Patriotism, Sep 11, and Martin Michaels

[Guest guest]

Martin, All,

 

As I was reading thru the various threads spinning out

from the Sep 11 discussion, I felt the urge to

respond, in no particular order, to the many comments

you have made, both in general and to me specifically.

 

 

As an African-American and a Muslim, I feel that I

have a very unique perspective on American History and

Life, one that is not often shared by my white

Christian counterparts. It is no accident, for

example, that in the wake of Sep 11 there was little

if any perspectives aired from the point of view of

African Americans or for that matter, Muslims. If one

takes a look at the many books and other materials

that have chronicled the events of Sep 11, one gets

the impression that Black people, at best, existed on

the edge of things, rather than being at the heart, as

we are in almost everything in American life.

 

While you say that you vote for the man, it is clear,

at least to me, that you are Martin a Conservative,

and most likely a Republican, or perhaps a

Libertarian, which of course, is your choice and

right. You will then please respect my right to take

you to task on your views in that respect.

 

I have trouble being gung ho for GWB for many of the

same reasons that I have trouble being gung ho for

Lincoln, of Jefferson or Washington or Franklin. And

while I do indeed have my issues with Clinton and

Gore, I KNOW I can say, that Clinton is infinitely

better qualified to deal with matters internationally.

For instance, Clinton would not have waited for the

better part of a year to get involved in the carnage

that is taking place in the ME between the Israelis

and Palestinans like GWB did. Had he got involved

sooner, perhaps Arafat wouldn't be under seige and

perhaps the Israelis would be a bit closer to the

security they desperately want and need.

 

Whether you like him or not, Arafat was duly elected

by his people, which is more than I can say for GWB,

who STOLE the Election of 2000. Yes, Gore did lose his

home state, and thousands of people, me people

particularly, lost their voice in that election as

well. Keep in mind that Clinton did NOT win either of

his elections with a majority of the popular vote, yet

he was Prez twice. I think it is utterly ridiculous

for GWB to even fix his mouth to suggest that someone

that HAS won a legitimate election be removed to suit

the tastes of the Israelis; no one, not even Bush

would suggest that about Sharon, a man who has a

history of brutality and wouldn't know peace if it

smacked him square in the mouth.

 

Conspiracies are as American as Apple Pie, just as

Racism, Sexism, Nepotism and Graft. That is the

unfortunate truth of our existance here in the USA -

and to point any of that out doesn't make me less

American. In fact, Martin, I see that as a strength of

America - to be able to be an unabashed critic of the

system and state to which I belong, so that it might

get better. To even hint or suggest that it is somehow

less than American to point any of these things out,

is truly un-American. Just look at the McCarthy Era.

 

This whole thing about Iraq, is purely political -

Hussein was our boy as long as he was willing to be

our proxy and whip up on the Iranians, but when he

didn't want to do that anymore, then he became this

big bad wolf. This IS about Oil, and that in and of

itself isn;t necessarily a bad thing, but to tinkle in

people's faces and tell them its raining outside is.

Just fess up, and tell the truth of the situation. To

date, there is no hard proof that SH has assisted

Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist outfit. This is not to

say that Sh hasn't done anything wrong, but it is to

say that it is a very "wag the dog" like tactics being

employed here.

 

To date, OBL is still at large; so is MMO, leader of

the Taliban; Al-Qaeda still functions; Afghanistan, a

sterling example of GWB's foreign policy at work, is

an abyssmal failure (to date, there have been 3

assassination attempts on Hamid Karzai's life); the

Israeli/Palestinian Conflict is at epidemic

poportions, with no end in sight; the entire world is

against GWB's methodology w/r/t the Iraqi situation;

and the list goes on and on. You say that GWB has

handled things well - I can't tell.

 

There is more, and I do agree with you on the role

that Astrology can and should play here in all of

this, but when it comes to both your political views

and to the historical testimony of the facts, you are

woefully wrong.

 

But don't worry - we'll straighten you out. That's

what friends are for.

 

Salaam,

Mu

--- "MICHAELS, MARTIN (AIT)" <mm6365 wrote:

> Curtis, et al,

>

>

> Curtis Burns [curtisburns]

> Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:11 PM

> gjlist

> [GJ] 9-11, GWB, the War, and

> Patiotism--Marti Michaels

>

> To wit: 9-11 was a colossal failure on the part of

> the US

> Intelligence

> system, there is indeed a dragon at out gates which

> would make 9-11

> pale in

> comparison. There still is almost no defense

> measures taken which

> would

> include sealing up our borders apparently because

> making trillions

> of

> dollars is more important than national

> security--that is

> mismanagement

> number one.

> I agree that there ARE serious flaws (holes) in our

> security "system". But,

> to propose "closing the borders" is ludicrous. That

> would BE the terrorists

>

> victory. Why? - because it would for all intents

> and purposes shut down not

>

> only our OWN economy, but the economies of many, if

> not MOST, other

> countries

> in the world. It is more important that people

> learn to be aware of their

> surroundings and become "citizen-soldiers". Perhaps

> that is too strong a

> phrase, but I think my point is made. I believe

> Jefferson was right, "The

> least government is the best government." I also

> believe that (forgive me,

> I can't remember the author of this one, and it's a

> paraphrase), "When we

> limit freedom in the name of liberty, there is no

> liberty."

>

> Our response has seemed to look good, but apart

> from mud huts in

> Afghanistan being blown up, AlQuada is still in

> operation and the

> Islamic

> world is only more in league against

> us--mismanagement number two.

