date:20081018

Londonerry, NH 
October 17th, 2008
(snip)
At a glitzy fundraising event in Manhattan at which Bruce Springsteen and Billy 
Joel performed Mr Obama warned high-roller supporters: Don't underestimate the 
capacity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Don't 
underestimate our ability to screw it up.
But much of Mr Obama's speech in Londonderry - punctuated by cries of We all 
love you Obama, I love you and We will work with you - was devoted to the 
kind of quasi-religious sentiments and motivational-coach style exhortations, 
the kind of pride that set him up for a big fall in January.
I want you to believe, said the candidate, clad in an open-necked shirt and 
barn jacket. Not so much believe just in me but believe in yourselves. Believe 
in the future. Believe in the future we can build together. I'm confident 
together we can't fail.
There was a carnival atmosphere among the crowd of some 4,000, who almost 
drowned Mr Obama out as he reached his crescendo and said: I promise you. We 
won't just win New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I 
together, we're going to change the country and change the world.
Mr Obama was described as preternaturally confident in a gushing endorsement 
by the Washington Post on Friday.
His supreme self-belief has also been the target of late-night comedians. With 
just 19 days left until the election, Barack Obama warned supporters today to 
guard against overconfidence, Tina fey of Saturday Night Live reported.
Then he boarded Air Force One, blasted 'We Are The Champions' and shouted 'I'm 
King of the World'.
Both Democrats and Republicans in New Hampshire appear convinced that Mr Obama 
will win. 
We feel we're on the brink of a whole new life in this country, said Betsy 
Whitman, 69. 
Sure, he'll win, said Marlene Hulme, 70, at the Londonderry event. Our 
expectations were high today and he knocked it out of the park.
A lone McCain supporter at the rally said she too was convinced that the 
Republican nominee was finished. McCain has lost, said Deborah Barnhart, 48, 
who runs a landscaping business.
He's lost because the Messiah has spoken and we're going to change the world. 
That's all people want to hear after eight years of Bush. Obama thinks he's 
won. Everyone here thinks he's won.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: Being the skunk at an atheist convention

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
   If the dinosaurs had brains big enough for communication, they 
  could 
   have created their own stories to pass down through the ages.
  
  Even if they had they're all extinct so unless they whispered it
  to their descendents, the birds, it's gone forever.
  
  But then the birds would have their own myth wouldn't they?
  Unless something funny is going on and all things are inter-
  related and came from the same source. You can see the problem
  of creationism right here.
 
 Hugo,
 
 Here's one conjecture of how the vedic creation story can be 
verified 
 by scientific discoveries.  According to the latest news, the 
Hadron 
 Collider has been completed in Switzerland, although its 
temporarily 
 shut down for repairs.  The scientists there should determine if 
the 
 atom or subatomic particles function like thought or 
consciousness.  
 If yes, is it possible that these atoms or subatomic particles can 
 maintain distinct type of consciousness?

I don't think that whether atoms function like thought
is on the agenda at CERN, they are more interested in whether
string theory has any basis in fact (I'll put money on not)
and whether things like dark matter (which appears to slow 
down galaxies spinning, and if real accounts for 90% of the
universe though we can't see it!)are real or just errors 
in the Newtonian understanding of gravity.

The LHC isn't powerful enough to be definitive with
any current theories, a lot of things they are hoping
to find fit into several possibles. They just want to know
if they are on the right track but solving all the mysteries
of the universe will have to wait a bit longer.

I think it's pretty cool there are so many gaps in mans 
knowledge about nature, but I'm not convinced that religious
ideas will be filling them anytime soon, simply because they
were dreamed up by people as part of creation myths and 
cultural stories, they weren't slowly and painstakingly 
worked out on paper. But you never know, there's bound to 
be surprises. I was reading that possible gaps have been
found in Einsteins relativity which will shake things up
a bit. I think everyone will be astonished if intelligent
atoms turn up now and I'm not asware of any suspicions in 
that direction.
 
 If the answer is yes again, then we can have a possible explanation 
 of how the prajapatis were able to travel instantaneously the 
entire 
 universe to affect the growth of matter or organisms--leading to 
the 
 development of humanoids-- in planets that can support life.  In 
 other words, the prajapatis were conscious living entities who were 
 able to utilize the quantum mechanical effects of the atomic 
 structure to travel and influence the development of life in other 
 planets throughout the universe.

Occams razor, does life need these guys as an explanation
for how it appears? I would be surprised if the answer is 
yes. In fact I'd put money on a No here as well.

The main trouble I have with creationism is that it doesn't
explain anything. If these guys did start life, where did
they come from? And where are they now?

As I said yesterday Darwin's genuis was explaining the 
amazing complexity of life using simple, observable chemical 
processes. Up til then everyone had assumed that something
as amazing as us must have been created by something even
more amazing. It's the old watchmaker story, if you are 
strolling along and find a watch on the ground you know
that someone made it, therefore (they think)we must have 
had a creator because we are so complex. Every civilisation
then casts it's own particular creator. These vedic quantum
dudes are just another watchmaker I reckon. Happy to be
proved wrong though.

[FairfieldLife] Re: URGENT MESSAGE FROM RAJA HAGELIN

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ 
 wrote:
 
 
   
   Travis' research sounds fascinating but I'd want to see it 
   replicated with James Randi standard controls to sort out what
   (if anything) is happening. I'm not going to hold my breath
   about it though because it means a complete overhaul of
   many disciplines and on the flimsiness of the alleged evidence
   there's no point getting excited.
  
  
  Correction, it requires a complete overhaul of everything
  we think we know. And on what evidence? An unrepeated
  study and some hilariously dodgy time series analysis.
  Give us the world peace the IA course promised and we'll
  have to take it seriously.
  
 
 Statistically there is less war and civil war that ever before in 
 history, and it has been steadily decreasing. This is not proof, 
but 
 you watch too much news and don't realise you are only seeing ever-
 diminishing pockets of violence, and blowing them all out of 
 proportion in your mind. Peace has come (as long as Bush and Cheney 
 leave quietly)

Or maybe we've just finished exterminating all the bad guys.
 
 OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ebert on W

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
 
  bob_brigante wrote:
   Oliver Stone's W., a biography of President Bush, is 
 fascinating. No
   other word for it. I became absorbed in its story of a poor 
 little rich
   kid's alcoholic youth and torturous adulthood. This is the 
 tragedy of a
   victim of the Peter Principle. Wounded by his father's 
 disapproval and
   preference for his brother Jeb, the movie argues, George W. 
Bush 
 rose
   and rose until he was finally powerful enough to stain his 
 family's
   legacy.
  
 
  snip
  
 
 
  I wonder how many people will stay away because they are tired of 
 Bush 
  in any way, shape, or form.  And some will stay away because it 
 doesn't 
  dig up enough dirt on him.  It's playing up the hill from me but 
I 
 will 
  probably wait until next week to go see it.
 
 
 *
 
 I'll stay away because I rarely watch anything in realtime anymore -
- 
 I turn on the captioning at home and watch it fastforward. Another 
 good article on the movie:
 
 http://www.slate.com/id/2202341/
 W. is the rare Oliver Stone film that had to tone down the 
 historical record because the truth was too lurid. How the hell do 
 you tell the uncensored story of a guy like George W. Bush? No one 
 would believe it.

I went to see the film tonight...I'm a big fan of Oliver Stone.
'W' is a lot different than I expected. It is much more sympathetic 
interpretation, than I might have expected from Mr.Stone.
The film wants to take you inside of Bush's psychology, and by the 
end of the movie, you might just feel a little sad for our President 
Bush.
By the end of this movie, you feel that Mr. Bush is a very lost soul.

