A small circle 2007-06-12T18:22:59Z User 119 http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/ OrgSpace NewsLog Toute prise de conscience est-elle libératrice ? It is one of the proposed philosophy subjects for the French Baccalaureate exam this year:



Time: 4 hours



Subject:


«Toute prise de conscience est-elle libératrice ?»







Are all "realizations"1 liberating2?





1. Realization: Prise de conscience, or "coming to awareness"

2. Liberating: Tending to set free, emancipative, freeing. To release from restraint or bondage.


]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000103.htm 2007-06-12T18:22:59Z 2007-06-22T00:33:17Z Does Man deserve to be saved?







]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000091.htm 2006-09-19T00:38:26Z 2007-04-12T01:11:06Z My God’s better than your God… Someone ought to make it a song or a poem.



Actually someone did (here):




My god’s better than your god,

My special book tells me so,

It tells me how to think, who to love,

And how my life should go.

(…)

My god’s better than your god,

Yours has a silly name,

And your book is stupid,

Really dumb and lame.



I remember vividly a scene from my childhood when one of my schoolmates in primary school (the only Muslim kid in the entire classroom) burst into tears in the middle of a class. Upon investigating what happened, the institutor found out that one of the other kids seated next to him had made some derogatory remark about Allah. Upon which the teacher had the kid stand up and challenged him to explain in front of the whole class in what he thought HIS God was any better than his classmate’s God. The kid was pretty embarrassed already at this point by the outburst he had created and chose to apologize to his classmate instead.



I am reminded of that scene as I reflect upon the recent controversy generated over the words of a major religious figure.

It is always a strange thing indeed when children behave with wisdom and wise men behave childishly.



In a speech in Germany, last week Pope Benedict XVI, formerly known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, quoted a 14th century Christian emperor as referring to elements of the Muslim faith as “evil and inhuman”.



Even though Pope Benedict XVI has not, to this date, apologized for his comment, he later on tempered his offensive remark in a follow up speech in which he insisted that the quotation “in no way” reflected his personal thoughts on the matter.



Why, then, did he use the quotation in the first place?



One can only wonder.



Especially when this comes as such a shocking contrast with his strong condemnation of the Mohammed cartoons earlier on this year, when he had expressed the view that "in the international context we are living at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced that, to foster peace and understanding between peoples and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected.”



What happened?



It is, of course, no secret that among Joseph Ratzinger's better-published positions is "a sense that Catholicism is in competition with Islam":



“In a highly controversial document published six years ago, when he was still head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger wrote that only the Roman Catholic Church provides the means for salvation and that followers of non-Christian religions are 'gravely deficient.'”
("Pope Benedict's Islam blunder undermines dialogue"
by Nicholas Rigillo, Sep 18, 2006 link)



Well, no big surprise, here.



Still, this new development is a broad departure from the interfaith strategy carried out for decades by his predecessor John Paul II who always stressed the “common faith” that unites Muslims, Christians and Jews under one God.



One may wonder in what this return to middle age obscurantism (literally so, in view of the quoted material) and this seemingly revived antagonism toward Islam are very different from the Vatican's attitudes toward European Jews during the middle age or, more recently, during the early part of the twentieth century?



As the Bush administration pursues what most in the Islamic international community view as a latter-day Christian crusade, it is little wonder that Pope Benedict XVI’s anti-Mohammedan citation appears to fit right in with the picture and is perceived as much more than a communications mistake---mistakes are seldom perceived as “accidental” from men of this stature, as they seldom are. As it is, the remark stands as yet one more provocation and plays in the hands of the button pushers, those, both at home (the Bush doctrine) and abroad (Radical Islamism), who are seeking to make their dream of a “war of civilizations” a self-fulfilling prophecy.


So much for fostering “peace and understanding between peoples and men.”

]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000089.htm 2006-09-19T00:09:33Z 2006-11-22T21:54:17Z Black and White in Color Thirty spokes are made only by holes in hub By vacancies joining them for a wheel's use; The use of clay in moulding pitchers Comes from the hollow of its absence; Doors, windows, in a house, Are used for their emptiness: Thus we are helped by what is not To use what is. —Lao Tzu, Tao ...