> Of course we didn't get them all. But, the message

> was sent and received --

> that we will not be idle if you attack US. Al

> Qaeda, you hear that?

>

> The terrorist network is only the effect and not

> the cause of the

> problem,

> the way to kill this beast is to stop its money

> flow and training

> nexus,

> for that we would have to start attacking the

> Russian and Chinese

> presence

> in terrorist nations. Are we going to do that?

> It may have begun with the Russians, Chinese (and

> even in the case of ObL)

> the US. But it is NOT in either of their best

> interest at this point to

> have

> the US in turmoil of this kind. The Russians, in

> particular, are

> embarrassed

> by the terrorists, since they are trying desperately

> to join the world

> community. BUT, on the other hand - I agree we need

> to hit the SOURCES -

> these would be Hussein, Khadaffi, and probably even

> Arafat. And I believe

> GWB is taking the right tack, in general.

>

> No GWB won't do that but he will kill any number of

> innocent Iraqis,

> and

> crush the hapless Iraqi military in a completely

> vain show of

> force. American feel strong for a while, but the

> enemy is only

> hardened

> against us.

> The intent is NOT to kill innocent Iraqis. And as

> far as "crushing the

> hapless Iraqi (Army) - again, it's a message,

> apparently not heard well

> enough

> last time. Yes, Oil was involved to some extent

> certainly. But, the basic

> message was "Keep away from my friends." The loss

> of Kuwaiti oil would have

> had

> little effect on oil prices. No, this was just a

> case of spanking a bully.

> I loathe bullies. In my opinion, he should have

> been killed or tried THEN.

> NOW, it is necessary to prevent more of the same as

> with 9/11.

>

> There was no conspiracy? It sounds like you get

> your information,

> from the

> television, Marti, and it stops there. You have to

> do some more

> thinking

> for yourself and investigating the evidence. A

> quick search on the

> Internet for "conspiracy" and "9-11" will bring up

> an abundance of

> evidence

> to consider.

>

> I do not say that there was a conspiracy, I do say

> that the chart of

> the

> 9-11 attack WOULD POSSIBLY IMPLY such a thing, and

> that a true

> assessment

> of the state of the world would only corroborate

> such a thing.

> Okay, I can see that. But it is certainly not on

> the agenda of the US

> government to allow as many as 50,000 people to die

> in one fell swoop. And

> yes,

> I still think it's ridiculous to even imply such a

> thing. Oh! and by the

> way,

> I read nearly everything I see on this, and I watch

> very little television.

> I

> believe in astrology as a tool - but not to the

> exclusion of life. Ya gotta

>

> look at the ground once in a while, too - not just

> the stars.

>

> How could it be "unforgivable" for me to raise such

> questions? Are

> we not

> a free country? Are my statements "incorrect"?

> Sorry to be tough

> here,

> but think harder, Marti! Get out of your

> patriotic/Republican box!

> I didn't say it was unforgivable to discuss it.

> But, to imply them as

> anything

> other than possibilities is just plain stupid.

> There is NO evidence that

> the attacks were ALLOWED to happen as there was for

> Pearl Harbor. Yes,

> there

> were indicators of information withheld (by fools,

> no doubt), but NONE that

> the information was ever SEEN by anyone high enough

> to make a difference.

> There WAS a conspiracy - by the terrorists,

> unfortunately well executed.

> and as far as my politics are concerned, I AM a

> patriot (a proud one). I

> have

> lived in more than twenty countries - none touches

> the US for freedom. But

> I

> vote the MAN, not the PARTY. But I will NEVER vote

> for a Clinton or Al

> Gore.

> If ever one of them is elected to the Presidency, I

> will move my family back

>

> Australia, because we DO get the government we

> deserve. Mr. Bush was a

> better

> choice by far. Not perfect - but a good man.

>

> As far as an astrological early warning system,

> read my newsletter

> for the

> past 2 years; there was an abundance of indicators:

> Saturn and Pluto

> in

> opposition aligned with the US Ascendant, Mars

> conjunct Ketu in Mula

>

> opposite Jupiter in Ardra, and a realistic

> assessment of

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

=====

Mu'Min M. Bey

Western and Vedic Astrologer

mumin_bey

AOL IM Screen Name: JediMu

2Way Pager: 1-877-345-6499/8773456499; Cell phone:

267-978-2812

Join the Pan Astrological Forum, Where Freedom in Astrological Thought Lives!

Just send a blank email to panastroforum-

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Mu, et al,

 

Mu'Min Bey [mumin_bey]

Wednesday, September 25, 2002 5:58 AM

gjlist

[GJ] Patriotism, Sep 11, and Martin Michaels

 

Martin, All,

Thanks for spelling my name correctly.

 

As I was reading thru the various threads spinning out

from the Sep 11 discussion, I felt the urge to

respond, in no particular order, to the many comments

you have made, both in general and to me specifically.

Actually, with only a few exceptions, my comments were meant as

general comments, not particularly directed at anyone in particular.

And I also want to make clear that I have meant no offense to anyone

at all - although I am certain that I may have angered at least

Curtis. This was not my intent, but at the same time, I do not in

any way apologize for my views any more than I expect him (or you)

to. But I do feel that I am (not uniquely) qualified to comment

on things involving the military. I served 13 years as a Marine,

another 4 elsewhere in law enforcement. Did either of you serve?

That is not meant as a challenge, but to make a point. You see

when you serve in the military, you gain an appreciation for what

it takes to be a free country. I am by the way an ACLU supporter,

so I know the government is not always right. But I am optimistic

about them and us in general.