By the end of this movie, you might feel that President Bush, has set 
the stage for something very new, like a real change is needed.
He seems to set the stage for a landslide of change...
Obama/Biden '08.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: John McCain

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ 
 wrote:
 
  On Oct 17, 2008, at 12:33 AM, raunchydog wrote:
  
   John McCain Brings Down The House - Al Smith Dinner Part 1
   Video http://tinyurl.com/5dlrzy
  
  Yeah, that John McCain--he's just the life of the grand old party.
  
  Time for you and shemp to share a room with rubber walls
  somewhere.  You can invite Judy to the party as well.
 
 It was a *very* funny speech, extremely well
 delivered, with near-perfect timing. It did
 indeed bring down the house at several points.
 
 It appears someone has a little trouble
 summoning her sense of humor. Oddly enough,
 both Obama and Hillary, the butts of most of
 McCain's jokes, seemed to think they were a
 riot.
 
 (Obama's was pretty good too, some excellent 
 lines, not quite as boffo, mainly because his
 delivery wasn't quite as polished.)
 
 Boy, when you get to the point where you can't
 appreciate a witty speech by someone you 
 disagree with politically, I'd say it's you
 who's ready for the rubber room.

I agree with you, on this one, Judy...
I also thought John McCain was very funny; a natural...
I wish him continued success in the Senate, and continued success 
with his appearences on SNL and David Letterman.
R.g.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Recent UK Program on 9-11

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There is some interesting allegations at about 39 minutes into the 
video:
 http://www.edgemediatv.com/watchonline005_ontheedge.html


Pretty amazing, if true. But it all sounds a bit far-fetched
to me. I can't see how soldiers playing computer games could 
fly real planes into the WTC and not know, if their leaders 
are so ruthless why not do it themselves and not involve
a group of people they'd have to silence?

I don't get the missile at the pentagon theory either.
If they flew real planes at the WTC why not at the pentagon?
Did they not think a boeing would do enough damage. The
offical explanation is more convincing, the explosion blew
the wings off and the building around the hole collapsed.
Simple but effective.

The weirdest part of that was the two guys on the sofa
sounding totally blase about the whole thing, it doesn't 
say much for the government if anyone thinks the kidnapping
and murder of all these people is unsurprising or even likely.

[FairfieldLife] Re: URGENT MESSAGE FROM RAJA HAGELIN

 (snip)
I know a little about this stuff, so let me give this a try...
 
 Please explain a superconductor to me?
A superconductor is a conductor of electricity which has no 
resistance. It is implied in a state of Absolute Zero, would produce 
a structure which would offer no resistance to an electric current.
 
 Please explain a wave in a field?
The field and the wave in the field are one and the same.
The wave produces the field, and vice-versa.
 
 Please explain an electromagnetic field?
An electromagnetic field is produced from electicity and magnetism.
 
 Please explain how an EEG machine works?
Picks up minute variations of voltage, produced by the brain, by the 
firing of neurons of the brain.
 
 Please explain how an electromagnetic fluctuation can travel?
The electromagnetic field travels at the speed of light.
A change in the field, which travel at the speed of light, makes the 
field change and because of the infinite quality of the field, 
fluctuations appear to be spontaneous.
 
 Please explain how any fluctuation/energy could travel far?
Because they travel at the speed of light, and as one approaches the 
speed of light, time ceases to exist, as we know it.
This is how consiousness which can be compared to light, effects at a 
distance.
 
 Please explain how a laser beam works and how it can hit the moon,
 whereas a regular flashlight cannot?
Laser light is different than regular light, in that it is produced 
through an exact synchrony of a wave of light.
Regular light is not diffused and not synchonized.
 
 Please explain what exactly is a photon?
A photon is something that physicist came up with to explain light in 
terms of a particle. A particle of light is called a photon. Because 
light acts sometimes as a particle and sometimes as a wave, it was 
easier to explain light in this way, although light itself is an 
absolute of the Universe.
 
 Please explain quantum wave functions that are not coherent and why 
they
 dissipate?
If waves are not aligned, then one wave can cancel out another...
Like the waves of the Ocean, one can cancel another out, if is is 
opposite in it's size and timing...
Likewise a wave that is in sync with another wave will increase and 
support each other.
 
 Please explain how coherent quatum wave functions, by definition 
could
 travel further (as in a laser beam?
Because the waves are in tune with one another and continue to 
support each other through time and space.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Obama as hypnotist

2008-10-18 Thread aztjbailey

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_\
in_His_Speeches.pdf
http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques\
_in_His_Speeches.pdf

[FairfieldLife] One for the vegetarians -- plants cry for help when attacked

A short overview article on new research that
indicates that plants are smart enough to call 
for help when attacked:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27243779/

Ponder this next time you chow down on your meal
of veggies and fruit feel all superior to those 
who eat meat.

Can't you just imagine the horrified cries for
help that a field full of produce would emit if
Bevan walked into it?   :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama as hypnotist

(snip)
Now, when I snap my fingers, you will go to the poll of November 4th...
And, you will see the ballot, and on the ballot you will see the name 
of Senator Barack Obama...when you see the name Obama, you will check 
that box.
After you check the box for Senator Obama, you may go home and follow 
your regular routine.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Lady Killers

 (snip)
 
 Your hypocrisy is stunning, Curtis. You've seen the
 misogynistic vomit (including death threats) hurled
 at me and raunchydog and other women who attempt to
 post here, not to mention at Hillary and Sarah Palin
 and Cindy McCain and even Jackie Kennedy.
 
 You have no excuse.

Women, Can't Live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

[FairfieldLife] Re: URGENT MESSAGE FROM RAJA HAGELIN

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 snip
  Maharishi--the guy was obviously a deluded egomaniac.
  Do you know how important this is? NO democracies;
  NO starvation.
 
 So you're saying if we get rid of all democracies,
 we'll get rid of starvation as well?
 
 (Ever notice how the more excited Vaj gets about
 bashing Maharishi, the less coherent he becomes?)

Like John Lennon said: we don't care about this ism and that ism...
We will cure starvation of our brothers and sisters around the world, 
when we decide to...
With all the technology we have, that allow farmers to grow as much 
food as it would have taken thousands of workers, in the past.
When we have computers that do the work or thousands, if not millions 
of people...
When we have a world that has thousands of millionaires, hundreds of 
billionaires...
When we evolve enough to see our brothers and sisters as ourselves, 
as Maharishi used to say, when we become more unified in Unity 
Consciousness, then we will feed everyone who is hungry...
Doesn't have anything to do with what you call your system of 
government...
Besides, I thought Reagan did away with the Soviet Union?
What happened with that one?
And, Bush looked into Putin's eyes, and what did he see?
Himself.
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Hysterical woman making McCarthyist claims (was Re: The Lady Killers)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  (snip)
  
  Your hypocrisy is stunning, Curtis. You've seen the
  misogynistic vomit (including death threats) hurled
  at me and raunchydog and other women who attempt to
  post here, not to mention at Hillary and Sarah Palin
  and Cindy McCain and even Jackie Kennedy.
  
  You have no excuse.
 
 Women, Can't Live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

I'm not sure who you're quoting, Robert,
but I can guess. Therefore I demand that
she back up her claim of death threats
made *on this forum* against her and
Raunchydog and other women who attempt
to post here. I want the exact quotes, 
and the message numbers of the posts in
which these death threats were made.

And there have to be *three* such threats,
because she listed at least three supposed 
targets of those threats. And they all have 
to be CLEARLY death threats, on the 
level of, I or someone else is going to 
kill you. 

