|
|
 14 Aug 2007 @ 17:32, by craiglang. Reports
We just got back yesterday from the 2007 convention of the National Guild of Hypnotists, in Marlborough (Boston) Mass. A truly fascinating time - and for me, a totally unique experience.
This time, I spent most of my time in the vendor room, selling The Cosmic Bridge rather than in seminars and workshops. However, I did sell lots of copies of Bridge and got to know a lot of folks in the guild that I probably would not have met otherwise. Read More
|
|
|
|
7 Jul 2006 @ 21:39, by craiglang. Reports
In my last posting, I lamented the lack of evidence for contact. Yet I also indicated that there WAS enough evidence to convince me that there really is a mystery. As I subsequently thought about both the posting, and the comments people had made in reply, I decided that I had simply rediscovered what is known as the Fermi Paradox. This is the conflict between the idea that there are most likely many ET civilizations, and the observation that (from a conservative scientific perspective) there appears to be little evidence of contact with them.
One solution to the Fermi Paradox is called the Deardorff Hypothesis, first described by Dr. James Deardorff in his article, "A Possible Extraterrestrial Strategy for Earth." in the book Alien Update, edited by Timothy Good.
In this model, he proposes that the Visitors are primarilly observers, and interact with us mostly in a covert manner. At this stage of our development, they deem that we are not yet ready for contact.
I have attached a section from "The Cosmic Bridge" that discusses this idea. Feel free to look it over and give me any comments. Read More
|
|
|
|
14 Mar 2005 @ 16:01, by craiglang. Reports
I did a Google search this morning on:
(Cheney OR Wolfowitz OR Rowe) + Armageddon
Interesting results - got 84,800 search hits. Click here to go to the Google page and see for yourself... Read More
|
|
|
|
25 Feb 2005 @ 03:30, by craiglang. Reports
It was with very low expectations, but a slight bit of hope that I watched the special this evening (7PM CST) on the ABC network, "Peter Jennings Reporting: UFO's, Seeing is Believing." Unforunately, the one thing I came away with was that my expectations were met. My overall sense was one of disappointment. I got the overall impression of business as usual - largely a repetition of the official line. Yet though the lid still seems to be tightly clamped down, there is, perhaps, a tiny crack in the artifice - and through this shines a faint glimmer of light. Read More
|
|
|
|
9 Feb 2005 @ 18:55, by craiglang. Reports
(7/8/05 Note: I just noted on Nora's newslog page, the link to Panden Jenkins' website at www.palden.co.uk. Thanks Nora)
I finally have gotten around to (almost) finishing the book "Healing the Hurts of Nations", written by Palden Jenkins. The book was recommended to me by someone on NCN, a year-plus ago (thank-you to whoever it was). The book is a heavy read, but a well-written and fascinating one. For anyone seriously interested in peace studies, I highly recommend it. Read More
|
|
|
|
18 Oct 2004 @ 17:58, by craiglang. Reports
On Saturday (10/16/04) Richard M. Dolan, the author of the book "UFOs and the National Security State" gave a presentation to Minnesota MUFON. What he said was, to say the least, sobering. Read More
|
|
|
|
24 May 2004 @ 11:53, by craiglang. Reports
Note: this is the first of two postings on my adventures and misadventures within the state Democratic party machine. This one is a very positive posting and describes the sense of optimism and the powerful winds of change that we all felt there.
The next one will look at some of the issues that I saw, and more about how change is needed. Read More
|
|
|
|
19 Feb 2004 @ 11:18, by craiglang. Reports
My wife and I attend the Star/Tribune Womens' Lecture series, a series of talks on contemporary affairs by extraordinary women (and in this case, couple). Last night's talk was by Mary Matilin and James Carville, the political odd couple who provide so much color to the US political landscape. Mary Matilin is a wheel in the conservative political scene, while her hubby, James Carville, is a powerful activist in the progressive world. Both had some very interesting - and I thought very insightful views. Regardless of your views, they each had some very deep truths for everyone.
Mary Matilin had the podium first. She had the predictable praise for Bush [which required me to hold my political nose at a few points...], but also she had some interesting points for progressives. One was that prior to our intervention in Afghanistan, there were tremendous human rights problems there. Anyone who happenned to be female was forbidden to attend school or participate in civic affairs - or to do much of anything outside of the home. Since the US intervention, at least that has improved.
She cited this as an example of how the US is a force for freedom in the world. She presented the viewpoint that I hear from so many conservatives - that it is the duty and role of the USA to export democracy [CL Note: along with conservative Christianity and Coca Cola] to the world.
She also had some interesting things to say about the upcoming election. She predicted that Bush would win [surprise, surprise]. But she also indicated that the election might be Kerry's [whom she presumed woudl be the Dem nominee] to win or lose. She said that what Kerry needs - as does the progressive movement in general [CL Note: progressive is my word, not her's] - is a clear, coherent vision. It is not sufficient to simply oppose Bush. What is needed is a clear, well-defined, coherent agenda - a progressive view of where the USA should be headed, as well as why and how.
And in this, I think she is probably correct. Among progressives, there is alot of unity in opposition to Bush, but there is also alot of division. A coherent, well-defined vision is needed, or Bush will be president with four more years of reactionary US behavior in the world.
Many who consider themselves to be progressives want change - oftentimes, any change will do. She stated that one reason Bush won was that his campaign offered change. Bush offers [or at least his handlers do] a very coherent, well defined vision. It is a coherent, fundamental shift in the policy of the USA. And thus, to many who would have otherwise voted democrat, this is attractive. In order to beat Bush in 11/04, it will be necessary to offer a better defined, more coherent vision - to clearly define the path which progressives want the USA to travel.
James Carville then took the podium and had some more very interesting things to say, both to progressives and conservatives alike. His biggest comment was that perhaps more than any time previously in our history, the US populace is deeply divided. There is a very deep, fundamental split in the political landscape between conservative and progressive views. And in this election, some very fundamental questions will be on the table - questions about the very future of the USA.
He dramatized this by asking for a show of hands in the audience - who here was undecided about how they would vote in Novenber. In the hall full of several thousand people, essentially no one raised their hand. Carville pointed out that this was apparently the case nationwide. There appear to be very few undecided voters, and the population is very evenly devided - nearly 50/50. So it comes down to a few percent of the voters, in a few key states, who will end up deciding the future of the USA for a long time to come.
He predicted that this election would be a truly pivotal one in US history, and that all eyes of the world would be upon us. The voter turnout will be heavy - and at present, he felt that the election could go either way.
Neither said anything about the allegations of electoral hijinx, or other possible scandals that are now surfacing. But I thought that the "eyes of the world" comment was an excellent, though veiled, allusion in that direction. Both speakers pretty much kept away from specific issues, stressing more the fundamental philosophies and the importance of the questions being asked, rather than stressing their opposing answers.
So in the end, I think the core message from both was that the USA is deeply divided. There are two deeply-ingrained and diametrically opposed world-views entrenched in the American political landscape. One view is that it is the right and duty of the USA to export freedom, democracy, free enterprise, and other aspects of "our way of life" to the world [CL Note: even if at the point of a gun]. The other view is that the USA has the right and duty to be a good citizen of the world - to seek world peace and to work WITH the world to help address the problems that give rise to war, poverty, environmental degradation, etc.
Not since the sixties has the US public been so divided on the core issues - and it appears that the polarity is only deepening. This election will indeed be interesting. Read More
|
|
|