 

As an African-American and a Muslim, I feel that I

have a very unique perspective on American History and

Life, one that is not often shared by my white

Christian counterparts. It is no accident, for

example, that in the wake of Sep 11 there was little

if any perspectives aired from the point of view of

African Americans or for that matter, Muslims. If one

takes a look at the many books and other materials

that have chronicled the events of Sep 11, one gets

the impression that Black people, at best, existed on

the edge of things, rather than being at the heart, as

we are in almost everything in American life.

I can certainly understand. But I, personally, DID see a fair number

of reports regarding Black, Muslim and other minority points of view.

On the same show featuring Saddam's former mistress, there was a

feature on a Muslim man on his way to his first day at an internship

in the Financial District - perhaps at the WTC. The article explained

how THIS man personally helped rescue a fair number of people. It was

not the first time I had seen a story of this ilk.

 

I am, by the way, a Native American/Polish Jew. So I know about minority

issues. The American population consists of approximately %15 Blacks

(just as an example). Is it possible - or necessary - to require that

%15 of all stories aired on the news be centered on the Black point of

view? Of course not - it would be unmanageable - Never mind the various

other cultures. Do I think minorities always get a fair shake? No! Do

I think it is getting better? Yes. But I also don't think it makes a

lot of sense to complain about things that people NOW living had nothing

to do with.

 

Oh! I just checked - I OVER-estimated the percentage - it is ACTUALLY

%12.1, according the Census bureau:

 

http://www.ameristat.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Ameristat/Topics1/Estimates_

_Projections/U_S__Population__The_Basics.htm

 

Hispanics actually have a HIGHER percentage of the population at %12.5.

 

While you say that you vote for the man, it is clear,

at least to me, that you are Martin a Conservative,

and most likely a Republican, or perhaps a

Libertarian, which of course, is your choice and

right. You will then please respect my right to take

you to task on your views in that respect.

In general, yes, that is true. And I FOUGHT for your right to "take me

to task". But I am probably less conservative than you might think. For

instance, I think Mr. Bush made a poor choice for this new Sec. of Homeland

Security. He wants to go WAY too far. I don't trust that man at all. I

think if it were up to him, we'd all be wearing tattoos on our foreheads.

THAT will NEVER happen to me.

 

I have trouble being gung ho for GWB for many of the

same reasons that I have trouble being gung ho for

Lincoln, of Jefferson or Washington or Franklin. And

while I do indeed have my issues with Clinton and

Gore, I KNOW I can say, that Clinton is infinitely

better qualified to deal with matters internationally.

For instance, Clinton would not have waited for the

better part of a year to get involved in the carnage

that is taking place in the ME between the Israelis

and Palestinians like GWB did. Had he got involved

sooner, perhaps Arafat wouldn't be under siege and

perhaps the Israelis would be a bit closer to the

security they desperately want and need.

I can partially understand your reservations regarding Washington and

Jefferson - They both owned slaves, though both were quite "good" to

their slaves. Lincoln though, I don't understand. He, admittedly for

political reasons, freed the slaves. But, he had always detested

slavery on principle. There is no telling the good he would have

accomplished had he not been murdered. Franklin, too detested slavery,

and lobbied for it to be abolished IN THE CONSTITUTION.

 

Clinton is probably more naturally equipped for some aspects of foreign

policy. For instance, he is certainly a better diplomat, where the main

purpose of communication is to mask meaning. He excels at that. One of

the most accomplished liars I have ever seen. You know, I wouldn't have

cared about his affairs, or his smoking pot. Just admit it though, be

done with it. People forget. UNLESS you lie about it. Clinton COULD

have done a lot of good. The real bitch is, I don't honestly think it's

his fault. Hillary is the real problem. If she were a man, she would

have been an "Al Capone", or a "Huey Long".

 

As far as the Israelis are concerned, I know that not all Muslims are

"out to eradicate" the Jews. Clinton DID "try" to solve the problems

there as every single president has since 1948. Like all the others he

failed. That is simply a no-win situation as long as there are people

like Saddam in places of power - and there always will be, I am afraid.

 

Personally, I think that if Arafat would make the same speeches in Arabic

he does in English, things might get better. But he doesn't.

 

Whether you like him or not, Arafat was duly elected

by his people, which is more than I can say for GWB,

who STOLE the Election of 2000. Yes, Gore did lose his

home state, and thousands of people, me people

particularly, lost their voice in that election as

well. Keep in mind that Clinton did NOT win either of

his elections with a majority of the popular vote, yet

he was Prez twice. I think it is utterly ridiculous

for GWB to even fix his mouth to suggest that someone

that HAS won a legitimate election be removed to suit

the tastes of the Israelis; no one, not even Bush

would suggest that about Sharon, a man who has a

history of brutality and wouldn't know peace if it

smacked him square in the mouth.

Actually, thought was little publicized - mainly, because the Democrats

(and in turn the media) didn't want it well known. The count in Florida

WAS completed independently by the Democrats hoping to undermine Mr.

Bush. Mr. Bush DID indeed get the majority of votes based on the rules

set out by the DEMOCRATIC Election Commissioner. I have the link to the

story somewhere, I'll see if I can find it for you.

 

And I don't like Sharon either. So at least we agree on that one.