If the person who posted this cannot produce
such backup, I think we can all write her
off as *just* as hysterical and *just* as
much a loon as Raunchydog and the sad, sad,
out-of-balance women whose words she reposts
here.

I'm doing this because recently another 
hysterical woman tried to do the exact same 
thing. Representative Michelle Bachmann
essentially channeled Joe McCarthy and called
Obama very anti-American and suggested that
a Congressional witch hunt was needed to ferret
out other such potential traitors. When asked
to back up her remarks, she could not or 
would not. Currently a campaign is underway
in Congress to censure her for her remarks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/gop-rep-channels-mccarthy_n_135735.html

I'm suggesting that Judy (I'm assuming it was
Judy, since I don't read her direct posts and
Robert didn't attribute) is doing EXACTLY
THE SAME THING above. She's channeling Joe
McCarthy and *claiming* that people on this
forum have made death threats against her
and Raunchydog and other women who attempt
to post here.

I think that at worst this is a LIE, and at 
best it is a hysterical stretching of the truth
and overreaction to what might actually have been
said and the context in which it was said. And so 
I'm calling on Judy to back up her claim.

My bet is that she can't. Remember, the death
threats in question have to be something that
anyone here, regardless of their political views,
would see as an actual, real, death threat, some-
thing that if they saw it in another context,
they would feel duty-bound to report to the police.

If Judy feels that such statements have been made,
I demand that she post all three of them (she 
claimed that such threats had been made against
at least three women). If she cannot or will not,
I think that we should all recommend mental health
professionals that she could consult to get back
to some semblance of normality.

[FairfieldLife] 'Perfect Political Storm favors Obama'

I’ve studied the polls and the electoral map for months, and I no longer 
believe that John McCain can win. Unless Barack Obama slips up, Jeremiah Wright 
shows up or a serious national security emergency flares up, Obama will become 
the 44th president of the United States.*

The wayward wizards of Wall Street delivered the election to Obama by pushing 
the economy to the verge of collapse, forcing leery voters to choose between 
their pocketbooks and their prejudices. McCain delivered it to Obama with his 
reckless pick of Sarah Palin. That stunt made everything that followed feel 
like a stunt, tarnishing McCain’s reputation and damaging his credibility so 
that when he went negative it backfired. And, some radical rabble among 
McCain’s supporters delivered it to Obama by mistaking his political rallies 
for lynch mobs. 
This perfect storm of poor judgments has set the stage for an Obama victory. 
It’s over. Fast forward to Nov. 5.
President-elect Obama (yes, get used to it) could wake up that morning as one 
of the most powerful presidents in recent American history. Not only is his 
party likely to maintain control of both houses of the Congress, it could 
dramatically strengthen its hand. 
According to a New York Times/CBS News poll released this week, the percentage 
of people who say that they approve of the way their own member of Congress is 
handling his or her job has never been lower and the percentage who say they 
disapprove has only been higher once before: on the verge of the Republican 
Revolution in 1994 when the Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House and 8 
in the Senate. But this time voters seem to be more disenchanted with 
Republicans than with Democrats. In November 1994, the Republican Party’s 
favorable rating was 54 percent and the Democrats’ was 44 percent. In the most 
recent poll, the Democrats’ favorable rating was 52 percent and the 
Republicans’ was 37 percent.
Some think that the Democrats could even pass the magic 60 mark in the Senate, 
providing them with a filibuster-proof majority. The last president to enjoy 
that advantage was Jimmy Carter. 
Add to that the possibility of Obama appointing several justices to the Supreme 
Court (Carter didn’t appoint any) and the probability of him receiving an 
enthusiastic embrace from the international community, and we could see an 
administration unlike any we’ve seen for more than a generation.
Obama would make history by simply assuming office. But then, the question of 
governance: could this gifted, 47-year-old, first-term senator with a 
razor-thin political résumé harness his enormous power to push through an 
agenda that would meet our daunting challenges and secure our future?
History will be the judge, but on Nov. 5, it’s on.
*If I’m wrong, I’ll take my crow with a six pack of Liquid-Plumr. 
Published: October 17, 2008 

It’s over.

Charles M. Blow  New York Times
if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write();


 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

[FairfieldLife] Could this be one of Judy's claimed death threats?

I leave it to you to decide. It DOES contain the
phrase too stupid to live, and speaks of both
Judy and Raunchydog bursting into flame. I guess
if you're insane, you could construe this as a 
death threat, but I suspect that most sane
people wouldn't quite see it that way.

Before I get to the post that that Judy may claim 
contains a death threat, please allow me to post 
two other short relevant quotes. The first is from 
Judy herself, today, in FFL post #194535:

 It appears someone has a little trouble
 summoning her sense of humor. ...
 Boy, when you get to the point where you can't
 appreciate a witty speech by someone you
 disagree with politically, I'd say it's you
 who's ready for the rubber room.

Also relevant, from my FFL post #193034:

 When in
 one of my posts I introduce something with the
 phrase, In related news..., that's supposed to
 indicate that what follows is a joke. You know...a
 joke, satire, fiction, one of those goofs that is
 written just for a laugh. I'm pointing this out 
 just in case there are folks out there who are so 
 humorless and uptight that they might not perceive 
 a made-up news article AS satire, and might be 
 tempted to take it as seriously as they take 
 themselves.

And now, what Judy may claim is a death threat, 
from my FFL post #194006:

 Obama would like to thank Judy, Raunchydog, and the Repubs...
 ...for winning the election for them. 
 
 Ironically, the more that the tag-team of Republican
 crazies and former-Hillary-supporter crazies rant and
 post negative screeds about Obama, the lower Repub-
 lican poll ratings sink (Palin's favorability rating
 *in Alaska* is now only 36%), and the more money that
 Obama is able to raise for the campaign.
 
 In related news, a poll conducted at bellweather
 Internet chat site Fairfield Life indicates that the
 popularity rating on that site for posters Raunchydog
 and Judy Stein (considered representative of Republican
 tactics) has dropped in the last week from the next-to-
 lowest Category Y (Strident revenge harpies from Hell)
 to the lowest possible Category Z (Dumb angry cunts
 too stupid to live.)
 
 Experts are studying the possibility that, since there
 is no lower level to sink to in terms of favorability
 ratings, if Raunchydog and Judy continue their anti-
 Obama activism at this point, something more drastic
 may happen to the two activists -- actually bursting
 into flame.
 
 Scientists from MUM have been called in to watch the
 situation and study it in terms of the Maharishi Effect.
 If, as theorized, Raunchydog and Judy Stein DO get so
 uncontrollably angry that they burst into flames, teams
 of scientists are in place to capture the event on film
 so that it can later be analyzed to see if, as described
 in the Vedas, the spontaneous combustion event really
 does start in their pants.


Now that this one's taken care of, doncha look
forward to what Judy is going to come up with to 
back up her claim that she and others have been 
victims of death threats on FFL?

You *know* that she'll have to do it. Otherwise,
she'd have to apologize for having said what she
said, and we all know that that has the same
chance of happening as someone opening a popsicle
stand in Hell. 

So don't you look forward to reading the things 
she'll try to portray as death threats? I know 
I sure do.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] 'W' aims to reach the 'Open-minded Middle'

timing is problem
Weiser had to drop politics to create rounded version of Bush
By DUANE DUDEK
Journal Sentinel film critic
Posted: Oct. 18, 2008
The trick to being topical is timing.