Spectrum of Political Attitudes

Source: Political Ideologies: Their Origins and impact (Leon P. Baradat) - 1979




















Social Anarchist
Believes that government prevents the individual from making his or her greatest contribution to society.		Radical
Desires immediate, fundamental change.
Is frustrated, impatient, and revolutionary.		Liberal
Desires rapid, far-reaching change. Believes people can improve their lives through the use of reason.
Classical Liberal
Believed in natural law. Believed private property was inalienable. Believed government oppressed people.
Contemporary Liberal
Believes private property is a social right. Believes government should be used to improve life through social experimentation.		Moderate
Fairly contented with the society.
Supports gradual change.		Conservative
Is the most contented with the society.
Is active in defending it against challenges to the status quo.
Is pessimistic about human capacity to improve life through the use of reason.
Depends on "tried and true" institutions.
Believes private property is an inaliable right.
Desires order.		Reactionary
Wishes things to be as they were.
The frustration level of the extreme reactionary is equal to that of the extreme radical.		Individual Anarchist
Believes that government prevents the individuals from developing himself or herself.






LeftRight









Supports:

Human Rights

Equalitarianism

Personal Liberty

Internationalism		Middle of the RoadSupports:

Property Rights

Elitism

Authoritarianism

Nationalism







Related Article:



Out of Time



]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000086.htm 2006-08-05T16:58:25Z 2006-11-22T00:09:27Z To Live is to War with Trolls... To live is to war with trolls in heart and soul. To write is to sit in judgment on oneself. —Henrik Ibsen The interest of a writer and the interests of his readers are never the same and if, on occasion, they happen to coincide, this is a lucky accident. —W. H. Auden Once in a while a new member will join NCN and tentatively post an essay on his or her blog with the intention of generating a dialogue about a topic or another. While such efforts are usually more or less encouraged by some of the members of NCN who have been trying to promote dialogue and diversity and make new members welcome, there is also typically on NCN (and I do not believe this to be exclusively an NCN problem) people who, because they dislike the topic, or what, in their opinion, a poster stands for ("the Establishment," "the Lonnie-left," "Conspiracy theories,"...) or just on general principle (just because they "know better" and they feel that it is their mission to – quoting from a recent example – "drum the truth" into - quote - the "institutionalized persons"," or whomever it is that they think they are talking to, and teach him or her a "lesson"), have been making it a game of doing just the opposite by making such new members unwelcome. Their purpose is not to take part in any dialogue, or even in a debate, but effectively to "kill" the thread (quoting from another recent example: "leave us...[you]...slow down our work here!")



While all of us, I am sure, have observed or been part ourselves of meetings that accomplished nothing, discussions that lost sight of what was being discussed, or debates that were crammed with irrelevancies and much heated emotion—there is often considerable hyperbole, overreaction, and confusion; arguments break out; the personalities of the participants, not the topic itself, is what is at stake; and there is rarely a harmonious resolution to such arguments—there is a fundamental difference however between this (a basic problem of communication and interpersonal relationship) and the situation above, which is that of people who deliberately target a thread for disruption, because (by their own admission) they just want some member to "leave."



As already pointed out, further above, that kind of behavior is not exclusive to NCN, nor is it particularly recent.

(Relevant entries: The Destructive Troll and Who is afraid of NCN?).



"Why do they do it?"



"Theories abound," we are told.



"Attention seeking, personal vendetta, ideological antagonism toward a chosen 'target.'"



"Some pride themselves in being Trolls," or claim to be Anarchists or some Ubbermen of one kind or anoter.



"Some are buttons pushers...who claim they are doing it "'For your own good'"

In that regard, NCN has been compared to an RPG:


"I see many roles being played and many people using more than one character ( ID) so could this be seen as a role playing game of sorts. I see a lot of improvising, free association, trolling, and imagination so in that way it is like an RPG. I would imagine in the more structured role playing games the plots and schemes get quite elaborate and people get wrapped up in their roles. After a time they might even begin to think they are real. There are the Devil's Advocates, the Trickster, the muses, the trolls, the meanies, bullies, peacemakers, and on an on."

— SWAN: Sacred Whimsy And Nourishment: Is NCN an RPG?

While I certainly can appreciate how there is an element of whimsy and possibly nourishment in Role Playing, Destructive Trolls however clearly belong to a different category altogether.



While Destructive Trolls can be looked at, in a certain way, as Role Players (and sometimes are Role Players,) not all Role Players are necessarily Destructive Trolls.



