Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Dioxide for Dumbies

[Vaj]

On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:30 PM, nelson wrote:

> would this then mean that the excess of co2 in the stratosphere was a major 
> factor?


My take is that less energy trying to leave the planet, esp. infrared, "warm" 
bands, having usually low concentrations of CO2 in the remote, upper atmosphere 
would mean the ability to "sweat the heat off" would be somewhat diminished, 
but not greatly diminished, based on current guestimates.

I'm taking it based on the math shared, to be (currently) a lesser factor. But 
it is an important factor.

Everyone needs to sweat, even planets.

.02 USD.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Carbon Dioxide for Dumbies

[nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
> Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases — gavin @ 6 August 2007
> We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation  
> for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on  
> climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation  
> has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused  
> and so we will try to break it down carefully.
> 
> Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.
> 
> The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the  
> atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the  
> Earth's surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean  
> temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the  
> planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is  
> an upward surface flux of LW around [tex]\sigma T^4[/tex] (~390 W/ 
> m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is  
> roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4  
> (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the  
> atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the  
> absence of any greenhouse substances.
> 
> Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.
> 
> The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption  
> is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic  
> gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al,  
> 2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by  
> each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption  
> lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but  
> it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The  
> earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give  
> very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono,  
> 1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the  
> net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the  
> spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so  
> simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its  
> own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however,  
> the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.
> 
> Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to  
> human emissions
> 
> CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%,  
> tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons  
> (CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of  
> these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
> 
> Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be  
> calculated
> 
> Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated  
> GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from  
> whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface  
> temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about  
> 2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/ 
> m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the  
> radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a  
> change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance.  
> However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the  
> line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of  
> temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date  
> calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those  
> are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.
> 
> These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data,  
> such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see  
> Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes  
> from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and  
> that the increase in forcing depends on the `wings' (see this post  
> for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as  
> CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al  
> use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different  
> assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial  
> heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about  
> 10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 – the  
> same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.
> 
> There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept.  
> One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation  
> balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that  
> balance ,, snip
  would this then mean that the excess of co2 in the stratosphere was a major 
factor?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Earth could plunge into sudden ice age

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> off_world_beings wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

> >  > , Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm, is this why we're having such a unusually cold fall in
> >>
> > California?
> >
> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/?GT1=43001

> >>
> >  >
> >
> >
> > But it is unusually warm in Vermont :-(
> > Not enough snow yet !
> >
> > OffWorld
> Are you going to have a drought?  California is in it's fourth year of
a
> drought.  The water stasi is licking its chops too.
>

Nah, there will never be a drought in Vermont. There are 4 -5,000 foot
mountains either side of a valley with a humongous fresh water lake that
is placed at just over sea level. That is one reason I chose to live
here. Climate change in North America (wether it is warmer, drier,
wetter, windier, or colder) won't affect Vermont much (we were the least
affected by the recession too.)

There is a great Goddess that lives in Lake Champlain, and she protects
Vermont from all the bad influances of the world.



OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ebineezer Scrooge

[nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nelson"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > Speaking of "simple stories," how's this one:
> > > The universe simply exists, 
> > snip,,
> >Why?
> 
> Why not?  :-)
> 
> More seriously, by even asking such a question
> you are anthropomorphizing the universe, project-
> ing onto it a "reason" for its existence. No such 
> reason may exist, no more than it does for the 
> existence of a rock, or your own existence.
> 
> Humans would *like* there to be a reason, a "Why"
> that makes them feel better about things. To
> ponder and search for such a reason seems to be
> human nature. But that doesn't mean that such a
> reason exists.
> 
> I am merely stating that I am as comfortable with
> a universe that has NO reason or "Why" for its
> existence as I am with one that has such a reason.
> That *frees* me to invent my *own* reasons for
> living the way I feel is best. That seems a more
> intelligent way to live my life than to just accept
> what someone else tells me is the "Why" of it all.
> YMMV.
>
 You exist for some reason and I tend to think the rest of the universe does 
also.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Message from Maharishi'...