'W.' includes (from left) actors Richard Dreyfuss (Dick Cheney), Josh Brolin
(George W. Bush), Toby Jones (Karl Rove), Rob Corddry (Ari Fleischer) and
Thandie Newton (Condoleezza Rice).

adsonar_placementId=1266549;adsonar_pid=544757;adsonar_ps=1371712;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=150;adsonar_jv='ads.adsonar.com';

When screenwriter Stanley Weiser wrote the 1987 film Wall Street for director
Oliver Stone, the main character's greed is good motto captured the essence
of the trading scandals that had just rocked the financial world.
There are no such pithy mantras in the pair's new film, W., but this
biopic-type portrait of outgoing President Bush necessarily would seem to have
a brief shelf life.
The production was lightning fast because people felt there would be no market
for it after the election, Weiser said.
Stone and Weiser, who met in film school, briefly flirted with a Wall Street
sequel - it is now being planned without them - when Stone suggested a Bush
biopic.
The take that Weiser came up with was to show Bush's tumultuous youth, his
contentious relationship with his father, his finding God, and to interweave
these stories to tell his life. And to show the failures of the Iraq war,
Weiser said.
Make no mistake: Weiser is a partisan, and Stone, who directed the
controversial films JFK and Nixon, wears his politics on his sleeve.
But they have created a curiously sympathetic portrait of a flawed but
personally appealing man's rise to power.
I had to completely park my politics at the door to write the film, said
Weiser, who spent three summers after film school on a farm in Mount Horeb on a
screenplay that was never made.
My politics are hard left, but I basically realized that . . . there was
another side to him. I saw that he had human foibles like anyone else. People
would rather go out for a beer with him than Al Gore, who was ramrod stiff and
intellectual. And that's the guy who got elected.
For research, Weiser consulted numerous books written about the Bush
presidency. And as if anticipating charges of inaccuracy, the film's Web site,
www.wthefilm.com, has links to biographical and historical references used as
background and notes when creative liberties were taken for the benefit of
narrative.
The documentary Journeys With George - by Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who traveled with the press corps during Bush's 2000
campaign - made Weiser realize that he has a charming earthiness that is very
appealing.
Seeing that film, the screenwriter said, was a pivotal moment in writing the
script.
During a phone interview, Weiser said his wife smiled when she heard me ask
about why actor Josh Brolin portrayed Bush as always talking and eating,
because I eat with my mouth open, too.
Bush, Weiser said, went from cigarettes to chewing tobacco to cigars to
Altoids. He always has something in his mouth.
Weiser believes Bush's early alcohol problems, his short attention span and his
jogging and mountain bike riding all reflect this nervous energy.
According to Weiser, a visually striking Iraq war room strategy sequence in the
film was calculated by Stone to suggest Dr. Strangelove, and that
dramatically it was intended as the apotheosis of all the discussions within
the administration leading up to the war.
I was trying to show how neo-conservatives wanted war for oil, Bush was
interested in terrorism, and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell opposed the
invasion plans and was badly beaten down by them, Weiser said.
But it is unclear who the audience is for a film humanizing a divisive
president made by a controversial director.
That's unfortunately the problem, Weiser said. It's too left for the right,
and too right for the left. I knew that going in.
The aim is to reach the people in the middle, who are open-minded.
By DUANE DUDEK
Journal Sentinel film critic

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[FairfieldLife] Death Threats

The claim that actual death threats have been made on
Fairfield Life is a serious one, and one that I do not
take lightly. If the poster who made this claim cannot
back up this claim with actual quotes that fit the
definition on the following Wiki page -- may inflict 
physical injury on anyone -- I demand a public retrac-
tion of the statement and an equally public apology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_threat

I've been a member of Fairfield Life for some time now.
I have never seen a death threat made on this forum.
Not once. 

I have seen people actively *wish* for another person's
demise, but that's not a death threat. A death threat 
is where you say, I or someone else will kill you.

I have actually seen such statements on other Internet
groups, one of them sadly another spiritual forum. When
a poster on that forum started making statements like,
I know where you live, and I'm going to go there and
find you and beat you to death (no shit...someone on
a spiritual forum really did say this), I'm as outraged
as anyone else. In that case, although he didn't say it
to me, I got in touch with the person who said it and 
told him in no uncertain terms that if he continued I 
would report him to the police. 

So I don't take death threats lightly. 

Nor do I take the claim that they have been made on 
this forum lightly. I think that's a knowing lie.

I think that the person who made this claim needs to 
either prove her claim with exact quotes or retract the 
claim and apologize to us all.

[FairfieldLife] 'The Next Level'

http://www.reconnections.net/next_level_index.htm

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: Being the skunk at an atheist convention

2008-10-18 Thread Richard M

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[snip]

 As I said yesterday Darwin's genuis was explaining the 
 amazing complexity of life using simple, observable chemical 
 processes. Up til then everyone had assumed that something
 as amazing as us must have been created by something even
 more amazing. 

It seems to me that you are mixing up two quite separate questions
here (Just as Dawkins did in his recent TV series in the UK):

Q1) How does the diversity of life come about? ie. How do complex,
sophisticated attributes develop from simpler organisms. This is your
first sentence. Darwinism seems to be an excellent explanation for
that. And it stands opposed to those religious beliefs that hold that
all the species we find on Earth were plonked there some time ago 'of
a piece' by God.

Q2) How does the animate evolve from the inanimate? (This is implicit
in your second sentence I would say). This is by far the more
interesting question to most folks who are religious. Call me
stupid - and I'm sure you will - but as Darwinism is a theory about
how 'good' heritable traits are encouraged by natural selection, how
could it EVER explain 'heritability' itself? Don't you need to
presuppose 'life' to get Darwinian evolution going in the first place?
If so, the latter can never provide an explanation for the former.

That's not meant to be an argument for a 'God Of The Gaps'
necessarily. But only to say that the supposed great conflict between
Darwinism and religion is just so much hot air. Especially in the
hands of Dawkins!

[FairfieldLife] Re: It hurts

More painful than truth is the display of closed hearts, closed minds,
and callous attitudes toward the one in four women in our country who
have tasted the fruit of misogyny on their bloodied lips.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Notice anything in common in the responses
 to Anglachel's essay?
 
 -
 Peter:
 Jesus, somebody's on the rag or needs to get laid!
 
 Vaj:
 As an old friend, a retired psychiatrist used to say:
 An orgasm a day, keeps the Shrink away! :-)
 
 Feste: 
 This lady, Anglachel, has far too much time on her
 hands. She's wallowing in anger and resentment.
 
 Sal:
 Really, I think anybody who takes crap like this
 seriously needs to do some serious thinking about
 a vacation.
 
 do.rflex:
 Amen.
 
 Mainstream:
 Your obsessive, festering victimhood laments amplify
 an infantile perspective void of courage and character.
 
 -
 
 Not one of the responses addresses any of
 Anglachel's points, even in attempted
 rebuttal.
 
 Instead, all of them attack the messenger.
 
 Feste inadvertently gives the game away:
 
 It's painful to read (I couldn't get through
 even half of it).
 
 Yes, sometimes the truth hurts.
 
 And when it does, all too often a river in
 Egypt is enlisted to wash it away.

[FairfieldLife] Re: URGENT MESSAGE FROM RAJA HAGELIN

2008-10-18 Thread nablusoss1008

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 So you're saying if we get rid of all democracies,
 we'll get rid of starvation as well?
 
 (Ever notice how the more excited Vaj gets about
 bashing Maharishi, the less coherent he becomes?)

Thats Vaj in a nutshell.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Death Threats

2008-10-18 Thread do.rflex

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The claim that actual death threats have been made on
 Fairfield Life is a serious one, and one that I do not
 take lightly. If the poster who made this claim cannot
 back up this claim with actual quotes that fit the
 definition on the following Wiki page -- may inflict 
 physical injury on anyone -- I demand a public retrac-
 tion of the statement and an equally public apology.
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_threat
 
 I've been a member of Fairfield Life for some time now.
 I have never seen a death threat made on this forum.
 Not once. 
 
