Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Exile must have been in exile for quite a while.

Gee, I'd prefer to use a more catchier name like old KIA's.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

You referred to the MS white boys and I reffered to the nations black folks and the nations single white mom's.

But to no good effect.

Just an astrological reminder. Although Santorum racked up big wins tonight on Gingrich's turf, the latter is not out yet. Remember there is a great configuration in the sky this week, which you can see if the night is clear. In the west, Jupiter and Venus are together. They are the bringers of good fortune and success, and they are right on Rick's solar degree now. What's more, in the east you can see Mars, now at its brightest point as it passes earth, in beneficent trine (120 degree) angle to Venus and Jupiter. And in trine to each, is the potent though underpointed Pluto, the planet of power. So astrologically, Santorum is getting an enormous planetary boost, as I predicted here that he would even when he was at 2% in the polls in Iowa.

But it won't last. Santorum's chart is inherently weak, as he himself is. Venus and Jupiter will be speeding up through the zodiac and moving on rapidly now, so Santorum's star will fade increasingly over the next couple of months. Somehow he will blow it, or will just lose his lustre. In any case, many primaries to come will give Romney an edge. If Gingrich stays in, he may get a late boost in June as Jupiter moves into his sign instead of Santorum's. So Santorum will not be able to stop Romney, and he will eek out a 1st ballot win. Then he will lose to Obama in the Fall by 5 or 6 points.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Exile must have been in exile for quite a while.

Send me a private note and I will tell you the story.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I didn't have to try very hard to rationalize why someone would think that Barack Hussein Obama is Muslim. Now, Omar Nelson Bradley is Muslim would be a much tougher sell.

Someone's name is absolute proof of someone's religion, I guess.

I believe that my furthest ancester was a caveman. But, evolution as it was taught to me was a theory that man had evolved from an ape. DNA studies have already confirmed that my furthest ancester wasn't a Neandrathral or an ape. BTW, I also believe that there was a higher power or god that was involved in human evolution.

I accept this and tend to live by this. The Eric's of the world continue to ignore this or continue to hope and try to change this.

I have never said we aren't part of nature. Like you, I think nature is more than many scientists tend to think, but if so, it is not a higher god outside of nature somewhere, but the divinity and consciousness within evolving nature and life itself, that makes this so.

Would a conservative have said that if he thought or believed that the conservatives would object? Would Bill Maher say the things he has said if he thought or believed that the liberals would object? What's so hard to figure out or understand about this kind of stuff?

It's not hard to understand. What's hard to understand is why anyone would ever listen to Limbaugh, or to anything he ever says about anything.

Oh? What on earth have Republicans done for southern whites lately other than appeal to their prejudices? I will be very curious to see your answer.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Most people associate the name Hussein with Muslim.

Since, as we all know, he had SO much control over his choice of middle name at birth...

Today's primary results have set me thinking.

The kind of regeneracy which we are all (or mostly) hoping for involves some consensus, coming together, and sacrificing for the common good. The essence of civic virtue, is supposed to be renewed in a 4T, is putting the common interest over the particular interest. Those qualities are still however almost completely lacking in our political life--and totally lacking among the Republican Party, especially in its "conservative" wing.

I use the quotes advisedly because modern "conservatism" consists of appealing to a combination of people's prejudices and people's greed for personal political gain. It has nothing to do with accomplishing anything positive. And nothing proves this more clearly than the course of the Republican primaries. If Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich genuinely cared about "conservative principles" one of them would withdraw and the one remaining would probably win the nomination. But that won't happen, because, Boomers that they both are (see blog below), neither one really cares about anything except himself. And this is, incidentally, why it's unfair to compare either one to any of the Fascists of the last saeculum: those guys could indeed appeal to civic virtue and that's part of the reason they got into power. In that sense, we are fortunate to have to deal with Santorum and Gingrich instead.

I feel this morning that it's time to call a spade a spade rather than referring to it metaphorically as a shovel, as a famous Nomad was fond of saying.

KIA's ignorant creationism makes me want to throw up. We ARE apes, we share 99% of our DNA with chimps. Put a bunch of teenage boys together and you get behavior very similar to male chimps.

Oh, and if you are Caucasian you are up to 10% Neanderthal according to recent data.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Someone's name is absolute proof of someone's religion, I guess.

I do genealogy as a hobby, and I know enough to not draw conclusions from a name alone. Given names derived from the Old Testament (Abraham, Solomon, Isaac, David, Esther, Rebecca, Hannah) are common among Christian Americans, and almost any German or Dutch surname "can be Jewish". Then there are certain surnames that are commonplace alterations -- like Rubinstein and Rabinowitz to Robinson. Why would anyone do that? It's a glorious heritage even if there are antisemitic scum.

I was surprised to find an ancestor originally named Esther Hyatt born in rural New York State, whose obituary stated that she "became a Christian at age 16". I once saw someone on some now-defunct forum. "As sure as my grandmother's name was Hyatt, I'm Jewish". She was born in 1826 to parents in New York long before the mass of Jewish immigration from central and eastern Europe, and several Christians sects believed in confirmation in teenage years as more important than infant baptism in deciding whether one was a true member of the "Christian" community.