The Destructive Troll is recognizable by the fact that he or she has no real interest in "sacred whimsy and nourishment" or in contributing constructively or creatively to the topic at hand on any given thread – he or she simply wants to utter flame baits (postings intended to trigger a flame war, or ones that invites flames in reply.) If people on a thread do not take the bait and try and stick to the topic or if anyone tries to do anything which will interfere with the troll's efforts to trash the thread, he or she can become very nasty.



Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot dialogue with them, you cannot reason with them, their purpose is to trash or to kill a thread, or even to try and hurt a commenter or a member’s feelings to get their target sufficiently upset so that he or she might eventually "leave" the network as a result, which is oftentimes their intended purpose.



As Rishi once put it (15 Oct 2003 @ 19:34 by rishi : Reality and Fabrication):


"You see, persons such as this are not here to discuss, or reason, use logic or have any concept of spiritual progress. They're not interested in evidence of any kind, nor do they offer anything that stands on its own merit. They make fantastic statements which everyone is apparently expected to accept at face value without evidence, and then proceed to build on those false premises to make even more false conclusions… So you see, what you're dealing with here is a head game, and a rather sick one at that if I may take the liberty of saying so. What XXX is saying here has nothing to do with honest discussion. It has everything to do with creating conflict…"

When Destructive Trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, and their messages become more and more foul and outrageous. Alternatively, if people on a thread do not fall for the bait and do not react in anger, the Trolls will go on and try to stir up trouble by turning the table around and attempt to pursue the same game of "uproar" by playing the part of the offended party, instead. By the same token, if a moderator tries to intervene, Trolls will protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed and that the moderator is "over-controlling" or is "acting like a dictator."



This is all interesting to me not so much because of its ill effects on NCN or the regrettable hemorrhage of good-will it sometimes has on some networks (people get turned-off and leave - i.e. the trolls win), but because of what the internet represents as a new frontier in term of freedom and collective intelligence and because the troll phenomenon, and other like it, are a test of that freedom and of that intelligence, and sometimes a challenge—not so much on blogs and chatrooms such as on this network and elsewhere on the net, but especially where collective endeavors (such as wikipedia) are concerned.



What has been achieved on the web so far, in spite (and sometimes because) of those challenges, is truly something to be in awe of. The fact that so many people are willing to volunteer their time to contribute constructively to various large-scale collective projects on the Internet is a tribute to the human spirit and an encouraging sign of greater things to come. The fact that so many people are also willing to volunteer the same amount of time for destructive purposes is the other side of the coin, and very much part of humanity as well.



The challenge of the Internet is the challenge of the Human Spirit. The openness is a means to an end and if it can sometimes become a problem in certain areas, new ways of dealing with things always manifest. It’s a constantly evolving process.



Insofar as blogs and chatrooms are concerned different people have been dealing with trolls in different ways, depending on the environment under which they operate, and the extent and the nature of the harm being caused.



People who run a blog on NCN have the ability to allow or disable the posting of comments on their blog and can also be very specific as to how open or restrictive the comment option is (the ability to comment can go from being open to practically anyone—NCN members and outsiders alike—to being just open to a selected few from a group of people entered on their contact list), if one finds oneself the object of persistent unrequited attention from another member of NCN, one also has the option of blocking the unwanted visitor so as to deny him or her access to one’s blog. This is a variation of what now exists pretty much everywhere under one form or another on most networking websites, such as MySpace and many others like it.



Ming (Ming.tv), whose emphasis recently has been focused more on the content of the entries he posts, than on the follow-up thread such entries might generate, has been content to go for a "laissez-faire" attitude and will mostly ignore the occasional innocuous irrelevant or irreverent comments, though he will sometimes take a look around and delete some of the spam that seems to have found its way to his blog.



Juan Cole (Informed Comment), who has come under severe and constant attacks on the part of organized groups who have been trying to undermine his work and his person, has had to adopt a more demanding and quite specific Comment Rules:


The editor is looking for messages with a certain tone, of civility and a willingness to share ideas and information in a non-dogmatic way. Strident messages, and those that are simply insulting or libellous, will not be posted. Messages that even sound as though they are a form of trolling will not be posted. Rejections are final and non-negotiable.

(…)

On the other hand, the editor, having few enough prerogatives in life, may in fact persistently reject messages of people whom he simply does not like.

:-)



I have no issue with either attitudes or with any of a variety of compromises between those two extremes.



