CRTTPOTBA

write, edit and illustrate a graphic novel?

Their novel, “a wildly ambitious, emotionally searing story,” based on a series of true events, is called Shake Girl, and you can start reading it here.

The Global Peace Index (GPI) was launched in May 2007 and claims to be the first study of its kind ranking nations according to their peacefulness. Last year's report covered 121 countries. The latest increased it to 140. Australian entrepreneur Steve Killelea conceived the idea and won some dubious endorsements. Among them, the Dalai Lama.

He served as a CIA asset from the late 1950s until 1974 and may again be in tow if the Bush administration's awarding him a Congressional Gold Medal last year and closeness to him now is an indication. Other endorsers include Jordan's Queen Noor; another member of her royal family; four members of the British House of Lords; Ted Turner; Virgin Group's Richard Branson; other business and community leaders; Australia's former Prime Minister JM Fraser; other former high-ranking government officials; academics; a former BBC war correspondent and MP; plus six Nobel Laureates, including Jimmy Carter. In fairness, a few distinguished names join them, including Helen Caldicott and economics professor James Galbraith.

These organizations prepare GPI's report - The Economist Intelligence Unit, an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks, and the University of Sydney's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. Their stated purpose is to "highlight the relationship between Global Peace and Sustainability (stressing that) unless we can achieve" a peaceful world, humanity's major challenges won't be solved. No argument there, but does GPI's statement belie its real interest?

GPI uses 24 indicators to rank nations according to their relative internal and external peacefulness. They include their:

-- military expenditures as a percent of GDP and number of armed service personnel per 100,000 population;

-- relations with other countries;

-- respect for human rights;

-- potential for terrorist acts;

-- number of homicides per 100,000 population, including infanticide;

-- level of violent crime;

-- aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 population and ease of access to small arms and light weapons;

-- number of jailed population per 100,000 population; and

-- number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 population.

Conspicuously absent is a measure of outside influence causing internal violence, instability and/or disruption. Venezuela ranked an implausible 123rd behind America at 97th. Something is amiss, and the above rating raises suspicions that angered Venezuelan National Assemblyman Jose Albornos. He stated:

"Sometimes things tip over into irrationality just like they're doing just now....(it's) part of a plan....there are sectors who decide that they want to get rid of Chavez, who have seen that they cannot (do it by) coup d'etat and are trying to penalize the whole country in a campaign of attrition."

He then added that the 2008 GPI "doesn't correspond with the truth," and plenty of evidence backs him. It's examined below.

By GPI's criteria, scoring Venezuela high and America lowest should be no-brainers. The US hands down is the world's most violent nation and primary reason for Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel's bottom rankings. The same holds for Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Colombia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Uganda, the Philippines and a host of other nations.

By comparison, Venezuela is placid and tranquil but GPI's criteria don't show it. It certainly ranks above Rwanda, Albania, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, China, Jordan, and other countries outscoring it. Why not is the question? Think politics for an answer in spite of America's low ranking and Israel near the bottom. It's not low enough. It should be last hands down.

The US alone endangers global stability, world peace and the planet's survival. It alone wages permanent war, targets peaceful nations, and claims a unilateral right to use first strike nuclear weapons preemptively. It also has over 800 military bases (perhaps 1000 or more with secret ones) in 130 or more countries, hundreds more at home, and still more troops deployed in other countries throughout the world. It further spends more on its military than all other nations combined. It uses it aggressively, supports Israeli repression against Palestinians, assassinates foreign leaders, installs more "friendly" ones, and backs despots like Colombia's Uribe, Egypt's Mubarak, the Saudi royal family, Mexico's Calderon, and various installed stooges like Afghanistan's Karzai and Iraq's al-Maliki.

America ranks lowest on peace. It keeps sinking lower. It alone threatens planetary survival. Failure to register that in a "peace index" is unimaginable. It makes the entire project suspect.

Under Chavez in contrast, Venezuela's record is envious. It embraces its neighbors, offers no-strings aid, and engages in mutually beneficial trade, political relations, and other alliances; it also:

-- assassinates no other leaders;

-- doesn't seek regime changes abroad;

-- has no nuclear weapons and seeks none; and

-- spends less than one-half of one percent of the Pentagon's (grossly understated) military budget (around $1 to $2 billion) and less half of that, in fact, of America's total defense spending - in FY 2008: a conservatively estimated $1.1 trillion with all military, homeland security, veterans, NASA, debt service and miscellaneous related allocations included; according to Chalmers Johnson, it's not only "morally obscene," it's "fiscally unsustainable" and is heading the nation for probable "insolvency and (the world for) a long depression," or potentially worse.

-- In addition, Venezuela doesn't export weapons to neighbors or incite conflict; in contrast, America is the world's leading arms and munitions supplier by far - and to many belligerent states with disturbing records of using them internally and/or against neighbors; Colombia, Mexico, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Israel to cite five;

-- Chavez is socially responsible at home;

-- doesn't practice torture;

-- has no secret prisons;

-- threatens no other nation;

-- wages no wars;

-- is a model democracy;

-- governs peacefully;

-- supports human rights and social justice;

-- affirms free speech;

-- bans discrimination; and

-- uses his resources responsibly - for his people, yet is friendly to business as well. He's earned world class stature and immense popularity at home as a result. Under George Bush in contrast, America is feared and hated worldwide. Growing numbers don't trust him at home either, and it shows in his poll ratings - some of the lowest ever for a US president with vice-president Cheney and Congress scraping rock bottom.

A stunning (but long known) fact came out as well. It's in a US Justice Department Inspector General's 370 page report. It revealed that the FBI opened a "War Crimes" file documenting witnessed systemic Guantanamo Bay torture. It's so inflammatory that the administration suppressed it. It asserts that orders came from the top, including the White House, Pentagon, DOJ and NSC. It implies but doesn't state that this practice goes on in all US military prisons plus ones outsourced to in rogue states for some of the most barbaric treatment anywhere - and mostly to innocent victims.

Some GPI-Reported Comparisons - America v. Venezuela

Prisons everywhere are harsh, and Venezuela's are no exception. But consider America. It has the largest prison population in the world by far at 2.3 million, greater than in China with four times the population. It also adds over a 1000 new prisoners a week. It's justifiably called a gulag, so imagine what goes on offshore. No remediating efforts are planned. Reforms are off the table. America's prison-industrial complex is burgeoning. Prisons are being privatized. Profiting on human beings is big business, and consider who they are. Most are black, hispanic, poor, unempowered, nonviolent, and imprisoned for offenses like drugs possession.

In contrast, Venezuela is humanizing its prisons. It's no simple task, and no miracle cures are expected. Nonetheless, positive steps are being taken for a prison population numbering 20,000 that's down from its 1992 31,400 high. The National Assembly is "committed to giv(ing) priority to (revising) the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code." It's to make it more just and improve prison conditions in health care, food, access to education and more. Reducing incarceration lengths is also planned as well as tackling root causes of crime such as poverty and lack of opportunity. Doing this in America is impossible. Things keep worsening. The nation is uncaring. It shows across the board. That highlights the problem, but GPI didn't notice.

Number of homicides per 100,000 population is another category. GPI ranks America low (in number) and Venezuela high. It's unjustified. From it's beginning, America has been violent at home and abroad. It's been at war with one or more adversaries every year in its history without exception. It's called a "gun" and "rape culture" and has the highest homicide rate among all western nations. Violence is endemic, pacifism sinful, legal and illegal drug use out of control, young children introduced to violence through films, television and video games that should be outlawed. They're exported everywhere to make all societies like America. Venezuela is no exception but nowhere near to matching the US.