 

Conspiracies are as American as Apple Pie, just as

Racism, Sexism, Nepotism and Graft. That is the

unfortunate truth of our existence here in the USA -

and to point any of that out doesn't make me less

American. In fact, Martin, I see that as a strength of

America - to be able to be an unabashed critic of the

system and state to which I belong, so that it might

get better. To even hint or suggest that it is somehow

less than American to point any of these things out,

is truly un-American. Just look at the McCarthy Era.

I agree, but I don't believe that everything that goes wrong - every

catastrophe that happens - is the result of a conspiracy. McCarthyism,

sadly, was to a degree a conspiracy. But like all fanatic episodes, it

caused it's own death, though it left shadows for years. One of our most

shameful periods.

 

This whole thing about Iraq, is purely political -

Hussein was our boy as long as he was willing to be

our proxy and whip up on the Iranians, but when he

didn't want to do that anymore, then he became this

big bad wolf. This IS about Oil, and that in and of

itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, but to tinkle in

people's faces and tell them its raining outside is.

Just fess up, and tell the truth of the situation. To

date, there is no hard proof that SH has assisted

Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist outfit. This is not to

say that Sh hasn't done anything wrong, but it is to

say that it is a very "wag the dog" like tactics being

employed here.

No, he is truly dangerous - not so much because of what he CAN do at

this particular moment, but because of what he wants to do. The real

dig here is that the main thing he wants is power. He doesn't care

about Allah, though he seems to make a show of it. The mistress WAS

telling the truth, you could see it.

 

There is enough evidence, if someone tells you they don't have anything

to hide but won't SHOW you despite having agreed to do so, they've got

something to hide. He may not YET have nuclear weapons (he DOES have

chemical weapons), but he IS trying. There can be only one reason for his

desire for them.

 

To date, OBL is still at large; so is MMO, leader of

the Taliban; Al-Qaeda still functions; Afghanistan, a

sterling example of GWB's foreign policy at work, is

an abysmal failure (to date, there have been 3

assassination attempts on Hamid Karzai's life); the

Israeli/Palestinian Conflict is at epidemic

proportions, with no end in sight; the entire world is

against GWB's methodology w/r/t the Iraqi situation;

and the list goes on and on. You say that GWB has

handled things well - I can't tell.

Actually, not the whole world - and the Arab nations - at least the thinking

ones will come around. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. I am very

 

glad Mr. Bush listened to Mr. Powell on this.

 

I think the only thing that needs to happen to quiet the Israelis (outside

of dumping Sharon - I really don't like him) would be for Arafat to

publicly

condemn terrorism in both English and Arabic.

 

And yes, I thin he ahs done as well as can be expected. He IS inexperienced

in foreign affairs. BUT, he mitigates that with people who DO have and

enormous amount of experience. And he listens. You can't ask for much

more.

No one man can do all of that by himself. And he doesn't have control over

what the Israelis do anymore than he does with the Iraqis, Indians, or

Russians. All he (or anyone can do is try). I think he is trying, and

slowly

succeeding.

 

There is more, and I do agree with you on the role

that Astrology can and should play here in all of

this, but when it comes to both your political views

and to the historical testimony of the facts, you are

woefully wrong.

We will agree then to disagree on some things. But I am almost never wrong

on politics. I predicted Clinton would be re-elected despite the scandals;

I predicted OJ would get off. I'm not talking astrology here either...

 

On history, I am NEVER wrong, it was one of my minors. I read before I

comment.

 

But don't worry - we'll straighten you out. That's

what friends are for.

I know you meant that as a joke. I am smiling. But, I am your friend.

 

Salaam,

Mu

Shalom,

Martin

[Guest guest]

Dear List members,

Here we go again....political discussions and name callings and

misinformation....but why bother? Oh, I know why; these ones haven't learned

anything better than to bicker over political ideas concerning world events,

their bickerings becoming a perfectly exemplified microcosm of the macrocosm.

Love to all,

Carol

[Guest guest]

Dear List,

Apologies for my outburst! I really should have kept quiet. I get lots of

political writings from family members who have opposing viewpoints...it's

really been refreshing to have GJList talk about people but not stomping on

ideas...so when I saw political viewpoints causing divisive reactions, it

reminded me so much of the world situation per se....that I felt like Rodney

King who asked, "Can't we all just get along?" My political [point of view

is nearly exactly like Martin Michaels', by the way....please understand;

I've done enough political jabbering with my relatives, and nothing has

changed except we wrote many well-aimed jabs!

The answer to Rodney King is, "Of course not! But we can all respect one

another's really dumb opinions!"

Best to all,

Carol Hook

[Guest guest]

I want you to know (and hope you do) that as much as I must be forthright at a

moment I believe is critical -- which will necessarily involve asserting

unpopular views and possibly being judged as taking a knee-jerk liberal stance

(which those who know me for my pluralism will find interesting, to say the

least -- that I also fiercely and deeply appreciate the warmth, wisdom and

humanity with which you so regularly infuse this list. Now, what is remarkable

to me is that you and Martin seem to think this is a liberal vs. conservative

issue. Not at all! What's so interesting about many Republicans supporting

someone with low-level gangster puppet behavior like GWB (I'm not attacking

him, but I will certain call him on the behavior!) is that the outrageously

anti-environmentalist and *anti-future* policies he promotes are a *complete*

break from the Conservation (read: environmentalist!) heritage of the

Republican Party. Now, these days, few conservatives remember this side of the

meaning of the word "conservative," but it's a seminal one. I' was never crazy

about Barry Goldwater's nuclear policies, but he was thoroughly steeped in the

essential conservation tradition of the GOP. Well, I dealt first-hand while

working in the insurance industry with the public policy nightmares that

then-New Jersey governor Christine Whitman was already wreaking vis-à-vis the

environment; now she heads Bush's EPA. In a word, I'll maintain if Republicans

don't at least consider their conservation heritage, they won't see how the

party has become **enslaved** to oil interests, and the degree to which OIL is

nearly TOTALLY driving this entire war effort -- except for a putative

smokescreening factor seemingly impeccably timed to fend off inquiries into

GWB and Cheney's likely corporate crimes; and the ever-present conservative

Christian passion for apocalyptic moves! (Not that these 3 prongs are mutually

exclusive). How can people look squarely at this administration, so many of

whose major players came into the White House still slick from their oil ties?