A blog is only a blog and there is no offence, to oneself or to anyone, whom one decides to work with or not. Not everybody can be interested in everything; not everybody’s approach to a problem is the same; some people are heavily into heated argumentative debates and some other definitely are not. And in so far as NCN is concerned the only rule is for people to do their own things, and collaborate with people who share an interest with them in whatever that thing happens to be. This could take the form of some collaborative writing, or the creation of a database of information on any given topic (spiritual, political, scientific, technical, etc.), or it could take the form of something more complex and more involved.



Administering a thread is a demanding task. When one does it seriously and in earnest every question raised, every new information or opinion contributed, is one that one examines as much for oneself as one does for the commenter who contributed it. To me, first and foremost, it is a dialogue with myself as much as a dialogue with the author of the comment who posted on my blog. It is an interrogation that goes inward as well as outward. Any suggestion or feeling of competition, of being in a win-lose contest is a certain sign that dialogue has not been achieved.



What passes between the author of a an essay and his readers on a blog, or the communication that ensues as a result on the follow-up thread, is part of the "laboratory of life" where the theories and practices of human interaction are being tested. Our self-image and esteem is influenced mostly by those who are closest to us. In the openness of their blogs, I have had the privilege of coming close to many people on the Web a few of which are members of NCN, some, I have met in person, and others I have never met, and…one of them is no longer with us.



A lot has been written already, and again and again, about what NCN means. What it means to its founder. What it means to some of its members. Some of the basics are expressed in the NCN FAQ.



But if I had to pick up one rule and only one, and let everything else go, I would think that regardless of what one’s spiritual, political/apolitical positions might be—and I don’t think that NCN is about spirituality or about politics, nor do I think that NCN is not about spirituality, nor do I think that NCN is not about politics—NCN is about all of those things!—the one rule that I would pick would be this:

Do No Harm!

In other words, paraphrasing a famous saying:



"Battle not with Trolls lest ye become a Troll."







How is one to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in life, when one finds darkness not only in one's culture but within oneself? If there is a stage at which an individual life becomes truly adult, it must be when one grasps the irony in its unfolding and accepts responsibility for a life lived in the midst of such paradox. One must live in the middle of contradiction, because if all contradiction were eliminated at once life would collapse. There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of leaning into the light.

—Barry Lopez

]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000084.htm 2006-08-02T04:07:23Z 2007-05-05T03:13:40Z War Games
















]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000071.htm 2006-07-25T00:53:29Z 2006-09-10T02:23:21Z Dharma “...launch yourself on every wave, find your eternity in each moment. Fools stand on their island opportunities and look toward another land. There is no other land, there is no other life but this.” —Henry David Thoreau

Por el suelo hay une compadrita

Que ya nadie se para a mirar

Por el suelo hay una mamacita

Que se muere de no respetar

Pachamama te veo tan triste

Pachamama* me pongo a llorar



Esperando la ultima ola

Cuidate no te vayas a mojar

Esperando la ultima rola

Mamacita te invito a bailar



Por el suelo camina mi pueblo

Por el suelo hay un agujero

Por el suelo camina la raza

Mamacita te vamos a matar



Esperando la ultima ola

Pachamama me muero de pena

Escuchando la ultima rola

Mamacita te invito a bailar



Por el suelo camina mi pueblo

Por el suelo moliendo condena

Por el suelo el infierno quema

Por el suelo la raza va ciega



Esperando la ultima ola

Pachamama me muero de pena

Escuchando la ultima rola

Mamacita te invito a bailar



—Manu Chao, Por el Suelo






*Pachamama [Inca mythology]: fertility goddess who presided over planting and harvesting. Catholic conquest replaced her image with that of the Virgin Mary with which she is identified in some parts of Chile, Bolivia and Peru.





“IF you can’t see what’s happening in front of you and around you, how could you expect to see your own nature? It is not by closing your eyes that you can see your own nature. On the contrary, you have to open your eyes and wake up to the real situation in the world - that is being able to see completely your whole Dharma treasure, your own Dharma body. The bombs, the hunger, the pursuit of wealth and power - these are not separate from your nature.”

—Thich Nhat Hanh, A Guide To Walking Meditation

]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000068.htm 2006-07-17T20:38:18Z 2006-09-10T02:29:21Z The Law of Attraction? "Moreover, though this is so, flowers fall when we cling to them, and weeds only grow when we dislike them." —Dogen (1200-1253), Shobogenzo The Law of Attraction is an idea that is widespread in New Age philosophy. It posits that a mental disposition will attract equivalent external circumstances and events. link



Books have been written on the subject by Michael Losier, Jerry and Esther Hicks, Penny Jordan, Sheryl Woods, Kristi Gold, Liz Gerstein and Sandra Anne Taylor, William Walker Atkinson, Robert Collier, Israel Regardie and Mark Allen.