Implausibly, America also scores well on the following:

-- its number of internal security officers and police; it refers to "civil police" only; omitted are National Guard forces, Coast Guard, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA,16 spy agencies, drug enforcement, and since October 2002 the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) that preempts Posse Comitatus limitations that no longer apply; no nation on earth has more internal (or external) security, spends more for it, and no country uses it more aggressively;

-- ease of access to "weapons of minor destruction;" Venezuela ranks below America; impossible as guns in the US are as accessible as chewing gum even in cities where they're banned; the Second Amendment (on right to bear arms) practically equates it with religion even though the law's original intent bears no relation to its current interpretation that's promoted by the gun lobby;

-- "likelihood of violent demonstrations;" Venezuela scores high; unconsidered is why any take place and who's behind them - America, not Venezuelans except for those recruited and well-paid to cause trouble to destabilize an otherwise peaceful country;

-- violent crime; Venezuela scores high again and America low; wrong as violence in the US is endemic; GPI understates it;

-- political instability; Venezuela scores moderately high; again no mention why there's any or who instigates it;

-- human rights; America and Venezuela get equal scores; preposterous again and insulting to Venezuelans; America's disdain for human rights is unmatched; Venezuela's is excellent by comparison; the Constitution mandates it; GPI ignores it;

-- political democracy; America outranking Venezuela is impossible; the US's democracy is illusory; in Venezuela it's real and should be highest rated relative to other countries;

-- the electoral process; America besting Venezuela is false and insulting; Venezuela has a model participatory democracy; all Venezuelans are enfranchised; the Constitution's Article 56 mandates it; it affirms that "All persons have the right to be registered free of charge....after birth, and to obtain public documents" so stating;

-- US elections, in contrast, are deeply corrupted; big money runs them; candidates are pre-selected; machines do our voting; no recounts are possible; losers are declared winners; independent candidates are shut out; the media ignore them; they keep people uninformed; issues aren't addressed; just "horserace" theater ad nauseam; voter disenfranchisement is rife; election theft common; mountains of evidence document it; none reported in the mainstream; it's why half or more of the electorate opts out; it mocks democracy in a nation having little; it's exemplary in Venezuela; not according to GPI;

-- "functioning of government" defined to mean freely electing representatives and effective checks and balances; the US wins again completely belying the facts; America's democratic governance is a sham; Venezuela's is real; GPI has things backwards;

-- civil liberties; America on top here, too; it's outrageous in a growing police state climate; post-9/11 repressive laws, executive and military orders, directives and other measures are in force that would make any despot proud; presidential authority is unchallenged; Congress is mere rubber-stamp; Homeland Security is a national Gestapo; FBI and CIA also; internal spying is pervasive; dissent stifled; human rights disdained; and the rule of law is now consigned to the dustbin of history; Venezuelan society is mirror opposite; GPI failed to notice;

-- "corruption perceptions;" America scores high and Venezuela low, and indeed there is a problem; yet it's minor compared to the US's all-pervasive kind - in government, business and throughout high levels in society; it involves trillions of dollars; again it didn't register;

-- Reporters Without Borders (RWB) is the source for GPI's comparative "freedom of the press" assessment; RWB no longer publishes an index with assigned country rankings; instead it rates them: No. 1 good, No. 2 satisfactory, No. 3 noticeable problems, No. 4 difficult situation, and No. 5 very noticeable problems;

-- RSW's reputation is tainted; it lacks credibility; it disgraced itself last year by baselessly criticizing Chavez's justifiable decision not to renew RCTV's VHF license and accusing him of violating free speech and press standards; not surprisingly, it showed in its 2007 survey with rankings still used; it rated America somewhat low at 48th but Venezuela far lower at 114th - below Chad, Morocco, Uganda, Indonesia, Albania, Congo, Liberia, Kuwait, the Central African Republic and numerous other questionable higher-ranked choices; in 2008, Venezuela jumped considerably; GPI scored it 36.9 (an apparent 37th in the world); the US fared much better at 14.5; tops were Iceland and Norway at 0.8;

-- GPI and RSW should be embarrassed; consider the facts; no country outranks Venezuela in press freedom; outlandish dissent is tolerated; censorship banned, and the law affirms it; RCTV lost its VHF license for backing insurrection against the government; its officials avoided prison for their lawlessness; they were merely slapped on the wrist instead;

-- America is mirror opposite; RCTV type broadcasting would be illegal, an act of sedition or treason; those responsible would be prosecuted; but it's not how major media operate in the US; they "filter" news; one-sidedly support a state and corporate agenda; shut out opposition to it; keep the electorate uninformed by operating no differently than a state-controlled ministry of information and propaganda; RSW approves; so does GPI;

Its data is suspect throughout. Adult literacy (unrelated to violence) is another example. It scores America at 99%. It's laughable. Even the US Department of Education estimates it at 80% tops, and their number way overstates it. It's far lower based on inner-city math and English test scores plus painfully low computer literacy levels.

Other Questionable Rankings

GPI isn't alone in targeting Venezuela. Transparency International (TI) does as well. It calls itself "politically non-partisan" and a "global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption (with a) mission....to create change toward a world free of corruption." Consider its 2007 "Corruption Perceptions Index." To achieve its aim, it better tighten its standards that fall far short of "transparency."

America easily outscores other nations in corruption. It's broad, deep and extends throughout government, business, and high levels of society in the trillions of dollars. But it's not how TI sees it. It ranks the US No. 20, just behind France and ahead of Chile. In contrast, Venezuela scrapes bottom at 162nd - behind Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Kazakhstan, Congo, Pakistan and dozens of other dubious choices. Venezuela (like all countries) has corruption problems. But nowhere to the degree TI suggests. Its April 2008 report is rife with errors and why not. According to Calvin Tucker in a May 22 article, it was prepared by "an anti-Chavez activist who backed the 2002 military coup against democracy." His full account can be accessed by the following link: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/calvin_tucker/2008/05/seeing_through...

The Fraser Institute is a right wing, business-backed, Canadian-based think tank. It prepares an annual Economic Freedom of the World Index that has nothing to do with freedom. It's not kind to Venezuela and sidesteps facts in its assessment. Following the country's 2002-03 oil management lockout, growth has been impressive and remains so. Business has profited hugely. All economic measures are strong and improving except for inflation. It remains stubbornly high, but efforts are being made to curb it.

Nonetheless, Fraser reports with blinders. It ranked Venezuela practically at the bottom - 126th out of 130 nations, only besting Congo, Zimbabwe and two other countries. It's the sixth consecutive bottom-scraping rating and mirror opposite those for pre-Chavez years. Since then, Venezuela prospered. Chavez is friendly to business. Fraser turns a blind eye. It's part of a corporate-led conspiracy to crush democracy and reempower capital. It raises questions on whether GPI, RWB, TI, Fraser and others are part of a larger scheme.

Iran is America's top target. Venezuela is next. Both countries are nominated for regime change. Continued efforts work toward it. It's no secret why. Each is oil rich, their leaders independent, and they refuse to be US clients. For Washington, that's sinful and unforgivable. The media are on board. They relentlessly bash both countries and report fiction as fact. Destabilization efforts continue. Anything may erupt anytime. GPI and the others may be helping.

Their low Venezuelan rankings are suspect. Washington may be behind them. Corporate backers as well. They get what they pay for. In this case, vilifying Chavez. GPI's facts are bogus. So are RWB's, TI's and Fraser's. It discredits their Venezuela v. America's rankings. Their entire reports as well. View them with caution. Understand what's likely going on. Part of a greater scheme to destabilize Venezuela and end its model democracy. Exposing them is the best way to prevent it.

Global Research Associate Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour Mondays on Republic Broadcasting.org from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9059

Sounds good..probably not so good

...
Countries will be able to access money to provide food for schools and other core services as well as to buy essential items such as seeds and fertilizer.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says the money is part of a fast track programme to address immediate requirements in the global food crisis.

Some of it will be used to handle immediate humanitarian needs, for example for pregnant woman and young children.

The World Bank will also devote an additional $2bn next year to funding agricultural projects, including crop insurance schemes.

Mr Zoellick said: "This is not an issue like HIV/Aids where you need some research breakthrough. People know what to do.

"We just have to make sure we get the resources and coordinate the operations around the world."
...

...creepy..once again..

Cool McKenna.

I was just going to turn-in with Annotated Alice...

I've really been thinking about "giving it away" as opposed to "selling it", today...

All I really know that I base my thought on from last night is that P gives it away...when he does "It" (which is few and far between lately)...But then again I remember wanting him to 'get ahead of the curve' and sell "It"...the thoughts didn't last long...And then along came Richard Clarke...and suddenly all I saw were left wing, and right wing (so called) books and then I saw your Open Mic and was like GAWD..with everything on the internet and in the world in general...how much is free that is like gold to people..?

I mean where are all the FREE books of information? Where are all the people who are *giving it away til it all comes down?

(I think I read that line on the blog here at some time in the past..)

Anyway...could it be that free things are not worthy of publication? Or could it just be that money is required for living, generally speaking..I'm quite sure that LOTS of people LIVE without money....I just don't know any of them..

