Carping about the last election is as worthless an issue for you Dems as impeaching Clinton was for us. All it does is anger voters you will get any way and put off some you could reach with other tactics. But go ahead and destroy yourselves as I sit and laugh.
Fine! Go ahead and burst my bubble. :cry:Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
I'm afraid I can't agree. They're holding their own well enough, though we've managed to fight them to a standstill on most fronts. In the 90s, they had the presidency, now we've got it. With the country this perfectly divided, whichever side controls the White House tends to get some of what it wants, the oppositions gets almost nothing, and thus whichever side holds the White House tends to think it's 'winning'.
Just a 5 years ago, liberals were congratulating themselves on how they had finally defeated the conservative reactionary fogies once and for all.
The Clinton impeachment was going to finish off the GOP politically, remember?
That was an illusion, and so is the current apparent defeat of the libs.
Each side has too deep and serious a constituency to be defeated that completely (except short term, that's easily managed).
What are you doing out of bed and on the computer?Now, I am seriously getting offline! Any insults, jokes, or other detractory remarks will not be addressed until the end of the weekend.
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
I post here because yanking the chains of pompus people gives me pleasure. You all take yourselves so seriously.
Oh, damn, my ego is showing again........
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
If the Mensa people leave, we can form a group with a slightly lower IQ. It could be Sub-Mensa.
Republicrats
I think you have put your finger--ehr, your cursor--on the problem. Both sides think that "winning" means getting rid of the other party once and for all. Yet getting us all represented requires the continuing existence of opposition--possibly more than one version of opposition.
That was an illusion, ([i
I think the idea of oppositions working together was one of the unravelings of the 3T and what we will see later in this 4T is a new definition of winning in which one does not defeat the opposition but rather incorporates what works.
Elisheva Levin
"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot
I didn't say just cleaning, but cleaning and preparation. Trimming the subcutaneous fat should get rid of a fair degree of the topically-applied fat-solubles. Avoiding the organs like liver, stomach, intestine, gall bladder (I'm not really up on horse anatomy, and am assuming it's at least somewhat similar to deer anatomy) and others would also be prudent, since the fat-solubles (as well as heavy metals) can concentrate there, too. Then, stewing at fairly high temps in a fat-based broth (and throwing away the broth afterwards, if you want) can help leach out and dilute the remaining fat-sol chemicals down to trace "safe-to-eat" levels.
It's not so much science as "how to prepare meat"... I'm fairly sure that's not part of the medical degree program (OR IS IT :o :o :o )
Re: Pfc. Jessica Lynch
Oops, you're right! I keep forgetting my "85 child is already 17!Let's see... 19 in April 2003? It would have to be either 1983 or 1984 (probably 83)According to the Strauss and Howe timeline, Jessica Lynch would be among the first cohorts of the Millies--she would have been born in either 1982 or 1983.
So Jessica is definitely a Millie--which was precisely my point!
Elisheva Levin
"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot
HAY, whose up for lunch? Maybe we can meat at X'rs for some Hobo sandwiches.I didn't say just cleaning, but cleaning and preparation. Trimming the subcutaneous fat should get rid of a fair degree of the topically-applied fat-solubles. Avoiding the organs like liver, stomach, intestine, gall bladder (I'm not really up on horse anatomy, and am assuming it's at least somewhat similar to deer anatomy) and others would also be prudent, since the fat-solubles (as well as heavy metals) can concentrate there, too. Then, stewing at fairly high temps in a fat-based broth (and throwing away the broth afterwards, if you want) can help leach out and dilute the remaining fat-sol chemicals down to trace "safe-to-eat" levels.
It's not so much science as "how to prepare meat"... I'm fairly sure that's not part of the medical degree program (OR IS IT :o :o :o )
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
Since you mention it, let me add a quick E2K comment. Since the results of the election were "managed" by the SCOTUS, and the executive nominates all judges and justices - for life, no Presdient so 'elected' should be naming jurists.