 I have seen people actively *wish* for another person's
 demise, but that's not a death threat. A death threat 
 is where you say, I or someone else will kill you.
 
 I have actually seen such statements on other Internet
 groups, one of them sadly another spiritual forum. When
 a poster on that forum started making statements like,
 I know where you live, and I'm going to go there and
 find you and beat you to death (no shit...someone on
 a spiritual forum really did say this), I'm as outraged
 as anyone else. In that case, although he didn't say it
 to me, I got in touch with the person who said it and 
 told him in no uncertain terms that if he continued I 
 would report him to the police. 
 
 So I don't take death threats lightly. 
 
 Nor do I take the claim that they have been made on 
 this forum lightly. I think that's a knowing lie.
 
 I think that the person who made this claim needs to 
 either prove her claim with exact quotes or retract the 
 claim and apologize to us all.


Judy has lost her game. It's become old and stale, empty, pointlessly
defensive and ineffective. All that's left is bitterness. Such a
shame. Now she claims misogyny when others point it out.

[FairfieldLife] Re: It hurts


Words Matter



Bitter fruit of bigots

The hangman's noose

Twisted necks

Bulging eyes



Limp limbs

In tangled branches

Broken dreams of brothers

Broken promises to sisters



Vile beneath

Hoods well hidden

Their whispered breath

Spreads an evil frost

As opaque ghosts

On windowpane



Dead brown leaf

Mahogany veneer

Turning curled

Dangling swaying



Dropping loose

Crushed underfoot

Headstone lettered

Humiliating epitaph



Cloaked by night

Blood reddened

Guiltless violence

Bond of shame



Racial hatred

Skin stripped whipped

Misogyny its sister

Frenzied fear of clit



Such denial deep

Who will weep?

Be it common slur or insult

Fevered killings oft result



raunchydog

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 More painful than truth is the display of closed hearts, closed minds,
 and callous attitudes toward the one in four women in our country who
 have tasted the fruit of misogyny on their bloodied lips.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  Notice anything in common in the responses
  to Anglachel's essay?
 
  -
  Peter:
  Jesus, somebody's on the rag or needs to get laid!
 
  Vaj:
  As an old friend, a retired psychiatrist used to say:
  An orgasm a day, keeps the Shrink away! :-)
 
  Feste:
  This lady, Anglachel, has far too much time on her
  hands. She's wallowing in anger and resentment.
 
  Sal:
  Really, I think anybody who takes crap like this
  seriously needs to do some serious thinking about
  a vacation.
 
  do.rflex:
  Amen.
 
  Mainstream:
  Your obsessive, festering victimhood laments amplify
  an infantile perspective void of courage and character.
 
  -
 
  Not one of the responses addresses any of
  Anglachel's points, even in attempted
  rebuttal.
 
  Instead, all of them attack the messenger.
 
  Feste inadvertently gives the game away:
 
  It's painful to read (I couldn't get through
  even half of it).
 
  Yes, sometimes the truth hurts.
 
  And when it does, all too often a river in
  Egypt is enlisted to wash it away.

[FairfieldLife] Who wrote that ?... FFL and Plagarism...please clearly cite the source

2008-10-18 Thread mainstream20016

FFL has become a good source of reading on many topics. Yet far too
many FFL posts are vague about the identity of the actual author or
original publication. Even our most universally admired FFL posters
copy, cut and paste with scant or at best late attribution (at the end
of the post).  Please cite at least the author at the beginning of the
post, lest FFL become a virtual plagarist place.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Hysterical woman making McCarthyist claims (was Re: The Lady Killers)

2008-10-18 Thread Sal Sunshine


On Oct 18, 2008, at 3:18 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


Your hypocrisy is stunning, Curtis. You've seen the
misogynistic vomit (including death threats) hurled
at me and raunchydog and other women who attempt to
post here, not to mention at Hillary and Sarah Palin
and Cindy McCain and even Jackie Kennedy.

You have no excuse.


Women, Can't Live with 'em, can't live without 'em.


I'm not sure who you're quoting, Robert,
but I can guess. Therefore I demand that
she back up her claim of death threats
made *on this forum* against her and
Raunchydog and other women who attempt
to post here. I want the exact quotes,
and the message numbers of the posts in
which these death threats were made.


Not to mention death threats against...Jackie Kennedy?
Wouldn't those clearly be a waste of said threatener's time?

I too am interested in seeing the quotes, but
I'm not going to hold my breath.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Safe

My best friend is pregnant (not with my baby), and thus
has been looking to move into a new apartment here in
Sitges. Because my work schedule has slowed down for a
while, I've been helping her look. As a result, I've 
had the opportunity to see 30-40 fairly upscale apart-
ments in the Sitges area in the last few weeks.

And you know what every one of them had, and every single
real estate agent pointed out as a perk for the apart-
ment and thus an enticement to rent it?

A safe.

Some sort of wall safe or hidden-in-the-floorboards safe.
And although the real estate agents always point out that
the safe is fireproof, as if the reason you'd want to
keep valuables hidden away in it is in case of fire, as
far as I can tell this is always said with a knowing
wink wink nudge nudge know-what-I-mean inflection.

In Spain, after 40 years of Franco, the reason you would
want a safe on your property is that you don't fully trust
the banks. You want to keep a handy stash of cash and
jewels and other valuables so that if the banks go bust
or the world goes to hell in a handbasket, you don't.

And y'know...I find that a fairly healthy attitude. I've
been watching the UK tourists in Sitges panicking lately
and making desperate phone calls from cafes to move their
money from British banks to Irish ones. The reason? As 
far as I can tell from overhearing conversations, savings
in British banks are not necessarily insured if the bank
goes bust. These tourists are worried because all of their
money is in a bank somewhere in Britain.

The Spanish, on the other hand, never put all of their
money *anywhere*. Even the younger generations, who never
knew Franco and the joys of living under a Fascist dic-
tatorship, seem to have inherited this quality from their
parents, who did. They keep a certain reserve in cash or
other negotiables, too...just in case.

Spain is similarly skittish with regard to credit. When you
open a bank account here, you don't get checks with that
account. You can't. Almost all transactions here between
individuals and the other companies or individuals with 
whom they do business are handled electronically. The reason
is that, under Franco, checks became viewed as worth less 
than the paper they were printed on.

In the same vein, you rarely see credit cards, the way that
they work in the US. Almost everyone uses debit cards, which
means that -- other than a small 'overdraft' amount, limited
to a few hundred Euros -- they have to have the money in the
bank for anything they purchase on the card. 

There ARE exceptions, of course, and like most other EU nations
some Spanish have been being lured into insupportable personal
debt in recent years. But for the most part, theirs seems to
be a largely cash economy. 

And again, I can't help but see this as a Good Thing. If the
shit comes down over this recent financial meltdown, my Spanish
neighbors (and me, because I've lived this way for decades now)
will, I think, be in a somewhat better position than, say, the
Irish, who are now officially the highest personal debtholders
in the EU. (And the Brits want to move their money to *Irish*
banks...go figure!)

I thought of this, and decided to share it with you no matter
how inane it might be, because I just had to add some capital
to my personal safe. It's not built into the wall; it's out in
the garden, in a secure, locked-down spot known only to me, a 
few trusted friends, and my attorney. And it may be illusion
that makes me think that I'm somehow safer by keeping some of
my assets there, but yes...I definitely do feel safer.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Recent UK Program on 9-11

2008-10-18 Thread uns_tressor

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 I can't see how soldiers playing computer games could 
 fly real planes into the WTC...