(Even the indubitably brilliant Condie Rice, of course, sat on the Chevron

Board of Directors.) Whenever I engage Bush-heads on this war, they **never,

ever** respond to this wee little issue of oil. This is excruciatingly

frustrating, because it makes many Bush supporters just look disingenuous

(that is, the most logical human response is that GWB's typical backers must

support this clandestine oil worship, too!) -- and yet I *know* many of those

who like this guy to be sincere, caring, prayerful, lovely, and yes, smart

people. So I wish someone would please explain this whole thing to me, because

I must in the end just be really stupid and not getting something real basic.

;-) And I wish the rebuttals overall would cobtain more content than just

"Bush's decisions and actions are just so obvious and good -- why can't you see

this?"

My love; frustated but sincere musings; passionate and ignorant poems and

prayers; and true responsible heretic's blessings to every member of this

list. Carol, I speak to you to speak to all. Please know my fire (whose

warmth may be experienced as awful heat) is loving, not hateful.

Sincerely,

JIA

In a message dated 9/27/2002 9:45:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, Carolhook (AT) aol (DOT) com writes:

Dear List,

Apologies for my outburst! I really should have kept quiet. I get lots of

political writings from family members who have opposing viewpoints...it's

really been refreshing to have GJList talk about people but not stomping on

ideas...so when I saw political viewpoints causing divisive reactions, it

reminded me so much of the world situation per se....that I felt like Rodney

King who asked, "Can't we all just get along?" My political [point of view

is nearly exactly like Martin Michaels', by the way....please understand;

I've done enough political jabbering with my relatives, and nothing has

changed except we wrote many well-aimed jabs!

The answer to Rodney King is, "Of course not! But we can all respect one

another's really dumb opinions!"

Best to all,

Carol Hook

[Guest guest]

Dear Jesse,

Many thanks for your thoughtful response...I apologize for stepping on

your toes or anyone else's toes. You may decide that supporters of our

current President are also supporting "Big Oil", while finding that most of

those you've interviewed have little to say about oil and offer reasons of

their own why they like him. To me it's a matter of what one's life is like,

how it shapes one's political opinions.

We are so fortunate to have a type of government where people can take

opposing sides in political matters, and yet live peaceably under a unified

system where diversity is the norm and majority consensus determines the law.

There are differing viewpoints and that's as it should be. The Democrat

Party was created in the days of slavery, and was the party advocating

slavery. They are now a far cry from where they started out, thank heavens!

Let's agree that the melting pot has some interesting ingredients and some of

us prefer one flavor and some prefer another. I debated Clinton endlessly

with others, and none changed their minds any more than they changed mine! I

actually met Clinton and her husband, too.

Lesson to me: keep informed, let each have his/her point of view, vote

for the people who most closely match one's own ideals.

Love to you and Listmembers,

Carol

[Guest guest]

Dear Jia

 

I wish the whole thing did not need to fall down to a sort of name calling. Do

you not think it possible for folks to have a different opinion and that

opinion to be as carefully thought out as your own? Why is it that when each

of us believes something passionately we assume that the "other" folks have not

taken the time to look at things carefully and formulate an opinion that is

solid for them if not what you believe?

 

This is one of the great mysteries of the human psyche. I suspect that it is at

the root of all conflict. It turns dialogue into an us-versus- them contest when

it is merely a different perspective. Can we ever hope that our leaders will be

tolerant if we ourselves are not tolerant?

 

I used to be pretty darned liberal and I used to bite all the emotional bait and

consume it as if it were truth. No longer. I too have been educated. I look

at Bush's chart and do not see the evil that liberals see. I did not

particularly want him as governor or as president, but I do not find him evil.

I cannot imagine what it must be like to be at the hub of the huge decisions.

Do you drill in Alaska or do you make friends in the middle east with folks

that are very different and often volatile? Socialism does not seem to work,

and seems to stifle the human creative drive. But then again, big-business

left totally unfettered by codes or laws is just as off balance because of

human greed. There seems to need to be a delicate balance and ultimate

acceptance of what the human race can aspire to and what it tends to fall into.

I do not claim to have answers just empathy for those who need to swim in

these waters. I really cannot understand why folks get all excited about

religion. It makes sense to me that no one "really" knows so we should all

accept the other's attempt to make sense of the incomprehensible. OK I'm

rambling here but it is a fascinating world to both watch and participate in.

 

I'm largely an independent, and that makes me suspect from both the right and

the left <great grins>

 

I wonder, what nakshatras are dominant in your chart. Any Purva Ashada perhaps?

 

I once learned a great deal from a western astrologer: Buz Myers. He said

<remember these are signs not constellations> A Taurus is so stubborn that you

can beat on him all day long and he won't change his mind until he's ready. But

Aquarius, he has looked at the situation, come to his conclusion and thinks that

the rest of the world is populated with idiots if they do not agree with him.