How was your long weekend?

and more places have that sort of writing for free..that and also poltical stuff...but I mean someone pays (or gets paid) somewhere along the line...

Who in the world has given freely for free?

Is that even a question? If it is..you tell me the answer... ;)

xoxo Niterz, SR....xoxo

I'm not totally sure what you mean by giving "it" away for free. I did actually type that whole "Ego & Fame" post directly out of the book...because I couldn't find it on-line. I have, oftentimes of late, been flashing back to it in my thoughts.

I'm fortunate in the sense that I have a little extra cash sometimes (usually), and I am always looking for ways to give it away.

One: Because it feels good to give. & I think that when people are handed money, an abundance channel opens larger in their psyche, which leads to them more likely having a positive attitude ... which then reflects & affects the environment & people around them.

Two: The act of giving sets forces in motion which brings even greater abundance to the giver, so it's not necessarily a fully selfless act.

And Three: I don't enjoy spending money on myself, with the exception of buying beer & pot & sometimes a book.
& once I have those, I love to share &/or give them away, too.

I've felt this way my whole life, even when I was dirt broke. Which was most my adult life...

Probably the result of reading Krishnamurti as a teenager.

---

Anyway.

I'm gonna reread what you said about giving "it" away, & add an additional comment.

But, for now, I must say this:

Alice, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your presence in cyberspace, as well as your gratitude, love & encouragement as a friend.

You truly are making this world a better place daily.
And, I am a much better, optimistic person because of you
& the energy you give freely.

Thank you.

&

Sweet dreams.

Love. Love. Love.

My escape to the woods went well.
There was a wedding going on. Radiofreedoghouse's.
The whole thing was positive.
I was wasted throughout, though did not make an ass of myself. Or so I was told.
In a freak weather pattern, the final few minutes driving to the cabin in Greer, Arizona, was quite awesome.
An unexpected snow blizzard.
Which, of course, meant "snow bongs."

Yep. Snow bongs at the end of May in Arizona.
Kansas, I don't think we're in Toto, anymore.

-

I love that expression "giving it away until it all comes down." I hadn't heard it until now.
That is exactly how I wish to approach things in cyberspace, for sure, and in real life, whenever I think I can. Of course, there's bills, & stuff...

But someday, & I hope soon, ... I fully expect "to have enough money to where I never have to worry about money."

And, then I expect the real fun in the game of life to begin.

-

(& perhaps as gravy, The Decider in Bunnypants will no longer be our misLeader, but will instead be working as a night manager of a laundromat in Fallujah ... & I'll be scratching my ass more often than need be ... just so that I have plenty of boxers to mail to Iraq to have cleaned.)

-

And, then you & me are going drinking, I hope.

-

Perhaps we'll co-own pubs which are a stumblebum's walking distance from each of our homes. & we'll devote them to love & anarchy. & giving stuff away.

Or perhaps by then you'll have even better ideas.

:)

*

Friday, May 30, 2008
By: Carlos Alvarez

Where do the presidential candidates stand?

According to a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, about 11 percent of U.S. adults consider health care to be the most important issue in the November election. It is surpassed only by the economy, with close to 56 percent, and the Iraq war, with 34 percent.

There is good reason for the focus on health care. The existing health care system excludes one in seven people—47 million altogether—in the world’s richest country. Undocumented workers do not even have access to Medicaid because they lack a legal status. According to a Commonwealth Fund study released on Jan. 8, the U.S. health care system is ranked as the worst among 19 industrialized nations.

Those who are insured lack adequate coverage and are faced with high premiums and deductibles. Michael Moore’s 2007 documentary "Sicko" brought great attention to the issue with shocking personal stories of insured people who were denied coverage in their time of greatest need.

Most U.S. workers today find themselves in a precarious situation where severe illness can mean losing their livelihoods. In November, voters will go to the polls hoping that a presidential candidate will meet their needs, including their need for quality health care.

Visiting the websites of the capitalist presidential hopefuls and listening to their interviews on the topic, one would think that any one of the candidates will bring about universal coverage.

During a speech delivered at the University of South Florida’s Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, John McCain said: "We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need, and the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are covered. Health care in America should be affordable by all, not just the wealthy."

"If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness," said Barack Obama during a 2007 speech in Iowa.

The boldest statement came from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Her website reads: "America is ready for universal health care. Hillary has the vision and the experience to make it a reality. This is a battle Hillary has fought before—and she has the scars to prove it. She knows better than anyone how to fight and build the political support to get the job done."

But, in reality, these candidates’ health care plans would amount to much less than what they claim.

Capitalist candidates fall short

John McCain has championed the message of "personal responsibility" to maintain the highest quality health care. By "personal responsibility," McCain means leaving workers to fend for themselves against predatory insurance companies in the for-profit health care system.

McCain also defends the idea of protecting the "highest quality" health care, saying that the Democratic candidates’ proposals "move closer to a nationalized health system." In truth, he wants the "highest quality" health care to be available only to those who can afford it—the rich. McCain, from the right, also perpetuates the myth that Obama’s and Clinton’s plans are somewhere close to universal health care.

His false characterization demonizes the idea of nationalizing the private health system, insinuating that a government-controlled system would mean diminished quality. This brand of capitalist propaganda is reminiscent of the attacks on universal health care by former president Ronald Reagan, who characterized it as "a short step all the way to socialism."

In fact, nationalization on a capitalist basis would be a far cry from socialism—it would not be enough, but would still be a step forward from the disastrous health care system existing in the United States today.

McCain’s plan relies on "free market" competition between the insurance companies. His plan hails this competition as the way to have insurance choices that are "diverse" and "affordable."

He proposes removing favorable tax treatment for employer-based insurance and giving tax credits of $2,500 to individuals and $5,000 to families. However, some individuals pay as much as $5,090 and some families pay as much as $9,200. Under McCain’s plan, workers would be at risk of losing health care benefits through their job and not being able to afford insurance on the proposed tax credits.

McCain does not give any concrete proposal to cover the nearly 50 million uninsured people in the U.S. Instead, he proposes subsidies for those at high-risk, but he compares this to existing insurance limitations to high premiums in some states. Under McCain’s plan, customers may buy insurance anywhere in the U.S.—in other words, insurance companies may shift their operations to states with fewer regulations.

The Democratic candidates’ plans are not tangibly better. They take advantage of the Republicans’ unapologetic contempt for workers’ needs to portray themselves as friends of working people, but their for-profit proposals bring us no closer to universal health care. Their proposals seek to keep the rich capitalists rich and keep the poor and uninsured that way.

Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama’s history reveals an anti-worker stance on numerous issues—not least of which is health care. Obama opposes the reforms proposed in H.R. 676, a single-payer health care bill that would reduce administrative costs that now account for one-third of health care expenditures. The expected $300 billion in annual savings would go toward covering the uninsured and expand coverage for the underinsured.

Obama believes that the road to universal coverage is affordability. He, too, relies on big capitalist insurance companies to cover U.S. workers. According to Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., a U.S. health care economist, Obama’s plan could possibly cover 23 million of those currently without care. He proposes a mandate that would require all children to be covered, but not adults.

Obama’s plan would raise premiums because many people would not sign up for health insurance until they became ill.

But none of this guarantees coverage to the sick. The reality of insurance companies is one of high costs, underinsuring people and rejecting claims for covered individuals and families. Even if you can afford insurance in this country, it might not cover some or any medical expenses. This is up to the insurance companies’ discretion.

Hillary Clinton’s plan is substantively similar to Obama’s. It would shift the burden of care onto individuals, not the capitalist insurance companies or the government. Her plan would require all individuals—both children and adults—to have health insurance. A Clinton adviser compared it to laws in most states requiring all drivers to purchase auto insurance. (CNN, Sept. 18, 2007) Yet, auto insurance requirements hardly ensure that drivers can pay for it; rather, they penalize those who cannot afford it if they are caught without coverage.

Clinton would rely on insurance companies to cover customers at "affordable" prices—what exactly that means is a mystery. The government considers a family of four making a meager $21,200 a year to be living above poverty levels. One can only imagine that Washington’s definition of "affordability" is about as out of touch with the reality of working-class people as its outrageous definition of poverty.

Clinton is not proposing that the government fund a single-payer health plan nor does she attempt to achieve universal health care in any way. A mandatory insurance requirement is, at best, a gift to capitalist health insurance companies, which stand to reap billions as the uninsured scramble to pay for the required plans.

