefined set of issues. A very individual set of issues for most of us, at this point. Why did you start this group, why am I here, why is anyone else here? We all have different issues, and we have a lot of disagreement, but we also have a lot of mutual support. judith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2000 Report Share Posted November 9, 2000 Judith Stillwater wrote: > > > > What surprises, perhaps disappoints me is the better word, is that > on this list > > of almost 300 people, the 12 Step Free Zone, it is all partisan > politics and no > > mention of Clinton and Gore's participation in, endorsement of, and > support for > > not just the Step groups but also coercion into those groups. > > We are a fringe group, Ken. A focus on the harm done by 12 step > treatment is a radical focus in the US right now. National politics is > the wrong forum in which to address this issue. Judith, But my point was that partisan politics took precedence here on the fringe. Not that partisan politics are in any way wrong, but it is the complete lack of mention that things that if we on our little piece of fringe don't discuss, isn't getting discussed anywere. > We need to do it as > locally as possible, because that's where we all have the most power. > Also we have freedom because we are not a well-organized " movement, " > unlike democrats or republicans we are united by a more-or-less > undefined set of issues. A very individual set of issues for most of > us, at this point. Why did you start this group, why am I here, why is > anyone else here? We all have different issues, and we have a lot of > disagreement, but we also have a lot of mutual support. > Yes, and almost invariably, when I think of something to say, someone has more than likely already posted what I'm thinking and probably in clearer, conciser and better thought out terms than I would have. Moreover, half a dozen others post and express a diversity of opinions and thoughts on the matter. I like that. It is nice not to be a long voice in the wilderness but to have made it all the way in to the fringe. However, all this election talk, don't get me wrong -- partisan politics are fine and a worthy topic in their own right -- however, if we aren't thinking and talking and debating and opining and questioning the role of the steppers in the political sphere (even whether it is worth discussing) here on the fringe, who is? And if not us, who and who will ever? Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2000 Report Share Posted November 10, 2000 My only quibble is that surely you can't have a darker view of the future in the US than I do, Ken! By the way, did you get a chance to look at 's New-Age tome, The Shadow Culture? He is a Harvard psychologist. Interpretation is crap, but the overview, though popular rather than scholarly, is adequate. Also of interest, R. Wuthrow's After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s. You might find R. Segal, J. Singer, and M. Stein, eds, The Allure of Gnosticism: The Gnostic Experience in Jungian Psychology also interesting. All this stuff treats of the " Spiritual Revolution " in the U.S. Re: Re: Bush video > paul diener wrote: > > > Keep hoping, Ken. Just don't put you hope onto Gore or Bush. And leaven > > the hope with cold observation. Step back and look at the big picture. > > Gore is MUCH more reactionary than was Eisenhower. Now, doesn't that tell > > you something? > > , > > You yourself, who probably has a far less gloomy view of things than I, seem to > believe that the current course of events will play themselves out in much the > same way as they played out in Germany. I have no argument to counter that > view. > > As far as Gore goes, I think that given half a chance he will lead us further > into 12-Step Hell. There is little way of challenging do gooders, no matter how > horrible the results of the good they do. (Like the war on drugs, coerced > treatment, etc.) We already have one to two million people a year coerced into > treatment and a huge prison population. How much more coerced treatment and how > many more prison beds will be built and filled by our benevolent leaders if Gore > is elected? > > I see Bush, given half a chance, leading us into Fundie Hell. The only > difference being that Bush will be directly challenged on his efforts to break > down the separation of church and state. No one challenges the " liberal > democratic " threats to First Amendment rights. > > What surprises, perhaps disappoints me is the better word, is that on this list > of almost 300 people, the 12 Step Free Zone, it is all partisan politics and no > mention of Clinton and Gore's participation in, endorsement of, and support for > not just the Step groups but also coercion into those groups. > > It is not like everyone has to believe that there has to be a good authority > that needs to be defended at all costs, is it? > > Ken Ragge > tree-hugger and civil rights advocate, former self-identified liberal > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2000 Report Share Posted November 10, 2000 paul diener wrote: > My only quibble is that surely you can't have a darker view of the future in > the US than I do, Ken! , It is so