I haven't seen the video but fly-by-wire has been commonplace
for very many years now, and remote control would be a straight
forward extension.
Uns.

[FairfieldLife] Re: It hurts

Strange Fruit Lyrics

Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

Strange Fruit by Billie Holiday Video


http://tinyurl.com/34g3b3 http://tinyurl.com/34g3b3



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:


 Words Matter



 Bitter fruit of bigots

 The hangman's noose

 Twisted necks

 Bulging eyes



 Limp limbs

 In tangled branches

 Broken dreams of brothers

 Broken promises to sisters



 Vile beneath

 Hoods well hidden

 Their whispered breath

 Spreads an evil frost

 As opaque ghosts

 On windowpane



 Dead brown leaf

 Mahogany veneer

 Turning curled

 Dangling swaying



 Dropping loose

 Crushed underfoot

 Headstone lettered

 Humiliating epitaph



 Cloaked by night

 Blood reddened

 Guiltless violence

 Bond of shame



 Racial hatred

 Skin stripped whipped

 Misogyny its sister

 Frenzied fear of clit



 Such denial deep

 Who will weep?

 Be it common slur or insult

 Fevered killings oft result



 raunchydog

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@
 wrote:
 
  More painful than truth is the display of closed hearts, closed
minds,
  and callous attitudes toward the one in four women in our country
who
  have tasted the fruit of misogyny on their bloodied lips.
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   Notice anything in common in the responses
   to Anglachel's essay?
  
   -
   Peter:
   Jesus, somebody's on the rag or needs to get laid!
  
   Vaj:
   As an old friend, a retired psychiatrist used to say:
   An orgasm a day, keeps the Shrink away! :-)
  
   Feste:
   This lady, Anglachel, has far too much time on her
   hands. She's wallowing in anger and resentment.
  
   Sal:
   Really, I think anybody who takes crap like this
   seriously needs to do some serious thinking about
   a vacation.
  
   do.rflex:
   Amen.
  
   Mainstream:
   Your obsessive, festering victimhood laments amplify
   an infantile perspective void of courage and character.
  
   -
  
   Not one of the responses addresses any of
   Anglachel's points, even in attempted
   rebuttal.
  
   Instead, all of them attack the messenger.
  
   Feste inadvertently gives the game away:
  
   It's painful to read (I couldn't get through
   even half of it).
  
   Yes, sometimes the truth hurts.
  
   And when it does, all too often a river in
   Egypt is enlisted to wash it away.

[FairfieldLife] Re: It hurts

2008-10-18 Thread feste37

As is clear from the context of my post, this lady's screed was
painful to read because she was wallowing in anger and resentment,
determined to be a victim. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 
 Feste inadvertently gives the game away:
 
 It's painful to read (I couldn't get through
 even half of it).
 
 Yes, sometimes the truth hurts.
 
 And when it does, all too often a river in
 Egypt is enlisted to wash it away.

[FairfieldLife] Third debate parody

2008-10-18 Thread Vaj

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/snl-3rd-debate.html

If you missed the Wed, SNL parody of the third debate here it is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Being the skunk at an atheist convention

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ 
wrote:
 
 [snip]
 
  As I said yesterday Darwin's genuis was explaining the 
  amazing complexity of life using simple, observable chemical 
  processes. Up til then everyone had assumed that something
  as amazing as us must have been created by something even
  more amazing. 
 
 It seems to me that you are mixing up two quite separate questions
 here (Just as Dawkins did in his recent TV series in the UK):
 
 Q1) How does the diversity of life come about? ie. How do complex,
 sophisticated attributes develop from simpler organisms. This is 
your
 first sentence. Darwinism seems to be an excellent explanation for
 that. And it stands opposed to those religious beliefs that hold 
that
 all the species we find on Earth were plonked there some time 
ago 'of
 a piece' by God.
 
 Q2) How does the animate evolve from the inanimate? 

Nobody knows, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The earliest fossils are 3.5 billion years old and they 
are simple bacteria, which is all there was for a billion
years.

Nobody knows the exact climate and chemical composition
of the early earth but they are working on it. I'm sure 
they'll let us know when they find it. It can't be that 
difficult as life started so soon after conditions were 
suitable.

Is that a sign of a religious type of faith? No, I don't
think so. If, say, trilobites had appeared fully formed
500 million years ago then you could say something
suspicious was going on but as life had the good grace 
to start in the sea (where things are more likely to be 
buried and thus be undisturbed to mineralise properly)
we have so many really good fossils and can trace the
evolution of what is to be everything we know now
incredibly accurately.



(This is implicit
 in your second sentence I would say). This is by far the more
 interesting question to most folks who are religious. Call me
 stupid - and I'm sure you will - 

No. sorry to disappoint you old chap ;-)

 but as Darwinism is a theory about
 how 'good' heritable traits are encouraged by natural selection, how
 could it EVER explain 'heritability' itself? Don't you need to
 presuppose 'life' to get Darwinian evolution going in the first
 place?

No. The ability evolve has, erm, evolved. Because for a billion
years or so life was simple bacteria it was only when two types
of bacteria, archae and eubacteria fused with a few others later
to form a more complex type of cell (eukaryote) with DNA in a 
nucleus and sexual reproduction rather than division by simple 
budding. That cell is the descendent of us and everything else,
our cells *still* have evidence of both types of early bacteria, 
it's what they pass on when they replicate that's changed over 
the years. When I say our I mean life on earth, cellularly 
it's all the same.

But nobody really knows how DNA got going, yet. That it evolved 
too seems obvious, to get all that way back in our understanding 
and then say Ah well, maybe there is a God to get us over this 
bit we don't understand seems sad to me. Some insist on that wiggle 
room at the beginning being evidence of a divine hand and I guess
it's impossible to say for sure until all the facts are in but
I doubt it. I hope it'll be known in my lifetime though.


 If so, the latter can never provide an explanation for the former.
 
 That's not meant to be an argument for a 'God Of The Gaps'
 necessarily. But only to say that the supposed great conflict 
between
 Darwinism and religion is just so much hot air. Especially in the
 hands of Dawkins!

Great conflict? I think the debate Richard Dawkins started
after 11/9 is essential for society, we have to question
whether what we believe is truth, fantasy, useful or outdated.
The only conflict is that some don't want to discuss it for some 
reason.

[FairfieldLife] Re: It hurts

Since Feste is fearful of discussing anything about the actual topic
of the article, misogyny and sexism in politics, but rather judge the
messenger of the article, then I can only conclude he is wallowing in
denial.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 As is clear from the context of my post, this lady's screed was
 painful to read because she was wallowing in anger and resentment,
 determined to be a victim. 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 
  
  Feste inadvertently gives the game away:
  
  It's painful to read (I couldn't get through
  even half of it).
  
  Yes, sometimes the truth hurts.
  
  And when it does, all too often a river in
  Egypt is enlisted to wash it away.

[FairfieldLife] Re: It hurts

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 As is clear from the context of my post, this lady's screed was
 painful to read because she was wallowing in anger and resentment,
 determined to be a victim. 

I would asy determined to pose as a victim. You
will notice that none of the sad, sad stories 
being posted are *hers*.

One of the things that seems to happen to older 
women who are exposed to radical feminist ideas
late in life is that they hear so many horror
stories about victims that they start to imagine
that they are victims, too. 