That's party neutral, but probably not acceptable to 99.9% of Republicans. At other times, the Democtrats would be the hgigh percentage objectors. For my part, I'd like to see legislation that gives the SCOTUS a role in elections like E2K with the stipulation about appointments as stated above.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
You might change your mind if you come over to the Orgy thread. ;-)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Why is everything so funny to me today? :-D
Adverserial World Views
My ideas on psi can be found at http://polyticks.com/psi/. Basically, the universe is random, and slightly biased towards intensely emotional futures. However, if you are not a student quantum physics, forget it. Psi is a way out subject, and a serious investigation of psi phenomena requires a working knowledge of esoteric physics, plus an open mind. I fear the latter is less common than the former.
Agreed. Strongly agreed. The Conservatives tend to see and place importance on the security related issues, while the Liberals tend to see and place importance on cultural, economic and ecological problems. I don't see it as possible to seriously address either group of problems without addressing the other.I think you have put your finger--ehr, your cursor--on the problem. Both sides think that "winning" means getting rid of the other party once and for all. Yet getting us all represented requires the continuing existence of opposition--possibly more than one version of opposition.
I think the idea of oppositions working together was one of the unravelings of the 3T and what we will see later in this 4T is a new definition of winning in which one does not defeat the opposition but rather incorporates what works.
We have been stuck focused on the unraveling stalemate too long. Many cannot perceive or embrace the world views of the opposition, and cannot conceive of examining the world through any perspective other than liberal or conservative. Thus, far too many people are examining New Millennia problems exclusively through 20th Century values.
Worse, some people are treating politics as an entertainment. The objective is not to solve serious problems, but to tick people off. The major effect is to make serious creative discussion nigh on impossible.
To me, the major first step is assuming as many people as possible are sincere, intelligent and serious. It is sort of understandable, if one states an opinion on subjects such as psi or parapsychology or astrology, for some to cease to respect the individual who espouses such views. The response is ridicule and insult. Some respond to ecological concerns the same way. Those who show a respect for the environment - no matter how well reasearched - are dismissed as tree-huggers with psychological problems. Some respond to any issue you?d care to name this way. Any point of view, no matter how well researched and well stated, is apt to get a knee jerk emotional insulting personal attack, rather than a well researched and thought out response.
The healthy response is not knee jerk emotional insulting personal attacks on those who practice insulting knee jerk personal attacks. This results in cyberspace equivalence of a spiral of violence. The forum just gets bogged down in junk posts.
But I fear I have written off a good number of contributors to this forum. Their minds are closed. They cannot listen. They cannot synthesize. They cannot add to and develop their perspectives on the world by listening to other forum members. They can only advocate their own points of views, generally not effectively, as insults and adversarial arguments do not win converts.
But people already know this.
Re: Adverserial World Views
you're talking about me, aren't you?
TK
Re: Adverserial World Views
It's a neutral statement about "the other side".you're talking about me, aren't you?
TK
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"
Re: Adverserial World Views
"the other side"? now i know he's talking about me.... i'm definitely on "the other side".
just ask any leftie, or rightie.
TK
Re: Adverserial World Views
Bob, I do agree with you, and I appreciate your levelheaded approach.
I also wanted to add that, if I'm reading and interpreting Brian's and XoE's posts correctly, I've had what could be called psi experiences.
I had just never thought about trying to quantify them, and that's what was boggling my mind about Brian's explanation of his theory. ;-)
I think what's happening at my work lately indicates we've left the 3T.
Since September, management has been really cracking down and all sorts of new rules meant to make things more uniform and eradicate indivuality have been implemented. This week all reps and supervisors who do not have their own offices (which includes me) were ordered to remove all personal items from our cubicles to make the workplace look more "uniform." We may have one 3x5 framed photo and one other personal item, such as a small plant. That is it. Everything else must be work related. I don't know if this is significant, but most of the "victims" of this ridiculousness are Xers and Jonesers, though there are a growing number of Millennials, and only a handful of Silents and first wave Boomers. The Millennials seem almost not to mind; I don't know if this is because of their young age or because they are a generation that is less concerned with individual expression than Boomers and Xers. Probably the latter, as when Boomers and Xers were young they would have rebelled instead of knuckled under.