dark, then when I try to post about it, my screen starts darkening from where the cursor is outwards and before I can get my first sentence in, the screen is entirely black. I can no longer see anything but pitchblack so can't type. Top that. > By the way, did you get a chance to look at 's > New-Age tome, The Shadow Culture? He is a Harvard psychologist. > Interpretation is crap, but the overview, though popular rather than > scholarly, is adequate. Also of interest, R. Wuthrow's After Heaven: > Spirituality in America Since the 1950s. You might find R. Segal, J. > Singer, and M. Stein, eds, The Allure of Gnosticism: The Gnostic Experience > in Jungian Psychology also interesting. All this stuff treats of the > " Spiritual Revolution " in the U.S. > Actually, I don't get much time to read at all. I've gone back to school, I'm working a bit more and I'm also trying to put together a database to identify groupers in positions of power and influence, treatment centers, and perhaps also to serve as a central reference or resource pointing outwards to material on the Step Groups. I've come close to having a little working prototype but keep running into programming problems trying to have something accessible to everyone with a computer whether its an IBM, Apple or WebTV. I'll probably start back to work this weekend and since I've learned a tremendous amount, perhaps it will begin going quicker. If not, I'll be taking the classes in January that I most need to get it up and running (e.g. security). I'll probably be asking you for assistance shortly on a few things, like organizational structure, what should be cross-referenced, etc., etc. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2000 Report Share Posted November 10, 2000 That is dark. I have met folks outside the U.S. whose courage and deceny help me survive. Hence, my computer screen is still a dark grey. Keep me informed of what you are up to. Are you taking programming classes, or something more general? Re: Re: Bush video > paul diener wrote: > > > My only quibble is that surely you can't have a darker view of the future in > > the US than I do, Ken! > > , > > It is so dark, then when I try to post about it, my screen starts darkening from > where the cursor is outwards and before I can get my first sentence in, the > screen is entirely black. I can no longer see anything but pitchblack so can't > type. > > Top that. > > > By the way, did you get a chance to look at 's > > New-Age tome, The Shadow Culture? He is a Harvard psychologist. > > Interpretation is crap, but the overview, though popular rather than > > scholarly, is adequate. Also of interest, R. Wuthrow's After Heaven: > > Spirituality in America Since the 1950s. You might find R. Segal, J. > > Singer, and M. Stein, eds, The Allure of Gnosticism: The Gnostic Experience > > in Jungian Psychology also interesting. All this stuff treats of the > > " Spiritual Revolution " in the U.S. > > > > Actually, I don't get much time to read at all. I've gone back to school, I'm > working a bit more and I'm also trying to put together a database to identify > groupers in positions of power and influence, treatment centers, and perhaps > also to serve as a central reference or resource pointing outwards to material > on the Step Groups. I've come close to having a little working prototype but > keep running into programming problems trying to have something accessible to > everyone with a computer whether its an IBM, Apple or WebTV. I'll probably > start back to work this weekend and since I've learned a tremendous amount, > perhaps it will begin going quicker. If not, I'll be taking the classes in > January that I most need to get it up and running (e.g. security). I'll > probably be asking you for assistance shortly on a few things, like > organizational structure, what should be cross-referenced, etc., etc. > > Ken Ragge > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2000 Report Share Posted November 11, 2000 I find it interesting that one with a Canadian email address voted for Browne. Thats great, though, every vote helps. Re: Bush video I voted for Harry Browne. My SO probably voted for Bush as being the lesser of the evil even though she is basically a libertarian like me. She dislikes Bush but correctly percieves a Gore presidency as being beyond decency. I find this talk about Bush very amusing-- hisopponent(the media does not allow us to listen to subversive candidates and parties) is a pathological liar and learned the finer point of the big lie from his boss. Both are sons of power and priviledge and sleep in bed with special interests. The really scary thing, to me, is that Gore may win. There is a good article by reason magazine that talkes about the new presidential politics:http://www.reason.com/"The New Presidential Identity" Its a link from the main page. There is an article by Stanton Peele as well.Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2000 Report Share Posted November 11, 2000 > I find it interesting that one with a Canadian email address voted for Browne. Thats great, though, every vote helps. I'm from Colorado, eh? It's a hotbed of libertarian activism! Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.