Clinton’s health care reforms would keep private insurance companies as the central pillar of the U.S. health care system. Only cutting the insurance companies out of the picture altogether could make a difference.

We need socialism

Enough is enough. None of the candidates of the capitalist class are acting in the interests of U.S. workers. They are seeking popular support for insubstantial reforms through empty rhetoric and posturing.

Free, universal health care should be a right for working-class people. The private health insurance profiteers must be dismantled and pharmaceutical corporations expropriated. The Party for Socialism and Liberation’s presidential candidate, Gloria La Riva, and vice presidential candidate, Eugene Puryear, believes that quality health care must be free and available to all people.

Of the world’s 25 leading industrialized countries, the United States is the only one that lacks universal care. Universal health care was not achieved in other industrialized countries without a fight. Following World War II, Europe saw massive labor and communist-led upheavals demanding better living and working conditions. To defend their own class interests, European capitalists made concessions such as universal health care to stave off revolutions.

And universal care, while far better than what we have in the United States today, cannot be truly equitable under capitalism. It is always in danger of being reversed. Where the profit motive still exists, the system demands exploitation and inequity.

Universal, equal and free care is a right under socialism, as are all the basic needs of people. Even during the most difficult days of World War II, the Soviet Union maintained universal health care for all of its citizens, among many other crucial social programs and benefits. Socialist Cuba has maintained top-notch, free, universal health care, despite the decades-long U.S. blockade that prevents health care supplies, medicine and research from reaching the island.

The La Riva/Puryear campaign believes universal health care will not be won through elections, but through struggle. The La Riva/Puryear campaign demands free universal health care now, and will continue the fight for a system where people’s needs, not profits, come first.

Friday, May 30, 2008
By: Saul Kanowitz

Life looks rosy when figures are made up

"Figures lie and liars figure" describes well the U.S. Department of Labor report on the April inflation rate. According to an Associated Press article, "Consumer prices slowed in April despite the biggest jump in food costs in nearly two decades." How is this possible?

The Department of Labor’s policy makers stopped including food and energy in the calculation of the inflation rate beginning in February 2000. According to their shaky reasoning, there is too much seasonal volatility in the price of these items to accurately calculate trends in inflation. However, this new figure—the "core inflation"—is still referred to in media reports as the same old inflation.

For poor and working people, food and energy are core daily costs. There is seasonal variation in the price of some items, but the rising cost of food and gasoline over the last several years has changed from seasonal blips to sharply increasing trends. Workers are being forced to choose between heating or cooling their homes and feeding their families. The national average price of gasoline rose by 40 cents in April.

On top of the misreported sharp rise in the cost of living the DOL reported a drop in the average weekly wages of workers for the seventh consecutive month. Not only are prices rising, but also wages are falling at the same time.

This so-called "core inflation" obfuscates the impact of these "non-core" costs on the working class while the ruling class reaps magnificent profits. ExxonMobil and Chevron, two companies selling the "non-core" item oil, made almost $60 billion in profits in 2007. Congress recently passes a veto-proof farm bill granting generous subsidies to farmers already benefiting from high food prices.

Without a struggle against the growing poverty of the working class, the capitalist class will be content to make money from misery. The capitalist politicians vying for the presidency may make grand pronouncements about the rising cost of fuel, the mortgage foreclosure catastrophe and the growing economic crisis. But once in office, they are beholden to those who bankroll their campaigns—the same corporate interests that profit from workers’ suffering.

If Obama, Clinton and McCain truly wanted to ease the afflictions of the working class, they would call for an immediate increase in the minimum wage.

They would call for a tax on profits of the largest corporations to fund a jobs program. The Fortune 100 corporations made $366 billion in profits in 2007.

The presidential and vice presidential candidates of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Gloria La Riva and Eugene Puryear, not only have a program that speaks to the needs of poor and working people, but have a real track record of struggle. They are not bankrolled by ExxonMobil, CitiBank or the Hospital Corporation of America. They call for an immediate increase of the hourly minimum wage to $15.

To fundamentally address poverty, unemployment, homelessness and hunger, society will have to be re-organized on a socialist basis eliminating corporate profits completely. All the wealth created by the labor of the working class could then be used to meet human needs of jobs, housing, education and food.

It will take more than voting for any candidates to make that kind of a change—it will take a struggle.

Some people say this can't be taught...I don't know...

Ralph Nader vs. the Fundamentalist Liberals
Hell Hath No Fury Like a Modern Liberal
By MICHAEL COLBY
Counterpunch, February 26, 2008

We live in scary times. And no one scares me more than the faux-liberals of today. They are a most intolerant mob that has become so dislodged from logic that they'd rather gaze reverently at the false packaging of hope than seriously contemplate the issues of the day. They love bandwagons and hate activism. They strive for insular popularity while trampling the populace. And, in the true spirit of fundamentalism, they loathe dissent and flog the dissenter with the kind of glee that is seemingly borrowed from Jimmy Swaggart's beating of the ungodly unbelievers.

Oh yeah, hell hath no fury hot enough for the fool who holds a mirror up to the nonsense of modern liberalism. Just ask Ralph Nader.

Nader, as we all know by now, committed the horror of horrors in the eyes of the liberal fundamentalists Sunday by announcing--gasp!--that he's exercising his Constitutional rights by throwing his hat in the ring of presidential politics. But, given the reaction from the rather slovenly liberal not-so-intelligencia, you'd think that he announced that he wants to suspend the Constitution and, instead, fly planes into tall buildings.

My goodness, imagine if all this liberal bluster was saved for things like taking it to the streets and stopping the war, or demanding universal health care, or cracking down on the subprime criminals on Wall Street, or impeaching the president who has brought us all of these not-so-nice policies. But that would require real action. And the fundamentalist liberals don't have time for action--just rhetoric, blame and all the Obama Kool-Aid they can fill their confused kidneys with. It's easier that way.

Remember, it's these same liberal fundamentalists who have time after time denigrated the anti-war crowd for "going too far," much as they've also wagged their blogging fingers at those who dared to demand real solutions to health care, tax injustice, workers' rights, the Bush debacle (impeachment) and energy policy.

Sadly, it's a symptom of the fundamentalist liberals that is becoming all too familiar: They don't believe their own rhetoric. How else can you explain their rabid condemnation of Bush AND the condemnation of the impeachment movement? Or their understandable yelps against the current health care crisis but their seeming acceptance of the nonsensical "solution" being rhetorically weaved by Obama/Clinton? Or their preaching of tolerance but their vile invectives toward a man's right to speak and/or seek office? If Nader's right to seek office can be so easily ridiculed, where will they stop? Sorry, but that's not the liberalism I studied.

Worse, my perusal of the myopic blogging universe has revealed that most liberal commenters blasting Nader's announcement have almost completely ignored the issues that Nader has cited in announcing his candidacy. Remember, Nader made it clear that he wasn't going to run if someone like Edwards was going to be the Democratic nominee because he saw eye-to-eye with Edwards on things like health care, reining in corporate control of our democracy, stopping the war immediately and demanding workers' rights now--not tomorrow after all the jobs have been effectively shipped to China. But the good liberal fundamentalists didn't choose the substance of Edwards, instead choosing either the "hope" of Obama or the same old shit of Clinton. And so Nader moved to fill a rather large void in the issue spectrum.

Nader did NOT say on Sunday that there was "no difference" between the Democrats and the Republicans, as many liberals are trying to say he said. Instead, he said there was a difference, just as there is a difference between the Obama/Clinton positions and his positions. And then he went on to articulate those differences, just as he's done on his website (www.votenader.org).

It's sadly comical to me to see the fundie liberals bash Nader while he's calling for universal health care but give Obama a pass for leaving more than 15 million Americans uninsured in his so-called solution. Or bash Nader for his role in "causing" the Iraq war but giving Clinton--and a majority of her Dem colleagues -- a pass for actually voting for it. Or blaming Nader for the entirety of the Bush years while refusing to acknowledge the real blame that rests at the feet of the fundamentalist Dems who have done little but play along for eight years--remember, it was only ONE Dem (Feingold) who opposed the Patriot Act.