It so happens that two other call centers in the immediate area have been closed; another is in trouble financially and may close soon. Normally under such circumstances morale would be so low that people would be quitting in droves and finding other jobs. Morale is indeed extremely low, but people are staying because there is nothing else available. People are afraid. In a 4T, people are reluctant to change or to take risks, and are far less likely to assert their individuality or themselves. They do what they're told because they're afraid not to.
And those in power can throw their weight around now because they know they can--people will stay. To implement such ridiculous rules two years ago would have meant high turnover, which would have cost money. Not so anymore.
This sort of thing seems to be happening everywhere in this country, not just where I work. I don't think we're unique. Two years ago most people would not have put up with this bureaucratic nonsense; now the mood is very different, people seem almost docile. People don't want to speak up. It's sad.
It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski
XOE, I find this interesting, but even more so coming from a Doctor. Aren't you medical types supposed to be into the "science" of things? Please explain, if you feel comfortable, how you can balance a belief in PSI with Medical Science.
Or, if you would rather, just come over to the orgy thread, naked, and with beer. Either is acceptable to my Xer pragmatism.
That reminds me of the job I was laid off from in February 2002. The major layoffs had come in October 1999 and January 2000. At least as many people left of their own accord, mainly during 2000 and on into 2001. They generally were not replaced, except by a couple of people who had been laid off. During 2001 wages were frozen and benefits were cut. Those of us who stayed did so because we couldn't find anything else - those of us who had moved to North Carolina just to work for that company (I wasn't the only one) were more than a bit miffed about what we'd gotten ourselves in to.
They got on us for not succeeding, that the company was losing money because of subpar production, that we didn't deserve the wages we were getting. They tried to set up a new disciplinary policy in November 2001 so they could fire people instead of laying them off, when we were already cut to the bone. (It backfired.) I asked the site manager at that point, were we going to be around in the long run (so I could know how hard to look for that next job.) He said, oh, we may get bought out again, but we'll be around in some form - and we need people like you.
I raised the point during a meeting January 2002 that for two years management had let the best people walk out the door, and that it was a double standard for those who had quit or been laid off to be banned from the premises while the former management who had run us into the ground could come hang out remaining management whenever they wanted. (I was nearly fired for expressing what all of us were thinking.) Around that point, a handful of people who had lined up other jobs (without telling management) jumped ship.
On 13 February management told us that we would most likely be shut down in a matter of weeks - contrary to what I had been told in November. (Had I been told the truth, I would have looked a lot harder for other work.) On 22 February half of us were laid off, most of the rest in March. I think one person accepted a transfer to another site - most of us were of the feeling that after two and a half years of nonsense with this company (they bought our site and ran it into the ground) if they offered us positions elsewhere, why take them and risk getting laid off in Texas in a year (or less)?
Incidentally, those benefit cuts (company paid less, we paid more for less health coverage) came out around September 6th, 2001.
David, we've been through this before, and you were shown to be wrong.Since you mention it, let me add a quick E2K comment. Since the results of the election were "managed" by the SCOTUS, and the executive nominates all judges and justices - for life, no Presdient so 'elected' should be naming jurists.
The SCOTUS had no effect on the fact that G.W. Bush became President of the United States. They affected only the length of the circus preceding what was already a done deal.
That isn't opinion, David. It's fact. And thus Bush's right to appoint Justices is beyond debate, as is the right of the Dems in the Senate to try and block them, if they can manage it.
That fits a recent trend at my workplace, in a slightly different sense. They've taken 'standardization' beyond the bounds of common sense, to the point that following the official procedures actually reduces the likelihood that whatever work is underway will succeed. But it's got more of a feel of Silent-style bureaucracy-for-its-own-sake than 4T ruthlessness. They're trying to establish a rule for every possible situation.
But I tend to suspect the willingness to put up with it has more to do with the fact that we are in an economic downturn than a Turning change. In the mid-late 90s, the economy was in a bubble-boom and people felt confident that they could find other work easily, and now they don't feel that way.