I saw this all too often in Rama's women students,
who would suddenly shift from being happy, ful-
filled women to being monotopical on the subject
of the mistreatment of women. The more that they
read the radicals of the feminist movement (like
Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon), the less
balanced and more monotopical they became in their
conversations. They began to try to turn *every*
conversation, in *every* context, towards women
as victims and men as oppressors. It got so
that even their women friends wrote them off and
refused to have anything to do with them.

Some got over this, and passed through this 
silly phase of becoming aware of feminist principles
and settled on a more balanced view. Others literally
became so paranoid that they wound up in institutions.
It was a sad thing to see, especially because some of
the women who went this route were my friends.

So while this particular rap may not have any statis-
tical or scientific basis, and is based solely on my
observations of about 30 women and what they went
through, here is my theory of what happened to them,
and what seems to be happening to Raunchydog.

1. They began to assume a victim mentality because
being a victim (while in *every* case they had never 
been victimized themselves) and identifying with the
victims of *real* abuse and *real* misogyny boosted
their egos and made them feel more important, as if
by empathizing with the real victims emotionally they
had become victims themselves.

2. Many of them began to display false memory syn-
drome and practice revisionist history, claiming
abuse of themselves to friends who knew from first-
hand experience that none of it was true. For example,
one woman began to claim that she wound up in the
hospital because her boyfriend beat her up. In reality,
the two women she was claiming this to *had been present*
when the woman tripped and fell down a flight of stairs,
putting *herself* in the hospital as a result. The 
woman in question kept claiming that No, her boyfriend
had done it all, and then began claiming that her women
friends were lying to cover up for him.

3. Their careers and real life began to suffer. Many
of these women began feeling so sorry for themselves 
(again, with no cause that was evident to relatives, 
friends and roommates) that they started skipping work, 
and eventually got fired. When this happened, naturally
they blamed having been fired on misogyny, not on not
showing up for work.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.
I am NOT trying to say that misogyny does not exist,
or that bad things don't happen to good women, at the
hands of men who deserve to have the shit beaten out
of them in a back alley by other men who don't share
their attitudes toward women. That, sadly, DOES happen. 

What I'm saying is that Raunchydog's rants here smack
of *imagined* abuse, not real abuse. I think she lost
it over Hillary's loss, and has gotten involved with
a bunch of women who think like Dworkin and MacKinnon
and are essentially monotopical in their focus on 
misogyny. They can't see anything ELSE; they can't
FOCUS on anything else. And, as we all know, 
What you focus on, you become.

Bottom line is that Raunchydog's rants are so off the
wall and out of balance that I don't believe a word
of them. I think she's mood-made herself into a very,
very dark place that has very little to do with reality,
hers or anyone else's. She doesn't even WRITE most of 
the angry, single-focus garbage she posts here...she 
just forwards the words of women even more angry and 
deranged than she is.

And I feel for her. I'd love for something to happen
that allows her to see more than misogyny in the world.
I'd like to see her pass through this preadolescent
phase of discovering feminism and segue to more adult
and balanced feminist positions. 

But honestly, I don't see that happening. I think that
if she has been unable to break this mono-focus fake
victim routine by now, she's not going to be able to
do so in the future. It's more likely that she'll wind 
up in an institution somewhere, as several of the
women I saw go through this did. 


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 
  
  Feste inadvertently gives the game away:
  
  It's painful to read (I couldn't get through
  even half of it).
  
  Yes, sometimes the truth hurts.
  
  And when it does, all too often a river

[FairfieldLife] Re: Recent UK Program on 9-11

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ 
 wrote:
  I can't see how soldiers playing computer games could 
  fly real planes into the WTC...
 
 I haven't seen the video but fly-by-wire has been commonplace
 for very many years now, and remote control would be a straight
 forward extension.
 Uns.


Yes I know, but it just seems like such a crazy way to go about
the attack, why don't the generals (Or whoever) do it themselves
rather than bring in innocent people they are going to have to
silence later, especially kidnapping their kids and poisoning
them with depleted uranium. It's such a lot of work!

That's the trouble with all the 9/11 conspiracy theories they
are so complex and involve thousands keeping silent and
incredible new technology like explosives that don't make any 
noise and buildings you can demolish without the usual hassle 
of taking down interior walls and tying the opposite corners 
together.

None of them are as convincing as the idea that a bunch of
religious maniacs hi-jacked some planes and flew them into
public buildings all over the US. Simple, effective.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Safe

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 My best friend is pregnant (not with my baby), and thus
 has been looking to move into a new apartment here in
 Sitges. Because my work schedule has slowed down for a
 while, I've been helping her look. As a result, I've 
 had the opportunity to see 30-40 fairly upscale apart-
 ments in the Sitges area in the last few weeks.
 
 And you know what every one of them had, and every single
 real estate agent pointed out as a perk for the apart-
 ment and thus an enticement to rent it?
 
 A safe.
 
 Some sort of wall safe or hidden-in-the-floorboards safe.
 And although the real estate agents always point out that
 the safe is fireproof, as if the reason you'd want to
 keep valuables hidden away in it is in case of fire, as
 far as I can tell this is always said with a knowing
 wink wink nudge nudge know-what-I-mean inflection.
 
 In Spain, after 40 years of Franco, the reason you would
 want a safe on your property is that you don't fully trust
 the banks. You want to keep a handy stash of cash and
 jewels and other valuables so that if the banks go bust
 or the world goes to hell in a handbasket, you don't.
 
 And y'know...I find that a fairly healthy attitude. I've
 been watching the UK tourists in Sitges panicking lately
 and making desperate phone calls from cafes to move their
 money from British banks to Irish ones. The reason? As 
 far as I can tell from overhearing conversations, savings
 in British banks are not necessarily insured if the bank
 goes bust. These tourists are worried because all of their
 money is in a bank somewhere in Britain.
 
 The Spanish, on the other hand, never put all of their
 money *anywhere*. Even the younger generations, who never
 knew Franco and the joys of living under a Fascist dic-
 tatorship, seem to have inherited this quality from their
 parents, who did. They keep a certain reserve in cash or
 other negotiables, too...just in case.
 
 Spain is similarly skittish with regard to credit. When you
 open a bank account here, you don't get checks with that
 account. You can't. Almost all transactions here between
 individuals and the other companies or individuals with 
 whom they do business are handled electronically. The reason
 is that, under Franco, checks became viewed as worth less 
 than the paper they were printed on.
 
 In the same vein, you rarely see credit cards, the way that
 they work in the US. Almost everyone uses debit cards, which
 means that -- other than a small 'overdraft' amount, limited
 to a few hundred Euros -- they have to have the money in the
 bank for anything they purchase on the card. 
 
 There ARE exceptions, of course, and like most other EU nations
 some Spanish have been being lured into insupportable personal
 debt in recent years. But for the most part, theirs seems to
 be a largely cash economy. 
 
 And again, I can't help but see this as a Good Thing. If the
 shit comes down over this recent financial meltdown, my Spanish
 neighbors (and me, because I've lived this way for decades now)
 will, I think, be in a somewhat better position than, say, the
 Irish, who are now officially the highest personal debtholders
 in the EU. (And the Brits want to move their money to *Irish*
 banks...go figure!)
 
 I thought of this, and decided to share it with you no matter
 how inane it might be, because I just had to add some capital
 to my personal safe. It's not built into the wall; it's out in
 the garden, in a secure, locked-down spot known only to me, a 
 few trusted friends, and my attorney. And it may be illusion
 that makes me think that I'm somehow safer by keeping some of
 my assets there, but yes...I definitely do feel safer.


Safe manufacturers in the UK are one of the few businesses
enjoying growth at the moment. All the share sellers are buying
gold and keeping it at home apparently.