For the Dems, the solution to the Nader candidacy is not to call for a repugnant and chilling rebuke of his Constitutional rights but to strengthen their own issue resolve so that the Nader option wouldn't be necessary. But they're refusing to do so, instead zeroing in on a candidate--Obama--who is mostly hype and hope and very, very little substance or resume. It's Obama--not Nader--who is in bed with the nuclear industry and its lobbyists. It's Obama--not Nader--who won't say a peep about reining in Wall Street. It's Obama--not Nader--who won't promote universal health care. It's Obama--not Nader--who won't even mention the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. And it's Obama--not Nader--who doesn't have a track record for standing up and speaking up even when it's not very popular to do so.

Earth to the liberal fundies: Skip the Kool-Aid, try the reality sandwich.

And thanks for offering a necessary option, Ralph.

Michael Colby is the editor of Broadsides.org http://www.Broadsides.org/ and can be contacted via mcolby@broadsides.org.

**

Council Communism
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/pmpann.htm
*TLL*

:)

I am SO FUCKING HAPPY it's Friday...

*^*

1974 Photo showing co-founders of the SRI program, Hal Puthoff and me, Russell Targ, together with CIA contract monitor Kit Green, and psychic police commissioner Pat Price.

In my other parallel life, I co-founded Stanford Research Institute’s (SRI’s) research program, where we studied Remote Viewing (or ESP), which is an ability we all have to quiet our minds and describe and experience objects and events that are blocked from ordinary perception, either in the distance or in the future.

Our program ran successfully for an incredible twenty-three years with a budget of $25 million, teaching U.S. Army officers on the East Coast how to be psychic, while at SRI in California were using remote viewing to spy on Russian and Chinese weapon systems. We also looked in on our hostages in Iran, searched for and found downed U.S. and Soviet airplanes for the CIA, and were the first to describe an enormous new Soviet submarine for other parts of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. We even found a crashed Soviet plane in Africa, still carrying a nuclear weapon. President Jimmy Carter gave us unwanted public commendation for this, thereby blowing the secrecy of our program.
...

...
How much anger is there among women about how Hillary Clinton has been treated during this campaign? Some of the nation’s leading female politicians will tell you: quite a lot.

“From the beginning, she’s been treated very badly,” says Therese Murray, the president of the Massachusetts Senate. “No woman would have run with Obama’s résumé. She wouldn’t have been considered.” Clinton has been “demonized by the press and the talking heads. How do you get away with that?”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., says she is regularly approached “by women of all races, of all ages, of all faiths. They stop me, grab my hand and say, ‘Look what they’ve done to her, we were so close.’ They wanted this for their daughters and granddaughters. ... It’s so heartbreaking.”

For Rep. Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., the symbol that “sexism reigns supreme” was in the wide availability of offensive anti-Hillary paraphernalia in stores and on the Internet. For Barbara Johnson, president of the Minneapolis City Council, Clinton may have been the victim of “ageism” as much as sexism. The message, she said, was: “Your time is past, it’s time for somebody new to take your place.”

Many women, said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., “knew we had made many strides. They asked, ‘Aren’t we past this? What’s going on?’ They’re not happy with what they see as sexism, permitted by the media and in some cases encouraged by the media.”

If there is good news for Barack Obama in any of this, it is that the rage felt by Clinton’s female supporters is directed in large part toward the media. “The anger is aimed much more at you all,” said Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts of Rhode Island. Added Murray: “Obama wouldn’t have gotten to where he got today if it weren’t for the bias of the male media—no offense.”
...

Good article. Really demonstrates the restrictions of our political system. Where can you go? No wonder so many people refuse to vote.
*TLL*

Yeah..in that sense there is something to the whole 'listen to the majority' bullshit...maybe...?

Yeah..in that sense there is something to the whole 'listen to the majority' bullshit...maybe...?

That only works when the majority goes the way the elites like. *TLL*

of the non-voters, if the majority of them are men or women?

Mood Indigo, mp3

My irritating yet astounding new book Against the State (SUNY Press) argues that all the arguments of the great philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Hegel, Rawls, Nozick, and Habermas, among others), are, putting it kindly, unsound.

The state rests on violence: not the consent of the governed, not utility, not rational decision-making, not justice.

Not only are the existing arguments for the legitimacy of state power unsound; they are shockingly fallacious, a scandal, an embarrassment to the Western intellectual tradition.

So I issue a challenge: Give a decent argument for the moral legitimacy of state power, or reconstruct one of the traditional arguments in the face of the refutations in Against the State.

If you can't, you are rationally obliged to accept anarchism.

I'd offer a huge cash prize, but I'm broke.

Henceforward, if you continue to support or observe the authority of government, you are an evil, irrational cultist.

You're an anarchist now, baby, until further notice.

e-mail responses to c.sartwell@verizon.com

Yours in anarchy,
Crispin Sartwell

Seth on Birth, Death, and Afterdeath

“What you consider death has no more basic reality than has your idea of time and space. Death really represents a blind spot in your present ability to perceive energy transformation, and even value fulfillment. Death merely represents the termination of your own perception, that is, the termination of your understanding. Your ability here amounts to a complete dwindling of comprehension. Your senses are not equipped to perceive the transformation of energy from one form to another.

“Certainly the birth of a child is really basically just as incomprehensible, but this transformation is projected into, rather than out of, your sphere of understanding. What you call death is merely the transformation of you own energy onto a sphere that cannot be perceived by the outer senses.” The Early Sessions, Book 2 of the Seth Material, session 44, April 15, 1964.

“Birth is much more of a shock than death. Sometimes when you die you do not realize it, but birth almost always implies a sharp and sudden recognition. So there is no need to fear. And I who have died more times than I care to tell, write this book to tell you so.” Seth Speaks, Chapter 2, session 513, February 5, 1970.

“Using the inner senses we become conscious creators, cocreators.” Seth Speaks, Chapter 2, session 515, February 11, 1970.

“I am using your own terms here. By ‘dead,’ therefore, I mean completely unfocused in physical reality.

“Experiences with [the] projection of consciousness and knowledge of the mobility of consciousness, are therefore very helpful as preparations for death. You can learn the after-death environment beforehand, so to speak, and learn the conditions that will be encountered.” Seth Speaks, Chapter 9, session 535, June 17, 1970.

“Again, as mentioned earlier, an individual can be so certain that death is the end of all, that oblivion though temporary, results. In many cases, immediately on leaving the body there is, of course, amazement and a recognition of the situation. The body itself may be viewed, for example, and many funerals have a guest of honor amidst the company – and no one gazes into the face of the corpse with as much curiosity and wonder.

“Now I have told you that thoughts and emotions form physical reality, and they form after-death experience. This does not mean that the experiences are not valid, any more than it means that physical life is not valid.

“Of course, it is only because most people believe that you cannot leave your body that you do not consciously have out-of-body experiences with any frequency, generally speaking, in your lifetimes. Such experiences would acquaint you far better than words with some understanding of the conditions that will be encountered.” Seth Speaks, Chapter 9, session 536, June 22, 1970.

“In out-of-body experiences from the living state, many of the problems are encountered, in the terms of space, that will be met after death. And in such episodes, therefore, the true nature of time and space becomes more apparent. After death it does not take time to go through space, for example. Space does not exist in terms of distance. This is Angel illusion. There are barriers, but they are mental or psychic barriers.” Seth Speaks, session 537, June 24, 1970.

“This form will seem physical. It will not be seen by those still in the physical body however, generally speaking. It can do anything now that you do in your dreams. Therefore it flies, goes through solid objects, and is moved directly by your will, taking you, say, from one location to another as you may think of those locations.

“… However, you cannot as a rule manipulate physical objects. This body is yours instantly, but it is not the only form that you will have. For that matter, this image is not a new one. It is inter-wound with your physical body now, but you do not perceive it. Following death, it will be the only body you are aware of for some time.” Seth Speaks, session 537, June 24, 1970.

“In physical life there is a lag between the conception of an idea and its physical construction. In dream reality, this is not so. Therefore, the best way to become acquainted with after-death reality ahead of time, so to speak, is to explore and understand the nature of your own dreaming self. Not very many people want to take the time or energy.” Seth Speaks, session 538, June 29, 1970.

“In many ways then, you are ‘dead’ now – and as dead as you will ever be.” Seth Speaks, session 539, July 1, 1970.

“Your rooms are full now of thought-forms that you do not perceive; and again you are as much a ghostly phenomenon now as you will be after death. You are simply not aware of the fact.” Seth Speaks, session 540, July 6, 1970.