[yifuxero]

Nabby...you're not making sense.  When MMY says "Life is Bliss", or when 
various Sages say Pure Consciousness is "Sat-Chit-Ananda"; they are referring 
to a nondual state of continuous Self-Realization. Certainly, Ramana Maharshi 
would agree with this.
..The ultimate analysis doesn't rely on a coming and going, or in and out of 
some state.
 I have no idea what the 2 people you mention grok about Bliss. I'm referring 
to the teachings of MMY.  When MMY says "Life is Bliss", he's talking about 
24/7, 365.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The Maharishi says:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "Stay in Bliss, above all else you do, now...
> > > > > > That is your job now, to just: 'Stay in Bliss'..."
> > > > > > 
> 
> Who said Samadhi is Bliss ? Do you believe this nonsense simply because the 
> "Buddhists"; Barry and Vaj on this list claims this nonsense ? 
> 
> Samadhi is Transcendence, ofcourse there is no Bliss "there" even though this 
> Barry/Vaj-Buddhist-fraud tells you that Maharishi claimed so. 
> 
> They are liers. 
> They are trying to fool you with nonsense.
> 
> The Bliss comes when coming out into the relative world, upon entering 
> relativity having Transcended, after dwelling in the Field of All 
> Possebilities. 
> 
> Then there is Bliss. Unbounded Bliss.
> 
> In transcending there is no Bliss but endless expansion, you experience Bliss 
> when you open your eyes and enter Relativity.
>

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: New Non-GMO Shopping Guide Site Expected to Shift Consumer Choices

[Dick Mays]

Home * 
GMO 
Dangers * 
Take 
Action * 
Buy 
Non-GMO * 
About 
Us * 
Contact 
Us * 
Donate



Spilling the Beans | December 3, 2009

We're really excited to share with you our new Non-GMO Shopping Guide website!

www.nonGMOShoppingGuide.com



The site features: 
Tips 
for Avoiding GMOs along with 16 food 
Product 
Categories listing both GMO and Non-GMO brands. There's a section 
called 
Why 
Should I Avoid GMOs, and also 
How 
Can I Help, which gives everyone ways to help end the genetic 
engineering of our food supply. A 
Pocket 
Guide is available as a download or to order and share with friends.


Since 53% of Americans say they would avoid GMOs if labeled, let's 
make the Non-GMO Shopping Guide hugely popular and quickly achieve 
the tipping point. [Remember, when Europe achieved its tipping point 
of consumer rejection, within a single week nearly every major food 
company committed to stop using genetically modified (GM) 
ingredients.]


You can help us promote the Shopping Guide and reach tens of millions 
of people with these 5 easy steps:


1. Create Links to the Site
Link from your blog, website, and emails, and ask others to do the 
same. To introduce the link, choose from the text above, our 
press 
release, or the following blurb:


Learn how to buy foods without genetically modified organisms at 
www.nonGMOShoppingGuide.com. 
Find out why you should avoid GMOs, learn the 4 basic non-GMO 
shopping tips, reference brand names by category, and take steps to 
help end the genetic engineering of our food supply. You can also 
download or order a pocket version, so you can choose healthier 
non-GMO foods for yourself and your family.


2. Spread the Word on Facebook and 
Twitter


3. Ask Your Natural Food Store to Stock Free Non-GMO Guides for Customers
Download 
this PDF and take it to your natural food store manager. It invites 
them to order free bundles of 50 pocket guides (and accompanying GMO 
Health Risks brochure) from their own distributors. At the same time, 
be sure to order a bunch of guides from the store for yourself to 
give away. You can also 
buy 
the pocket guides online, just above our cost. An excellent stocking 
stuffer!


4. If You're a Business or Organization, Support the Guide
Include your logo with other supporting companies on the Guide 
website and on the back of the pocket guide. This helps us distribute 
pocket guides free through stores and festivals (we have not yet 
broken even, so we really need your support). Phone (641) 209-7066 
for more information.


5. Share This Email
Together, we can create the tipping point of consumer rejection of 
GMO food. Use the SHARE button below to choose the best way(s) to 
share this email with your contacts.


Visit the Site. Shop the Guide. Spread the Word.

Let's Create the Tipping the Point NOW! > 
NonGMOShoppingGuide.com


As always, thank you for your continued support.

Jeffrey Smith



International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is 
the executive director of the
Institute 
for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health 
dangers of GMOs. His first book, 
Seeds 
of Deception, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on the 
subject. His second, 
Genetic 
Roulette, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat 
everyday.