I decided I would quite like one myself this week. Kind of cool
to have a big old one with a dial. Not sure what I'd keep in it 
yet though. I suppose if nothing else I could guarantee no-one 
finishes the peanut butter without me knowing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Safe

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Safe manufacturers in the UK are one of the few businesses
 enjoying growth at the moment. All the share sellers are buying
 gold and keeping it at home apparently.
 
 I decided I would quite like one myself this week. Kind of cool
 to have a big old one with a dial. Not sure what I'd keep in it 
 yet though. I suppose if nothing else I could guarantee no-one 
 finishes the peanut butter without me knowing.

Well said. The most valuable item in my safe
(at least to me) is a pair of nose glasses. You
know the ones -- black, clunky empty lens frames 
and a big, bushy Groucho mustache under the 
nosepiece.

The reason I keep them there is that if the shit
ever does really go down, I want to be able to
don a good pair of nose glasses and wear them. 
No one on earth can take themselves completely
seriously while wearing nose glasses, and I 
consider not taking oneself seriously to be
one of the most valuable survival skills.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Being the skunk at an atheist convention

2008-10-18 Thread enlightened_dawn11

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  
  A beautiful and profound quote, Vaj. Thank you for sharing it. I 
  don't see it as a refutation of Nabs statement, and perhaps you 
  don't either. In any case that is some great writing.
 
 
 Right, a beautiful quote he copied and pasted.
 
 Please read his own words here and you will quickly see that this 
 quote, amongst others, is intelligence he does from time to time.

The other quote I fully appreciated was yours, ...the Vedas
are the eternal song of nature. I get Vaj's point of view and 
though I don't see things the same way as he does, he seems open to 
an exchange of ideas.

[FairfieldLife] 'Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies'

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Central University

2008-10-18 Thread Sal Sunshine


On Oct 17, 2008, at 9:22 PM, gullible fool wrote:


I'd say the very fact that they're rajas to begin with
indicates a fairly serious level of disconnect.

The TMO money-grubbers do not care if there is a disconnect between  
the rajas and reality. They care only about making a disconnect  
between the faithful and their million dollar raja course fees, and  
before that, their million dollar enlightenment course fees. Ka- 
ching! Or is it Cha-ching! now?


Hey, whatever works!

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Mans Sues God, and Fails on Technicality



Legal case against God dismissed. 

A US judge has thrown out a case against God, ruling that because the 
defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served. 

The suit was launched by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, who 
said he might appeal against the ruling. 

He sought a permanent injunction to prevent the death, destruction 
and terrorisation caused by God. 

Judge Marlon Polk said in his ruling that a plaintiff must have 
access to the defendant for a case to proceed. 

Given that this court finds that there can never be service 
effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with 
prejudice, Judge Polk wrote in his ruling. 

Mr Chambers cannot refile the suit but may appeal. 

'God knows everything' 

Mr Chambers sued God last year. He said God had threatened him and 
the people of Nebraska and had inflicted widespread death, 
destruction and terrorisation of millions upon millions of the 
Earth's inhabitants. 

He said he would carefully consider Judge Polk's ruling before 
deciding whether to appeal. 

The court, Mr Chambers said, had acknowledged the existence of God 
and a consequence of that acknowledgement is a recognition of God's 
omniscience. 

Since God knows everything, he reasoned, God has notice of this 
lawsuit. 

Mr Chambers, a state senator for 38 years, said he filed the suit to 
make the point that anyone can sue anyone else, even God. 


From the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7673591.stm

[FairfieldLife] Sri Ramana Maharshi answers various Q's RE: sidhis

2008-10-18 Thread Rick Archer

Question: Are the Siddhis (super-natural powers) mentioned in
Patanjali's Sutras true or only his dream?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: He who is Brahman or the Self will not value
those Siddhis. Patanjali himself says that they are all exercised with
the mind and that they impede Self-realisation.

Question: What about the powers of so-called supermen?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Whether powers are high or low, whether of the
mind or of a supermind, they exist only with reference to the one who
has the power. Find out who that is.

Question: Are Siddhis to be achieved on the spiritual path or are they
opposed to Mukti (liberation)?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The highest Siddhi is realisation of the Self,
for once you realise the truth you cease to be drawn to the path of
ignorance. 

Question: Then what use are the Siddhis?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: There are two kinds of Siddhis and one kind may
well be a stumbling block to realisation. It is said that by Mantra,
by some drug possessing occult virtues, by severe austerities or by
samadhi of a certain kind, powers can be acquired. But these powers
are not a means to Self-knowledge, for even when you acquire them, you
may quite well be in ignorance.

Question: What is the other kind?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: They are manifestations of power and knowledge,
which are quite natural to you when you realise the Self. They are
Siddhis, which are the products of the normal and natural Tapas
(spiritual practice) of the man who has reached the Self. They come of
their own accord, they are God given. They come according to one's
destiny but whether they come or not, the Jnani, who is settled in the
supreme peace, is not disturbed by them. For he knows the Self and
that is the unshakable Siddhi. But these Siddhis do not come by trying
for them. When you are in the state of realisation, you will know what
these powers are.

Question: Does the sage use occult powers for making others realise
the Self, or is the mere fact of his Self-realisation enough for it?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The force of his Self-realisation is far more
powerful than the use of all other powers.

Though Siddhis are said to be many and different, Jnana (knowledge)
alone is the highest of those many different Siddhis, because those
who have attained other Siddhis will desire Jnana. Those who have
attained Jnana will not desire other Siddhis. Therefore aspire only
for Jnana.

Although the powers appear to be wonderful to those who do not possess
them, yet they are only transient. All these wonders are contained in
the one changeless Self.

Greedily begging for worthless occult powers (Siddhis) from God, who
will readily give Himself, who is everything, is like begging for
worthless stale gruel from a generous natured philanthropist who will
readily give everything.

In the Heart, which catches fire with the blazing flame of supreme
devotion, all the occult powers will gather together. However, with a
heart that has become a complete prey to the feet of the Lord, the
devotee will not have any desire for those Siddhis. Know that if
aspirants who are making efforts on the path to liberation set their
heart upon occult powers, their dense bondage will be strengthened
more and more, and hence the lustre of their ego will wax more and more.

The attainment (Siddhi) of Self, which is the perfect whole, the
radiance of liberation, alone is the attainment of true knowledge,
whereas the other kinds of Siddhi, beginning with Anima (the ability
to become as small as an atom) belong to the delusion of the power of
imagination of the foolish mind.

People see many things which are far more miraculous than the
so-called Siddhis, yet do not wonder at them simply because they occur
every day. When a man is born he is no bigger than this electric bulb,
but then he grows up and becomes a giant wrestler, or a world-famed
artist, orator, politician or sage. People do not view this as a
miracle but they are wonder struck if a corpse is made to speak.

Questioner: I have been interesting myself in metaphysics for over
twenty years. But I have not gained any novel experience as so many
others claim to do. I have no powers of clairvoyance, clairaudience,
etc. I feel myself locked up in this body and nothing more.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: It is right. Reality is only one and that is the
Self. All the rest are mere phenomena in it, of it, and by it. The
seer, the objects and the sight all are the Self only. Can anyone see
or hear, leaving the Self aside? What difference does it make to see
or hear anyone in close proximity or over enormous distance? The
organs of sight and hearing are needed in both cases and so the mind
is also required. None of them can be dispensed with in either case.
There is dependence one way or another. Why then should there be a
glamour about clairvoyance and clairaudience?

Moreover, what is acquired will also be lost in due course. They can
never be permanent.

Question: Is it not good to acquire powers such as telepathy?

Sri

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mans Sues God, and Fails on Technicality