Great grins

 

c

[Guest guest]

My apologies, but...

 

Why is it that people will complain about the alleged improprieties of a

politician of the OPPOSITE party (in this

case, Democrats accusing Republicans) - BUT, they completely ignore those (even

when there is undeniable

proof as with the Clinton's) same improprieties of their own party. "People who

live in glass houses shouldn't throw

bricks", goes the saying. The Democrats live in as big a glass house as I have

seen. The Republicans, too

have their flaws. As I told both Mu and Curtis, I vote the MAN, not the Party.

I admit that I DO tend to vote more

on the Republican side, but the reason for this is simply that I agree with

their policies more often.

 

And if you think there are no Democrats in the pocket of Exxon, Shell, Chevron,

etc. - then you have blinders on.

Furthermore, I would rather have somebody who is PERHAPS getting rich by

"sleeping with oil", than someone

who got rich screwing people out of their savings as did the Clinton's and their

associates. These things are

documented. And then there is the Rose Law firm scandals involving Mrs..

Clinton. I COULD go on and on...

 

For instance - how about all of the dead associates the Clinton's have? Ron

Brown, Vince Foster - do they

sound familiar?

 

Enough - it's Saturday - I'm off, and I'm hungry...

 

Best to all, even you draft-dodging liberals :-P

Martin

Jiabbot (AT) cs (DOT) com [Jiabbot (AT) cs (DOT) com]Sent:

Friday, September 27, 2002 11:49 PMgjlistSubject: Re: [GJ]

Patriotism, Sep 11, and Martin MichaelsDear Carol,I want you to know (and hope

you do) that as much as I must be forthright at a moment I believe is critical

-- which will necessarily involve asserting unpopular views and possibly being

judged as taking a knee-jerk liberal stance (which those who know me for my

pluralism will find interesting, to say the least -- that I also fiercely and

deeply appreciate the warmth, wisdom and humanity with which you so regularly

infuse this list. Now, what is remarkable to me is that you and Martin seem to

think this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. Not at all! What's so

interesting about many Republicans supporting someone with low-level gangster

puppet behavior like GWB (I'm not attacking him, but I will certain call him on

the behavior!) is that the outrageously anti-environmentalist and *anti-future*

policies he promotes are a *complete* break from the Conservation (read:

environmentalist!) heritage of the Republican Party. Now, these days, few

conservatives remember this side of the meaning of the word "conservative," but

it's a seminal one. I' was never crazy about Barry Goldwater's nuclear policies,

but he was thoroughly steeped in the essential conservation tradition of the

GOP. Well, I dealt first-hand while working in the insurance industry with the

public policy nightmares that then-New Jersey governor Christine Whitman was

already wreaking vis-à-vis the environment; now she heads Bush's EPA. In a

word, I'll maintain if Republicans don't at least consider their conservation

heritage, they won't see how the party has become **enslaved** to oil

interests, and the degree to which OIL is nearly TOTALLY driving this entire

war effort -- except for a putative smokescreening factor seemingly impeccably

timed to fend off inquiries into GWB and Cheney's likely corporate crimes;

and the ever-present conservative Christian passion for apocalyptic moves!

(Not that these 3 prongs are mutually exclusive). How can people look squarely

at this administration, so many of whose major players came into the White

House still slick from their oil ties? (Even the indubitably brilliant Condie

Rice, of course, sat on the Chevron Board of Directors.) Whenever I engage

Bush-heads on this war, they **never, ever** respond to this wee little issue

of oil. This is excruciatingly frustrating, because it makes many Bush

supporters just look disingenuous (that is, the most logical human response is

that GWB's typical backers must support this clandestine oil worship, too!) --

and yet I *know* many of those who like this guy to be sincere, caring,

prayerful, lovely, and yes, smart people. So I wish someone would please

explain this whole thing to me, because I must in the end just be really stupid

and not getting something real basic. ;-) And I wish the rebuttals overall

would cobtain more content than just "Bush's decisions and actions are just so

obvious and good -- why can't you see this?"My love; frustated but sincere

musings; passionate and ignorant poems and prayers; and true responsible

heretic's blessings to every member of this list. Carol, I speak to you to

speak to all. Please know my fire (whose warmth may be experienced as awful

heat) is loving, not hateful.Sincerely,JIAIn a message dated 9/27/2002 9:45:54

PM Eastern Standard Time, Carolhook (AT) aol (DOT) com writes:

Dear List, Apologies for my outburst! I really should have kept quiet. I get

lots of political writings from family members who have opposing

viewpoints...it's really been refreshing to have GJList talk about people but

not stomping on ideas...so when I saw political viewpoints causing divisive

reactions, it reminded me so much of the world situation per se....that I felt

like Rodney King who asked, "Can't we all just get along?" My political [point

of view is nearly exactly like Martin Michaels', by the way....please

understand; I've done enough political jabbering with my relatives, and nothing

has changed except we wrote many well-aimed jabs! The answer to Rodney King

is, "Of course not! But we can all respect one another's really dumb opinions!"

Best to all, Carol HookOm Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om

Tat Sat:

gjlist-http://www.goravani.comYour use of

is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Dear Cynthia,

 

If you look closely at my letter, you'll see I was expressly not engaging in

name-calling or ad hominem argumentation, but pointing pretty directly to

behaviors. Everyone can have opinions, but if I encounter opinions not

corroborated by facts, I am going to call the opiner on them. And so far, the

Bushites who are so gung ho about Iraq whom I have encountered keep completely

evading the oil issue. Sorry, but this is what I keep experiencing.