I have never said we aren't part of nature. Like you, I think nature is more than many scientists tend to think, but if so, it is not a higher god outside of nature somewhere, but the divinity and consciousness within evolving nature and life itself, that makes this so.

Isn't it enough for monotheists to accept that a Universe that makes sense is an argument for one God instead of multiple gods? Wouldn't it be enough to say that the most important creations of God include laws of mathematics, chemistry, and physics? A slight change in the periodic law of chemistry -- that the first electron shell completes with four electrons instead of two would make a solid out of hydrogen and a chemically-active gas out of helium -- would make planetary development so common that collisions between planetary bodies would result in chaos. A change in the curve of binding energy that would make zirconium instead of iron the point of lowest nuclear energy would allow planetary atmospheres to flood with inert, yet suffocating, krypton gas and make life impossible.

Anyone who wants to understand how the universe really works studies physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Anyone who wants to understand how life works studies biology. Anyone who wants to understand what creates a workable study can join in the religious discussion of ethics. Wise people have been asking and answering the same critical questions for over two millennia -- because human nature doesn't change.

It's not hard to understand. What's hard to understand is why anyone would ever listen to Limbaugh, or to anything he ever says about anything.

Limbaugh does something that every con artist does: he tells people what they want to believe even if such is false. Some con artists tell the people that they are about to fleece that they are investors of unusual astuteness for buying into a Ponzi scheme. Demagogues tell voters that their anger and ignorance are wisdom that "elites" lack (I am talking about Newt Gingrich!). Child molesters present themselves as the best friend that a child could ever have.

Truth isn't by nature obvious, convenient, or pleasant. But what else do we have? Legitimate investments are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with no pressure on a broker to sell any particular one and as a rule one of many options. Limited education does not mean that one is free of the 'intellectual corruption' that a secular university inflicts. And, kid -- no complete stranger cares about your Little League conference outside of the county or city in which he lives... and there is no such thing as a free lunch, let alone the fare that gives you a chance to go to Greater Los Angeles and Disneyland from a messed-up family life in a dreary hick town.

Reality isn't convenient; it is learned at considerable effort; it often precludes some desirable fantasies (like getting rich without effort, getting revenge against those who have wronged one, and the absence of a "free lunch"). What else do we have? The road to ruin with its sordid temptations?

Originally Posted by Odin

KIA's ignorant creationism makes me want to throw up. We ARE apes, we share 99% of our DNA with chimps. Put a bunch of teenage boys together and you get behavior very similar to male chimps.

Oh, and if you are Caucasian you are up to 10% Neanderthal according to recent data.

Your attitude makes me want to throw up. I guess you must have a higher percentage of Neanderthal in your genes or something. Genetically speaking, are we Neanderthals or are we Homo Sapiens?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Your attitude makes me want to throw up. I guess you must have a higher percentage of Neanderthal in your genes or something. Genetically speaking, are we Neanderthals or are we Homo Sapiens?

How would you know? What do you even know about Neanderthal Man?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Your attitude makes me want to throw up. I guess you must have a higher percentage of Neanderthal in your genes or something. Genetically speaking, are we Neanderthals or are we Homo Sapiens?

You are thinking essentialistically, which is typical for Creationists. The genomes of several Neanderthals have recently been sequenced and it was found that many people outside of Africa have variants of genes that are more similar to those in Neanderthals than to those in other modern humans, indicating that the first modern humans to leave Africa interbred with Neanderthals in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Odin

You are thinking essentialistically, which is typical for Creationists. The genomes of several Neanderthals have recently been sequenced and it was found that many people outside of Africa have variants of genes that are more similar to those in Neanderthals than to those in other modern humans, indicating that the first modern humans to leave Africa interbred with Neanderthals in the Middle East.

I'm not a Creationist. I'm an evolutionist (caveman ancester) who believes that God or a higher power of some sort has directly contributed and has played a significant role in our developement. Genetically speaking, are you Homo Sapien or are you Neanderthal?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Your attitude makes me want to throw up.

Now you're quoting Rick Santorum. He must be your candidate. Quite Neanderthal indeed!

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I'm not a Creationist. I'm an evolutionist (caveman ancester) who believes that God or a higher power of some sort has directly contributed and has played a significant role in our developement. Genetically speaking, are you Homo Sapien or are you Neanderthal?

If your European; you may have a small percentage of Neanderthal dna in you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Now you're quoting Rick Santorum. He must be your candidate. Quite Neanderthal indeed!

Wrong. Wrong. I quoted Odin. I favor Romney.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Wrong. Wrong. I quoted Odin. I favor Romney.

I know. But that IS what Santorum said.

Very interesting kettle of fish. This is Breaking News from the National Catholic Reporter.