Flemming Funch recently posted an excellent entry about this here on Ming The Mechanic.



Like many such concepts the problem with the Law of Attraction is not so much that the concept is naive or simplistic—it's not—the problem is that its interpretation can be naive and simplistic depending on what people read into it and on what use is made of it.



This is, alas, all too true of practically anything.



An illustration of this phenomenon can be found in Hinduism, for instance. There are Hinduists (the term Hinduism is heterogeneous as Hinduism consists of several schools of thought) who believe that a person's place in the world and a person's place in society (caste) is their own fault because it is determined by the way they acted in a previous life.



The problem with such thinking—as Gandhi well knew (and, as tradition has it, Siddhartha, before him)—is that it can become an obstacle to any systemic reform of society because it leads to the idea that those at the bottom of the system are responsible for their condition because they must have done something wrong to deserve being there.



Likewise, with The Law of Attraction, there are those for whom this philosophy leads to the idea that people's condition in the world and in society is determined solely by their own thought and the way they act in life and that ultimately where they are (or were they go or fail to go from there) is their own fault because they "attract that which they are emanating" and therefore they must be doing something wrong.



Clearly, there is more to the world than this.



I think, for example, that most people would agree that it was not the fault of six millions jews (and some 5 millions people belonging to groups that had been likewise deemed "racially inferior" or "undesirable") if they became the main victims of the Shoah in Nazi Germany.



Nor do I think that "they had gotten exactly what they were asking for."



By the same token, I am not convinced that The Law of Attraction is the reason, as Flemming seems to suggest it at one point on his post, that the "rich-get-richer" and the "poor-get-poorer."



There are other factors.



But Flemming has a point, "the hard part here is of course how to change one's direction, if one doesn't like it."



I also like his concluding statement:



"Wherever you currently are, you can do whatever you want, as long as you're clear about it and you focus on it."



Although the opposite has also been known to be true......







Wo-lun has skill, he can cut off hundreds of thoughts.

When facing the outside states, his mind is not moved.
The Bodhi in his mind is growing day after day.


—Ch'an Master Wo-lun		 Hui-neng has no skill, he does not cut off hundreds of thoughts,

When facing the outside states, his mind moves often.

The Bodhi is just this.


—Hui-neng (628-713)







-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



• Related entry: Racism, Oppression, Poverty and Social Injustice




• Variation on a theme: Overturning the Law of Attraction by Jon Rappoport:





OVERTURNING THE LAW OF ATTRACTION



In what is loosely called "the metaphysical community," there has been wide dissemination of an idea called THE LAW OF ATTRACTION.



This has gained great popularity. The law is stated in various ways and with varying degrees of self-contradiction. It basically goes like this: BY YOUR THOUGHTS YOU ATTRACT SIMILAR RESULTS FROM THE UNIVERSE.



You think love and you get love. You think anger and you get anger. You think wealth and wealth comes in to you.



That sort of thing.



Overlooked is the fact that this tends to make the individual a passive entity. More than that, it introduces a cautionary note about what you should think and what you shouldn't think---because if you think "the wrong thing" you will attract what you don't want.



Let's see. PASSIVE. CAUTIOUS. Do you really want to build a castle on that?



More>


]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000066.htm 2006-07-13T23:06:47Z 2006-09-10T02:22:53Z The Wørd On "The Wørd," a regular feature of his program, "The Colbert Report" (pronounced coal-BEAR re-PORE, with silent T's), broadcasted on Comedy Central, Stephen Colbert regularly parodies the kind of anti-intellectual populism typical of such programs as the Bill O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Chann...

"...you're looking at a straight-shooter, America. I tell it like it is. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I will speak to you in plain simple English.



And that brings us to tonight's word: truthiness.



Now I'm sure some of the Word Police, the wordanistas over at Webster's, are gonna say, "Hey, that's not a word." Well, anybody who knows me knows that I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They're elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn't true, or what did or didn't happen. Who's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I wanna say it happened in 1941, that's my right. I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart."



(A video clip of this segment is available here and here.)