 

So Bush supporters back his every whim just because they like him? That doesn't

make much sense to me. In a certain sense, perhaps those of us who are supposed

to be in the business of counseling or coaching others (which I am not quite yet

prepared to do via astrology, but I otherwise do professionally) might not

necessarily advocate leaping into a situation (including this fray) unless there

is truly solid evidence that such is warranted. And we simply don't have such

evidence. Impulsivity is a desired tendency in neither astrology nor counseling

or coaching, and if we back this war without an *exhaustive* rationale, we are

endorsing such impulsivity.

 

For Rush Limbaugh, being a "ditto-head" is actually a compliment. But you're

much too intelligent for that. (Note that this is a compliment, not

"name-calling"!)

 

No, no Purva Ashada here. You're seeing Mesh Lagna and a thick stellium (don't

know the Jyotish term for this) in Mithun in the 3rd (Budha, Mangal, Ravi and

Shukra just about on top of each other). Big surprise! Now, my Shani fallen in

Mesh is an obstruction until one is trained to optimize the cautious warrior

archetype. Am "still in training" here, but now relishing it. Working in a

litigation arm (Mesh) of a major insurance company (Shani)a few years back was

formative in this training.

 

But psychoanalysis via astrology usually works to the detriment of true

argument. I've seen this done aggressively on this list (against Das Goravani,

no less!) and elsewhere, and I even began to do it myself with GWB. It is

difficult to do well. Seeking Purva Ashada in my chart or Bush's (not there

either) seems like a potential red herring diverting us from the issues. Maybe

I'm wrong. Pointing this out should not be construed as an attack.

 

Cynthia, I respect you and value your posts. You certainly have skills as a

forecaster, and there is much I can learn from you. Please do not mistake my

passion in the face of a truly horrific geopolitical situation for aggression or

malice. My orientation is tantric Buddhist, and what I have been trained to do

in 'a-dharmic' times is invoke the principle of the dharmapalas (reality

protectors). Like the medieval gargoyles, such figures have an aggressive and

frightening countenance to ward off aggression and fear.

 

With metta and in fellowship throughout our adventure/quest for prajna,

 

J.I. Abbot

 

cynthia novak" <cynthianovak wrote:

 

>Dear Jia

>

>I wish the whole thing did not need to fall down to a sort of name calling. Do

you not think it possible for folks to have a different opinion and that opinion

to be as carefully thought out as your own? Why is it that when each of us

believes something passionately we assume that the "other" folks have not taken

the time to look at things carefully and formulate an opinion that is solid for

them if not what you believe?

>

>This is one of the great mysteries of the human psyche. I suspect that it is

at the root of all conflict. It turns dialogue into an us-versus- them contest

when it is merely a different perspective. Can we ever hope that our leaders

will be tolerant if we ourselves are not tolerant?

>

>I used to be pretty darned liberal and I used to bite all the emotional bait

and consume it as if it were truth. No longer. I too have been educated. I

look at Bush's chart and do not see the evil that liberals see. I did not

particularly want him as governor or as president, but I do not find him evil.

I cannot imagine what it must be like to be at the hub of the huge decisions.

Do you drill in Alaska or do you make friends in the middle east with folks that

are very different and often volatile? Socialism does not seem to work, and

seems to stifle the human creative drive. But then again, big-business left

totally unfettered by codes or laws is just as off balance because of human

greed. There seems to need to be a delicate balance and ultimate acceptance of

what the human race can aspire to and what it tends to fall into. I do not

claim to have answers just empathy for those who need to swim in these waters.

I really cannot understand why folks get all excited about religion. It makes

sense to me that no one "really" knows so we should all accept the other's

attempt to make sense of the incomprehensible. OK I'm rambling here but it is a

fascinating world to both watch and participate in.

>

>I'm largely an independent, and that makes me suspect from both the right and

the left <great grins>

>

>I wonder, what nakshatras are dominant in your chart. Any Purva Ashada

perhaps?

>

>I once learned a great deal from a western astrologer: Buz Myers. He said

<remember these are signs not constellations> A Taurus is so stubborn that you

can beat on him all day long and he won't change his mind until he's ready. But

Aquarius, he has looked at the situation, come to his conclusion and thinks that

the rest of the world is populated with idiots if they do not agree with him.

Great grins

>

>c

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Jia

 

MAngal Budha here as well I guess that is 'nough said.

 

smiles

c

 

-

<Jiabbot

<gjlist>

Saturday, September 28, 2002 3:02 PM

Re: [GJ] Patriotism, Sep 11, and Martin Michaels

 

 

> Dear Cynthia,

>

> If you look closely at my letter, you'll see I was expressly not engaging

in name-calling or ad hominem argumentation, but pointing pretty directly to

behaviors. Everyone can have opinions, but if I encounter opinions not

corroborated by facts, I am going to call the opiner on them. And so far,

the Bushites who are so gung ho about Iraq whom I have encountered keep

completely evading the oil issue. Sorry, but this is what I keep

experiencing.

>

> So Bush supporters back his every whim just because they like him? That

doesn't make much sense to me. In a certain sense, perhaps those of us who

are supposed to be in the business of counseling or coaching others (which I

am not quite yet prepared to do via astrology, but I otherwise do

professionally) might not necessarily advocate leaping into a situation

(including this fray) unless there is truly solid evidence that such is

warranted. And we simply don't have such evidence. Impulsivity is a desired

tendency in neither astrology nor counseling or coaching, and if we back

this war without an *exhaustive* rationale, we are endorsing such

impulsivity.