Obama administration issues new contraceptive mandate rules
Takes conciliatory tone, exempts self-insurers
Mar. 16, 2012

Taking a conciliatory tone and asking for a wide range of public comment, the Obama administration announced this afternoon new accommodations on a controversial mandate requiring contraceptive coverage in health care plans.

Coming after a month of continued opposition from the U.S. bishops to the mandate, which was first revised in early February to exempt certain religious organizations, today’s announced changes from the Department of Health and Human Services make a number of concessions, including allowing religious organizations that self-insure to be made exempt.

More: http://ncronline.org/news/politics/o...-mandate-rules

I can actually understand religious objections to providing contraception services if it violates their faith, but I don't like seeing a situation where employers, not patients or doctors, decide on what care is appropriate and covered. More than anything, this is another powerful example of why we need to sever the link between employment and health care delivery.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I can actually understand religious objections to providing contraception services if it violates their faith, but I don't like seeing a situation where employers, not patients or doctors, decide on what care is appropriate and covered. More than anything, this is another powerful example of why we need to sever the link between employment and health care delivery.

I agree. Our current plan is an artifact of history. A full system (re)design is needed.

Originally Posted by radind

I agree. Our current plan is an artifact of history. A full system (re)design is needed.

If a 3T is a time of corruption and stasis with intensifying inequity, a 4T is the time that most severely challenges those vices. We still have entrenched elites whose sole idea of Good is their enrichment and pampering. They want this 4T to be the enshrinement and intensification of the linear trends of the 3T. Such can oly lead to greater corruption and inequality with the stasis eventually becoming nothing more than rot.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If a 3T is a time of corruption and stasis with intensifying inequity, a 4T is the time that most severely challenges those vices. We still have entrenched elites whose sole idea of Good is their enrichment and pampering. They want this 4T to be the enshrinement and intensification of the linear trends of the 3T. Such can oly lead to greater corruption and inequality with the stasis eventually becoming nothing more than rot.

That is a good description of the last 4T. It might be a good description of 1774-1794. It is not a good description of 1861-76 or whenever you want to date it (those dates would be for the South.) And thus, there is no basis for assuming that that is what will happen this time.

And--it's obviously not happening.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We still have entrenched elites whose sole idea of Good is their enrichment and pampering. They want this 4T to be the enshrinement and intensification of the linear trends of the 3T. Such can oly lead to greater corruption and inequality with the stasis eventually becoming nothing more than rot.

Crisis of a mega-unravelling, aka: great empires rise and fall.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That is a good description of the last 4T. It might be a good description of 1774-1794. It is not a good description of 1861-76 or whenever you want to date it (those dates would be for the South.) And thus, there is no basis for assuming tht that is what will happen this time.

And--it's obviously not happening.

A 4T can replace one political folly (the polarization over slavery) with a new and very flawed order (the Gilded Age). As Howe and Strauss put it, the Civil War struck too hard when America was at its worst -- near but not quite at the end of the 3T. A Crisis peaking at the time in which an elderly generation of Adaptive leftovers offer piecemeal compromises that nobody wants, aging Idealists who see the world divided neatly between Good and Evil yet fail to recognize the destructiveness of their 'solutions', and Reactive young adults who see Apocalypse as opportunity and adventure instead of carnage... we have seen that before the cooler heads prevail. The cooler heads never prevailed between 1861 and 1865.

What has happened in other countries suggests nasty parallels to the American Civil War -- the Russian Revolution and Civil War, Spain in the 1930s, and Yugoslavia as it blew up. It is also possible that the most corrupt interests in the general society can prevail, find innocent people as culprits for their own ethical failures, and endeavor to spread their corruption and cruelty into places in which such is unwelcome.

The final result of the Crisis of 1940 was far from established in the summer of 1940. It would have been easy to see Sir Winston Churchill as a fool for simply delaying the inevitable victory of the Third Reich. It would have been impossible for anyone to conceive of the expansion of the stalemate of the Sino-Japanese War into a conquest of the colonial empires of France, Britain, the Netherlands, and the USA -- or Hitler initiating his mad invasion of the Soviet Union, then his partner in crime. The American Revolution could have easily faltered at any time before 1780 and the newly-independent colonies could have devolved into Failed States -- bankrupt and anarchic.

As you can well see from my prior postings, I don't trust our economic elites and the politicians that they have as retainers in all but name or their stooges in the media. I see the Tea Party as a great fraud with its populist and traditionalist veneer as a cover for a new form of tyranny in that only results that some vice-rich and virtue-short elite can tolerate are the only ones possible. I can also see copious time for a thug America to face its own demise. What might the Russian or Chinese general staff see as the desired treatment for a defeated and prostrate America?

The French Republic of 1871 came into existence as the optimal solution for the new Imperial Germany -- a liberal society with no pretensions of interfering in European politics. The German Federal Republic came into existence as a liberal state with no military independence but an economic order far more just than that of even the Weimar Republic.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Crisis of a mega-unravelling, aka: great empires rise and fall.

... and economic and political elites can fall within Great Powers. That is possible if the US does not become a militaristic nightmare.