“The very words ‘life’ and ‘death’ serve to limit your understanding, to set up barriers where none intrinsically exist.” Seth Speaks, session 540, July 6, 1970.

“Ideas of good, better, best can lead you astray, for example. You are learning to be as completely as possible. In one way you are learning to create yourselves. In so doing during the reincarnational cycle, you are focusing your main abilities in physical life, developing human qualities and characteristics, opening new dimensions of activity. This does not mean that good does not exist, or that in your terms you do not ‘progress,’ but your concepts of good and progression are extremely distorted.” Seth Speaks, session 541, July 13, 1970.

“In all cases, the individual creates his experience. I say this again at the risk of repeating myself because this is a basic fact of all consciousness and existence. There are no special ‘places’ or situations or conditions set apart after physical death in which any given personality must have experience.

“Those who understand thoroughly that reality is self-created will have least difficulty. Those who have learned to understand and operate in the mechanics of the dream state will have great advantage.” Seth Speaks, session 546, August 19, 1970.

“Do not place the words of gurus, ministers, priests, scientists, psychologists, friends – or my words – higher than the feeling of your own being. You can learn much from others, but the deepest knowledge must come from within yourself. Your own consciousness is embarked upon a reality that basically can be experienced by no other, that is unique and untranslatable, with its own meaning following its own paths of becoming.

“You share an existence with others who are experiencing their own journeys in their own ways, and you have journeying in common, then. Be kind to yourself and your companions.

“You Make Your Own Reality – Wherever You Travel, and in Whichever Dimension You Find Yourself.”

“You are given the gift of the gods; you create your reality according to your beliefs; yours’ is the creative energy that makes your world; there are no limitations to the self except those you believe in.” The Nature of Personal Reality, Chapter 22, session 677, July 11, 1973.

“Each present moment of your experience is dependent upon the future as well as the past, your death as well as your birth. Your birth and your death are built in, so to speak, together, one implied in the other.

“You could not die unless you were the kind of creature who was born, nor could you have a present moment as you consider it. Your body is aware of the fact of its death at birth, and of its birth at its death, for all of its possibilities of action take place in the area between. Death is therefore as creative as birth, and as necessary for action and consciousness, in your terms.” The Nature of the Psyche, Chapter 8, session 783, July 12, 1976.

“Dying is a biological necessity, not only for the individual, but to insure the continued vitality of the species. Dying is a spiritual and psychological necessity, for after a while the exuberant, ever-renewed energies of the spirit can no longer be translated into flesh.

“Inherently, each individual knows that he or she must die physically in order to survive spiritually and psychically. The self outgrows the flesh. Particularly since [the advent of Charles] Darwin’s theories [of evolution], the acceptance of the fact of death has come to imply a certain kind of weakness, for is it not said that only the strong survive?” The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Chapter 1, session 801, April 18, 1977.

“But I don’t know how death works,” Emir cried.

“Of course you do,” Inspiration answered, somewhat crossly. And suddenly, surprising himself, Emir did know how it worked. He began speaking again so clearly and beautifully that this time everyone and everything listened in amazement. Was that Emir? they wondered. How did he learn to speak so well?

Emir said: “This way everyone lives in a body of a kind for a while, and then leaves its body behind so that it can be remade for someone else. That’s a very simple explanation, but it will do for now. Then all new life has a chance to live, and lots of room. Then we each take turns, so we can come back in new bodies when there’s space available. Emir’s Education in the Proper Use of Magical Powers, p. 99.

“It is not understood that before life an individual decides to live. A self is not simply the accidental personification of the body’s biological mechanism. Each person desires to be born. He dies when that desire no longer operates. No epidemic or illness or natural disaster – or stray bullet from a murderer’s gun – will kill a person who does not want to die.” The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Chapter 1, session 801, April 18, 1977.

“It is quite obvious that people must die – not only because otherwise you would overpopulate your world into extinction, but because the nature of consciousness requires new experience, challenge, and accomplishment. If there were not death, you would have to invent it – for the context of that selfhood would be as limited as the experience of a great sculptor given but one hunk of stone [to work with].” The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Chapter 1, session 803, May 2, 1977.

“Freed by death from the conventional frameworks of thought and belief that surrounded me, I have gained in death insights and comprehensions of the greatest consequence. Ironically, I wonder why these did not come to me in physical life, where certainly I could have put them to as good a use – particularly when it is obvious that they were as available in life as in death – and I am convinced that only certain beliefs and attitudes of mind make these insights psychologically invisible.” The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James, Chapter 1, January 25, 1977

“Death has its own pleasures, allowing you to comment in leisure upon your own time, seeing what came before and what after, and judging how many of those future developments you saw or understood in their embryonic form.” The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James, Chapter 3, February 7, 1977.

“Immediately following my death I slept out of habit, but gradually did so less and less as my sensations of time altered.” The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James, Chapter 7, March 8, 1977.

“Therefore I can say that other lives of mine are waiting to be reviewed, studied, and explored as if they were journeys taken by me in other lands in which I changed my name, occupations, and took on other family obligations and relationships than those I consider my own. I realize, nevertheless, that some of those ‘other selves’ may well consider my life as belonging to them and they may well explore the life of William James from their own standpoints as peripheral to their own intents, pursuing it as you might study, perhaps, the life and times of a favorite historical character to whom your family tree says you are related.” The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James, Chapter 10, March 29, 1977.

“Nevertheless, I feel myself growing out of myself in a certain fashion. My adopted characteristics are becoming too small and cramped to contain my new growth and development and I will move on most certainly to larger psychological quarters. It is not only the physical body we outlive, but the psychological house we have chosen.” The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James, Chapter 10, March 29, 1977.

“Two elements in my present state are particularly significant to me, when I compare it to physical life. For one thing, my psychological and ‘physical’ mobility is astonishing, and my sense of freedom feels, at least, unlimited.” The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James, Chapter 10, March 30, 1977.

“Nowhere have I encountered the furnishings of a conventional heaven, or glimpsed the face of God. On the other hand, certainly I dwell in a psychological heaven by earth’s standards, for everywhere I sense a presence, or atmosphere, or atmospheric presence that is well-intentioned, gentle yet powerful, and all-knowing. This seems to be a psychological presence of such stunning parts, however, that I can point to no one place and identify it as being there in contrast to being someplace else. At the risk of understating, this presence seems more like a loving condition that permeates existence, and from which all existence springs. … While I mention this presence as itself, so thoroughly does it pervade everything that attempts to isolate it are useless. All theological and intellectual theories are beside the point in the reality of this phenomenon.” The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James, Chapter 10, March 31, 1977.

“Specifically I have not called this knowing light an entity, in terms of personhood. Yet I am sure that it possesses a psychology far divorced from any with which I have ever been acquainted; that it knows of my curiosity and examination and is not annoyed, but invites it.” The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James, Chapter 10, March 31, 1977.

“Proof for the existence of the soul and its immortality cannot be found, as I once hoped it could be, by any assemblage of facts, but through direct knowing, direct experience, which can yield a comprehension of those psychic events—but in a different order of knowledge entirely. ‘The proof is in the pudding,’ and such evidence would result in a far better world, of course. But more important, in the meantime each man or woman who succeeds in rediscovering biological and spiritual faith receive evidence of that ancient heritage through a complete regeneration of body and mind.” The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James, Chapter 13, May 26, 1977.

“… death itself is the delivery – a deliverer – of your species and all others. It is not negative in itself, but instead is the beginning of a different kind of positive existence. It prunes the planet, so to speak, so that there is a room and time for all, energy and food for all. Because of death, life is possible, so these two seemingly opposite qualities are simply different versions of the same phenomena.

“If death disappeared on your planet [for] even an hour all of life would soon be threatened. And if all life possible suddenly emerged at once, then most surely all would be annihilated. We must admit, then, that death is indeed a part of life – and even more, we must say that death is healthy.” The Way Toward Health, Chapter 3, March 13, 1984.

Summer is Winter

Today is tomorrow, and present, past,
Nothing exists and everything will last.
There is no beginning, there was no end,
No depth to fall, no height to ascend.
There is only this moment, this flicker of light,
That illuminates nothing, but oh! so bright!
For we are the spark that flutters in space,
Consuming an eternity of a moment's grace,
For today is tomorrow, and present, past.
Nothing exists, and everything will last. – Jane Roberts, The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 1, p. ix.