>

> For Rush Limbaugh, being a "ditto-head" is actually a compliment. But

you're much too intelligent for that. (Note that this is a compliment, not

"name-calling"!)

>

> No, no Purva Ashada here. You're seeing Mesh Lagna and a thick stellium

(don't know the Jyotish term for this) in Mithun in the 3rd (Budha, Mangal,

Ravi and Shukra just about on top of each other). Big surprise! Now, my

Shani fallen in Mesh is an obstruction until one is trained to optimize the

cautious warrior archetype. Am "still in training" here, but now relishing

it. Working in a litigation arm (Mesh) of a major insurance company

(Shani)a few years back was formative in this training.

>

> But psychoanalysis via astrology usually works to the detriment of true

argument. I've seen this done aggressively on this list (against Das

Goravani, no less!) and elsewhere, and I even began to do it myself with

GWB. It is difficult to do well. Seeking Purva Ashada in my chart or Bush's

(not there either) seems like a potential red herring diverting us from the

issues. Maybe I'm wrong. Pointing this out should not be construed as an

attack.

>

> Cynthia, I respect you and value your posts. You certainly have skills as

a forecaster, and there is much I can learn from you. Please do not mistake

my passion in the face of a truly horrific geopolitical situation for

aggression or malice. My orientation is tantric Buddhist, and what I have

been trained to do in 'a-dharmic' times is invoke the principle of the

dharmapalas (reality protectors). Like the medieval gargoyles, such figures

have an aggressive and frightening countenance to ward off aggression and

fear.

>

> With metta and in fellowship throughout our adventure/quest for prajna,

>

> J.I. Abbot

>

> cynthia novak" <cynthianovak wrote:

>

> >Dear Jia

> >

> >I wish the whole thing did not need to fall down to a sort of name

calling. Do you not think it possible for folks to have a different opinion

and that opinion to be as carefully thought out as your own? Why is it that

when each of us believes something passionately we assume that the "other"

folks have not taken the time to look at things carefully and formulate an

opinion that is solid for them if not what you believe?

> >

> >This is one of the great mysteries of the human psyche. I suspect that

it is at the root of all conflict. It turns dialogue into an us-versus- them

contest when it is merely a different perspective. Can we ever hope that

our leaders will be tolerant if we ourselves are not tolerant?

> >

> >I used to be pretty darned liberal and I used to bite all the emotional

bait and consume it as if it were truth. No longer. I too have been

educated. I look at Bush's chart and do not see the evil that liberals see.

I did not particularly want him as governor or as president, but I do not

find him evil. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be at the hub of

the huge decisions. Do you drill in Alaska or do you make friends in the

middle east with folks that are very different and often volatile?

Socialism does not seem to work, and seems to stifle the human creative

drive. But then again, big-business left totally unfettered by codes or

laws is just as off balance because of human greed. There seems to need to

be a delicate balance and ultimate acceptance of what the human race can

aspire to and what it tends to fall into. I do not claim to have answers

just empathy for those who need to swim in these waters. I really cannot

understand why folks get all excite!

> d about religion. It makes sense to me that no one "really" knows so we

should all accept the other's attempt to make sense of the incomprehensible.

OK I'm rambling here but it is a fascinating world to both watch and

participate in.

> >

> >I'm largely an independent, and that makes me suspect from both the right

and the left <great grins>

> >

> >I wonder, what nakshatras are dominant in your chart. Any Purva Ashada

perhaps?

> >

> >I once learned a great deal from a western astrologer: Buz Myers. He

said <remember these are signs not constellations> A Taurus is so stubborn

that you can beat on him all day long and he won't change his mind until

he's ready. But Aquarius, he has looked at the situation, come to his

conclusion and thinks that the rest of the world is populated with idiots if

they do not agree with him. Great grins

> >

> >c

> >

> >

>

>

>

> Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

> : gjlist-

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

[Guest guest]

For all of you who are participating, look at the following headline from

today's news.

 

http://story.news./news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020928/wl_nm/turkey_uranium_\

dc_1

 

And remember, this is the one they got........

 

This is scary.

 

-- John

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

 

On 9/28/02 at 2:24 PM Carolhook wrote:

 

>Dear Jesse,

> Many thanks for your thoughtful response...I apologize for stepping on

>your toes or anyone else's toes. You may decide that supporters of our

>current President are also supporting "Big Oil", while finding that most

>of

>those you've interviewed have little to say about oil and offer reasons of

>their own why they like him. To me it's a matter of what one's life is

>like,

>how it shapes one's political opinions.

> We are so fortunate to have a type of government where people can take

>opposing sides in political matters, and yet live peaceably under a

>unified

>system where diversity is the norm and majority consensus determines the

>law.

> There are differing viewpoints and that's as it should be. The

>Democrat

>Party was created in the days of slavery, and was the party advocating

>slavery. They are now a far cry from where they started out, thank

>heavens!

>Let's agree that the melting pot has some interesting ingredients and some

>of

>us prefer one flavor and some prefer another. I debated Clinton endlessly

>with others, and none changed their minds any more than they changed mine!

>I

>actually met Clinton and her husband, too.

> Lesson to me: keep informed, let each have his/her point of view,

>vote

>for the people who most closely match one's own ideals.

> Love to you and Listmembers,

> Carol

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

 

 

 

 

Strange but stupid:

"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero,

they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs"

(Weren't Roman C programs always 500 lines long?)

John F (Jack) Melka