You have to give it to him, the man is brilliant!



And he's got guts, too!



Remember his roasting of President Bush back in April, 2006?




Mr. President and first lady, my name is Stephen Colbert and it’s my privilege tonight to celebrate our president. He's no so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brain backs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the fact (police). We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say I did look it up, and that’s not true. That's 'cause you looked it up in a book.




Next time look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works. Every night on my show, the Colbert Report, I speak straight from the gut, ok? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the no fact zone. Fox news, I own the copyright on that term.



I'm a simple man with a simple mind, with a simple set of beliefs that I live by. Number one, I believe in America. I believe it exists.



My gut tells me I live there. I feel that it extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I strongly believe it has 50 states. And I cannot wait to see how “The Washington Post" spins that one tomorrow. I believe in democracy. I believe democracy is our greatest export. At least until China figures out a way to stamp it out in plastic for three cents a unit.



In fact, ambassador, welcome, your great country makes our happy meals possible. I said it's a celebration. I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least.



And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq. I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible -- I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.



But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know fiction.



Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the white house has personnel changes. Then you write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This ships not sinking.



This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on The Hindenburg...



Now, it's not all bad guys out there. Some heroes, Buckley, Kim Schieffer. By the way, Mr. President, thank you for agreeing to be to my show. I was just as shocked as everyone here is I promise you. How is Tuesday...tonight?



General Mosley, Air Force Chief of Staff. General Peter Pace. They still support Rumsfeld. You guys aren't retired yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld. Look, by the way, I've got a theory about how to handle these retired generals causing all this trouble, don't let them retire. C'mon, we've got a stop loss program; let's use it on these guys. If you're strong enough to go on one of those pundit shows, you can stand on a bank of computers and order men into battle.



C'mon. Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he’s going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants.



It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is.



This is the link to the YouTube mirror of the videos First, Second, and Third parts, as well as the opening segment of the next broadcast of the Colbert Report (01 May 2006) after the roasting.

]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000065.htm 2006-07-12T09:21:28Z 2006-09-10T02:22:39Z Where is Abel thy brother? Picture 1 (left) is from a DVD cover of Godfrey Reggio’s 1988 movie, Powaqattsi. Powaqattsi is a Hopi Indian conjunctive from the word Powaqa, which refers to a negative sorcerer who lives at the expense of others, and Qatsi - i.e., life. Picture 2 (right) is Wayne Forte’s acrylic on paper Cain...

…I think George Bush loves this country. I really do. I don't think his administration is "full" of stupid people. ... The problem is not that the philosophy of this administration is not working the way it's supposed to work; the problem is that it is working the way it's supposed to work [to this administration.]

...They don't believe that government has a role in solving national problems because they think government is the problem. They think that we're better off if we just dismantle government; if, in the form of tax breaks, we make sure that everybody's responsible [that you are responsible] for buying your own health care and your own retirement security and your own child care and your own schools, your own private security forces, your own roads, your own levees.



It is called the "ownership society" in Washington. But, you know, historically there has been another term for it; it's called "social Darwinism" -- the notion that every man or woman is out for him or her self, which allows us to say that if we meet a guy who has worked in a steel plant for 30, 40 years and suddenly has the rug pulled out from under him and can't afford health care or can't afford a pension, you know, life isn't fair. It allows us to say to a child who doesn't have the wisdom to choose his or her own parents and so lives in a poor neighborhood, pick yourself up by your own bootstraps. It allows us to say to somebody who is seeing their child sick and is going bankrupt paying the bills, tough luck.



It's a bracing idea, this idea that you're on your own. It's the simplest thing in the world, easy to put on a bumper sticker. But there's just one problem; it doesn't work. It ignores our history. Now, yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on self-reliance and individual initiative and a belief in the free market, but it's also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, our sense that we have a stake in each other's success -- that everybody should have a shot at opportunity.



Americans understand this. They know the government can't solve all their problems, but they expect the government can help because they know it's an expression of what they're learning in Sunday school. What they learn in their church, in their synagogue, in their mosque - a basic moral precept that says that I have to look out for you and I have responsibility for you and you have responsibility for me, that I am your keeper and you are mine. That's what America is.




This remark is excerpted from a speech, by Barack Obama, delivered at the Take Back America conference on June 14, 2006.


]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v119/__show_article/_a000119-000061.htm 2006-07-03T01:48:24Z 2006-09-10T02:22:05Z