*

“You go to your ‘death’ singing.” – Joseph Campbell, Reflections on the Art of Living

“As a physician I am convinced that it is hygienic…to discover in ‘death’ a goal toward which one can strive; and that shrinking away from it is something unhealthy and abnormal which robs the second half of life of its purpose.” – Carl Jung

“One in full quest of the spirit knows that the goal of life is ‘death’.” – Joseph Campbell, Reflections on the Art of Living

“I intend to live forever – so far, so good.” – Steven Wright, Comedian

“What happens if you get scared half to death twice?” – Steven Wright, Comedian

A customer comes into a Pet Shop to return a parrot that appears to be dead, that he had purchased thirty minutes earlier. The sales person, who is a take off on one of those tenacious used car salesmen who will say or do anything to make a sale, vehemently denies that the parrot is dead, only resting. After going round and round for 5 minutes the customer finally shouts in exasperation: “ 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!” The Pet Shop Skit, from And Now For Something Completely Different, Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

“The gate that gives me life is the gate that gives me death. Only a few understand this intuitively.” – Lao Tzu

“If one can find out what the full meaning of living is, the totality of living, the wholeness of living, then one is capable of understanding the wholeness of death. But one usually enquires into the meaning of death without enquiring into the meaning of life.” – J. Krishnamurti

“As, after casting away worn out garments,
A man later takes new ones,
So, after casting away worn out bides,
The embodied Self encounters other, new ones.” – Bhagavad Gita, II. 22

“True philosophers are always occupied in the practice of dying.” – Plato, Phaedo

“The art of living well and the art of dying well are one.” – Epicurus

McCain, Obama and Clinton haven’t signed onto Cluster Ban Bill

...
“This is life saving legislation,” Nader said. “I urge the Senate to pass this legislation.”

“It just doesn’t make any sense, given all the talk about change in Washington, why my fellow Presidential candidates—McCain, Obama, and Clinton—haven’t signed on as co-sponsors—even though they or their staffs have been briefed and asked to sign on,” Nader said.
...

Steve Shives
May 29, 2008

I´m not a politician or a constitutional scholar. As a statesman I am manifestly unqualified. But so is Sean Hannity, and he didn´t let that stop him from presenting his Top Ten Items for Victory on his website and talking about it incessantly on the radio for the last week. I figure I´ve gotta be smarter than Sean Hannity, right?

Anyway, I couldn´t care less about aiding one political party to victory over another. I´d rather talk about changes we could make in our federal government that might force it to function more honestly and efficiently, and enable it to actually, you know, serve the American people. So here are Ten Reforms That Would Improve American Government Immediately.

Term Limits

The more draconian, the better. I´m proposing a strict one-term limit for every federal elected office — congressman, senator, vice president, president. One term and you´re out. Yes, the traditional, seniority-based power structure of the legislature would be obliterated, and members of Congress would have to find reasons to elect their colleagues to committee chairmanships and minority/majority leaderships other than who´s been there the longest, but boo-hoo. The days of the career politician would be over forever in Washington, D.C.

Pay federal elected officials the minimum wage

As of this year, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives makes an annual salary of $165,200. Senators make $169,300. The Vice President makes $212,100. The President makes $400,000 a year, not counting expense and travel allowances. Median household income in the United States for 2006 was $48,201; 20% of households earned less than $20,032. When the third and final currently scheduled increase takes effect in July 2009, the federally stipulated minimum wage will be $7.25/hour — a hair over $15,000 a year before taxes, assuming a 40-hour work week. I don´t think being a member of Congress should be anyone´s career. I also think the minimum wage should be much, much higher. Let´s kill two birds with one stone, and pay all elected federal officials the minimum wage. Not only will the minimum wage suddenly skyrocket once our leaders realize firsthand how paltry it currently is, but the modest compensation will serve notice that the federal government is no longer a place for the elite to go live the high life at the expense of the taxpayers; it´s a place for men and women who want to serve their country.

Mandate a five-day, forty-hour work week for the House of Representatives and the Senate

Remember the ruckus Nancy Pelosi kicked up when she announced she and her buddies in the Democratic majority were extending the congressional work week to five days? Remember when Jack Kingston, Republican Congressman from Georgia, complained that Pelosi and the Democrats wanted to destroy the families of their fellow members of Congress? Something tells me that once he and all the rest of his buddies on Capitol Hill start cashing their minimum wage checks, he´ll appreciate the extra hours (until the term limits send him packing back to Savannah). Scheduling the House to work five days was a good start, but I say we make them go all the way and have to put in a forty-hour week like most of their constituents. If they need to stay late or call an emergency session, they get time-and-a-half. It´s only fair.

Eliminate the Federal Reserve and return direct responsibility for monetary policy to Congress

With that longer work week, we can´t have our representatives and senators wasting time on the clock. Returning to them the constitutionally enumerated power (and responsibility) to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" which they abdicated to the Federal Reserve in 1913 should ensure they have plenty of work. I know that the Federal Reserve is a favorite boogie man of whack-job conspiracy theorists, but that´s not where I´m coming from here. I just see the Fed as an unnecessary institution that has helped over the last century or so to increase the worth of quite a few bankers and decease the worth of the U.S. dollar. Decisions about monetary policy that can potentially affect the lives of everyone in the country shouldn´t be made behind closed doors by appointed members of a board; they should be made by our elected representatives, fully exposed to the scrutiny of the public.

Discontinue pensions for federal elected officials

Elected federal offices should not be careers — they should be positions held by citizens, elected to serve their fellow citizens. Representatives, senators, vice presidents and presidents should not receive lifetime pensions as a result of their elected service. I´m all for pensions — I think it´s the least any company can do for its long-serving employees, and I think the federal government should continue to pay pensions to retired employees. But men and women elected to serve in Congress or the executive branch should not earn pensions for that service. Besides, once my first reform is in place they´re only gonna be there for one term per office anyway. That´s two years for a representative, six for a senator, four for a vice president and four for a president — if someone gets elected to terms in each of those offices, that´s a maximum total of sixteen years as an elected federal official. You wanna pay ´em a pension for that?

Eliminate earmarks and riders

I think instituting strict term limits will solve many of the problems with the federal government, such as corruption and entrenchment, but just in case a few of the new guys arrive with holes in their pockets, I propose officially banning earmarks and riders from all legislation. No more millions of taxpayer dollars directed back to someone´s home district to build that bridge to nowhere or Robert C. Byrd School of Modern Dance; no more Christmas tree bills, with utterly irrelevant provisions that ban flag burning or permit warrantless wiretaps or authorize minting a Ronald Reagan commemorative gold coin attached to, say, a proclamation honoring the stage and television career of Philip Bosco; no more "poison pill" amendments to kill unwanted bills in a more politically protected way. Bills have to be coherent and consistent, and all provisions must be germane to the purpose of the legislation.

Mandate equal ballot access for minor parties in all federal elections

Another reason the federal government is failing so miserably to serve the people who empower it is the dominance of the two-party system. Under the Republicans and the Democrats, America is not so much a democracy as an oscillating oligarchy. To fix this, we need fair and equal ballot access for minor parties like the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Green Party, the Reform Party — and hopefully a few others will spring up that won´t be full of weirdoes. In many states, the number of signatures required for a minor party candidate to get on the ballot is far more than the number required for a Republican or Democrat. That´s not democratic. It has to change. The Constitution leaves the conducting of elections up to the states, but I see nothing anti-federalist about the federal government setting a few rules for elections to fill a federal office. Why, the preceding sentence is full of "federals."

Give minor party candidates access to federal election campaign funds equal to those received by Republican and Democratic candidates

With term limits, the problem of federal elected officials spending more time running for re-election rather than doing the job they were elected to do will be solved. That still leaves the problem of getting good people to fill those offices. Mandating equal ballot access for minor parties will help, and so will campaign finance reform that allows candidates from minor parties to claim campaign funds equal to those available to Republicans and Democrats. The two major parties enjoy a huge advantage over the smaller parties; that´s terrific for the Republican and Democratic parties, but it ain´t so hot for democracy and America.

Require that all candidates for federal offices first pass an independently administered and evaluated test to verify their qualifications before getting their name on the ballot

To certain people this proposal will sound like a measure meant to discourage average people from running for office. That´s not the idea. It´s my most fervent hope that these reforms would reshape the federal government into something like Lincoln described in the Gettysburg Address — "of the people, by the people, and for the people." I´d just like those people to have a basic knowledge of history and American government, and be able to write well in English, that´s all. I´m not advocating we establish an American version of the Iranian Guardian Council. I´m suggesting we solicit college-level essay questions from people in relevant fields, maintain a database of those questions, and whenever someone applies to be a candidate in a federal election, we select random questions from three categories (I was thinking history, civics, and English) which the prospective candidate has to answer in 500-1,000-word essays. The answers are evaluated by experts in the respective subjects, and only candidates who write A papers get on the ballot. The entire process would be double-blind, with the candidates not knowing who will evaluate their work, and the evaluators not knowing which candidate they´re grading. The test and evaluation process could be completed any time up to the deadline to register for a particular election; it would be just another part of the necessary paperwork when filing for candidacy. It would be an independent and apolitical mechanism to help ensure we get only the best and brightest representing us in Washington, D.C.

Eliminate the native-born requirement for the presidency

In the late 18th century, when the United States was still a hundred-fifty years or so away from being a global superpower, when we were still just thirteen little colonies trying to work the kinks out of the whole constitutional government thing, when the world´s most awesome empire was still pissed-off at us for whipping its ass in the Revolutionary War and kicking it off the continent, it made a lot of sense to require that the President of the United States be a native-born American citizen. The better to exclude the filthy, traitorous monarchists. Nowadays, this requirement is not only unnecessary but un-American. It´s a central ingredient of the American dream that immigrants can come here from all over the world and become Americans, with the same rights and privileges enjoyed by us natives. I say we get rid of the native requirement for the presidency. If you´ve lived in this country long enough to become a citizen, that´s good enough for me. There must be many American citizens who were not born here, who were naturalized, who would make a splendid president (not Arnold Schwarzenegger . . .). I say we give them the opportunity.

*

The United States Congress is presently composed entirely of Democrats and Republicans, nearly all of whom are exactly the sort of people these ten reforms are designed to expel, so none of what I have proposed will ever actually happen. With so many politicians and pundits trying to figure out winning strategies for their political parties, I just thought someone should speak out — however faintly — in favor of some changes that would benefit the people more than the parties and compel the government to work for the people instead of itself.

...
Revolution begins by altering consciousness.

We stand at the brink of a multitude of possible futures, many of them tragic.

The failure to act and rebel when the conditions demand it is a betrayal not only of our own humanity; it is a crime of great magnitude.

The world’s foremost thinkers and visionaries have always understood this.

Can we?

How's it going, tonite?

I enjoyed the "Adventures in Consciousness" quotes...above.

-

"We must have society on our own terms, and admit or exclude it on the slightest of cause."

-Emerson-

-

It's going rather pleasantly tonight...Had dinner with my mum and nona (grandma) and kicked the hell out of my backyard today...all this stuff we're tossing out...reminds me of when you did that..just got rid of everything...it feeels soo great to be with less stuff...and my backyard looks sorta pretty again.. :)

I like your posts up there..

Giving IT away meant channeling and reiki...he doesn't ever charge when people have asked for these...

YOU ******* ********** ***** ARE THE VERY ******** AND ***** IN ****** OF THE SATANS, AND ******* FOR SO MANY HELLS THAT NOT EVEN IF YOU PRAY TO JESUS EVER VERY, THEN MR.CHENEY THE ASSISTANT HOLY ****** ***** *** OF AMERICA, THE ONLY REAL AMERICANDERIANS, CAN HAVE THE WAY OF THAT! DO NOT SAY YOR *********HEAD LIES ABOUT THE WONDERFUL OIL COMPANIES THAT GIVE US OF LIFES! IF YOU WERE NOT THE ******* *******, ******* ***************, AND ******* **************** ********* OF ALL THE ********, THEN YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ********* JAMMED ALL THE WAY UP YOU ****** *******!

PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. NEVER TRUST EVEN YOUR OWN CENSORSHIP IMPULSE. IF YOU CAN'T STAND IT, TURN AWAY - BUT NEVER PRESUME TO TAKE THAT FREEOM OF CHOICE FROM OTHERS. I HAVE NEVER FLOODED, STOLEN A NIC, OR BROKEN A RULE - NOR WILL I CENSOR MYSELF FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE LACKING THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY BLATANT BROAD SATIRE, SELF-SUPERVISORY CAPABILTY, OR APPROPRIATE INTERNAL SKELETAL SUPPORT.
Posted by: Patrioterer at July 2, 2004 11:59 PM

seems to be a never-ending process for me

I can't wait for the day I can say I am no longer storing crap.

I'm glad you're night has been going well.

Thanks for the clarification on IT and P.

Moreso in my younger years, but still sometimes...
I do the same thing regarding kung fu. I always refused money & would only show friends.

That's a nice character quality in P.
IMHO

Kelly had a librarian birthday party (10 women) here last nite, so I was doing another major battle with clutter and mess here all day.
Some bins got filled at the last minute with my daughter's art supplies, etc... (and rushed to the shed)

After rushing around, & thinking I then had to socialize,
I was informed it was a Girls Night Out event,
& proceeded to take a 3 hour evening nap.
So that was good.

I imagine there is now satellite footage of the event & no one is able to fly on planes now. Some list, or something.
I guess librarians have a rep.

Kidding. :)

good luck jinx

-I imagine there is now satellite footage of the event & no one is able to fly on planes now. Some list, or something.
I guess librarians have a rep.-

HAHA... :) sounds like a great time for them and for you...

Hey Alice,...

Yeah, since my version of reality is inconsistent with "accepted" reality, I think Kelly probably doesn't see it's in her best interest that I engage in conversations with her co-workers. At least, that's my understanding.

I try not to shock anymore.

But, I do believe a ceremonial passing of a joint should coincide with small talk. But, I'm not supposed to say that, either. :)

Bravo again on your declutterization endeavors.

Kerry concedes so easily with so much obvious voter fraud????? What happened to the whole "we have thousands of lawyers on standby" line???? Was Kerry in the pocket the whole time?? Maybe the whole skull and bones thing was real.
WE HAVE BEEN HAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: William Wallace at November 3, 2004 12:29 PM

Online users
Thespian Lipstick Mouth Kisser...
Alice
*TLL*

Beautiful poem, Alice.

I found that in my old files, SR...there is actually an author but I couldn't find his name...

I think it wass pretty funny that they did a parody of doug henning on snl tonight...remember that magician guy?

-

"A friend is a person with whom I may be sincere. Before him, I may think aloud. I am arrived at last in the presence of a man so real and equal that I may drop even those undermost garments of dissimulation, courtesy, and second thought, which men never put off, and may deal with him with the simplicity and wholeness, with which one chemical atom meets another. Sincerity is the luxury allowed, like diadems and authority, only to the highest rank, that being permitted to speak truth, as having none above it to court or conform unto."

-

-Emerson-

Philip On Channeling

Philip - as articulated through Sheradon Bryce

"Once an individual starts channeling, they have a whole new set of psychological issues a lot of people don't realize which they must deal with. On one hand their ego is in a place of saying, "Well, this is a god I'm channeling. This is a grand experience," but on the the other hand it says, "I'm not worth this. I'm not worthy of this." the channeling experiences will push their worth issues much faster and worse than normal. Anything that you are even the least bit nit-picky about in your being, is blown up out of porportion and it says, "Well, I'm not good because of this. I'm not good because of that. I'm not good for this reason," and then the vehicle will have a tendency to go out in the world to try to find the external validation that says, "I'm okay."

"They are going through psychological shifts, hormonal shifts and everything else because of the channeling experience, which creates a place where they just want to know they are okay. For the most part, there is nothing wrong with that, but it is a matter that they have to be strong enough to find it in their own beings. If they could be strong enough to find it in their own beings, they won't go out into the external world to look for validation. This is the same rule of thumb for everybody on the planet, but for a vehicle in a channeling experience, it's a much stronger rule because everything is going to be amplified."

"So here comes a god and it will push everyone of their unworthiness issues. Since they have all these immense worth issues, those are going to come out in the channeling. If they feel lousy about themselves, they may tend to make the audience feel lousy about themselves in order for the channeler to feel better about who they are. There is a whole set of psychological maneuvering that goes on from that point." - Philip, from The Phenomenon of Middle Men in Channeling, page 396-397 of Joyriding the Universe

Nice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P9BvD4hzio

"Blazing Magnum" (1976)