<

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Nov 28 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat Dec 05 00:00:00 2009
457 messages as of (UTC) Fri Dec 04 00:01:29 2009

50 authfriend 
47 WillyTex 
47 TurquoiseB 
39 Bhairitu 
31 ShempMcGurk 
29 BillyG 
16 Vaj 
15 "do.rflex" 
14 yifuxero 
14 off_world_beings 
14 Mike Dixon 
13 m 13 
12 dhamiltony2k5 
11 Sal Sunshine 
11 PaliGap 
10 cardemaister 
 8 nelson 
 7 Hugo 
 6 seekliberation 
 6 raunchydog 
 6 guyfawkes91 
 6 John 
 5 danfriedman2002 
 4 nablusoss1008 
 4 Rick Archer 
 4 Premanand 
 4 Dick Mays 
 3 wayback71 
 3 michael 
 3 fflmod 
 2 wgm4u 
 2 ninepercent_bf 
 2 It's just a ride 
 2 Duveyoung 
 1 lurkernomore20002000 
 1 kleilac 
 1 coulsong2001 
 1 MinP 
 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 1 Alex Stanley 
 1 Absolute Truth Network 

Posters: 41
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Two wine-makers suffocated by CO2 fumes from grapes

[Sal Sunshine]

On Dec 3, 2009, at 6:01 PM, do.rflex wrote:

> Carbon dioxide is formed during the alcoholic fermentation of the grapes. 
> Because it is 1.5 times heavier than air it sinks to floor level - the bottom 
> of wine vats or in wine cellars. 
> 
> The gas is odourless and colourless, meaning that ventilation and carbon 
> dioxide testing during the wine-making process can become life-saving. 
> 
> A concentration of just eight per cent is enough to kill a human being.

But according to shemp, this is the world we should be
striving for.
Maybe he's just really into grapes. :)  Sour ones, that is.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Two wine-makers suffocated by CO2 fumes from grapes

[do.rflex]

Two French wine-makers suffocated by carbon dioxide fumes from grapes
they were treading
Two amateur French wine makers have died after they were
suffocated by the fumes from the grapes they were treading with their
bare feet.

The victims had volunteered to help a friend make wine at his vineyard
in the northern Ardeche region and had climbed into the six-foot wide
vat to begin the traditional process of extracting the juice from the
grapes.

But police believe Daniel Moulin, 48, and 50-year-old Gerard Dachis were
overcome by carbon dioxide fumes that are given off during fermentation 
 and
collapsed.

  [BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5266218866144474034] 


Rescuers tried frantically to revive the pair but in spite of
resuscitation efforts the two men did not regain conciousness.

The owner of the small estate - who makes wine every year for himself
and friends - and another pal who were also helping in the process were
later treated in hospital for inhalation of carbonic gas in the
poorly-ventilated farm building.

Carbon dioxide is formed during the alcoholic fermentation of the
grapes. Because it is 1.5 times heavier than air it sinks to floor level
- the bottom of wine vats or in wine cellars.

The gas is odourless and colourless, meaning that ventilation and carbon
dioxide testing during the wine-making process can become life-saving.

A concentration of just eight per cent is enough to kill a human being.

http://snipurl.com/tjsam   [www_dailymail_co_uk]

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Message from Maharishi'...

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > The Maharishi says:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Stay in Bliss, above all else you do, now...
> > > > > That is your job now, to just: 'Stay in Bliss'..."
> > > > > 

Who said Samadhi is Bliss ? Do you believe this nonsense simply because the 
"Buddhists"; Barry and Vaj on this list claims this nonsense ? 

Samadhi is Transcendence, ofcourse there is no Bliss "there" even though this 
Barry/Vaj-Buddhist-fraud tells you that Maharishi claimed so. 

They are liers. 
They are trying to fool you with nonsense.

The Bliss comes when coming out into the relative world, upon entering 
relativity having Transcended, after dwelling in the Field of All 
Possebilities. 

Then there is Bliss. Unbounded Bliss.

In transcending there is no Bliss but endless expansion, you experience Bliss 
when you open your eyes and enter Relativity.

Re: [FairfieldLife] GOP Jobs Plan - Deregulation and Tax Cuts for the Rich [no kidding]

[Bhairitu]

Yup, slavery is definitely a low-cost plan.  The GOP has been trying to 
get that back for the last 140  years.  Maybe they should label it "The 
Oliver Twist Plan."


Sal Sunshine wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:25 AM, do.rflex wrote:
>
> THE NO-SENSE JOBS PLAN Arguably the single most farcical aspect of 
> America's political discourse is listening to congressional Republicans talk 
> about economic policy. 
>
> We're talking about a group of people who've managed to be spectacularly 
> wrong about practically every economic challenge in recent memory, but who 
> are nevertheless convinced of their own self-righteous expertise. It's hard 
> not to cringe.
>
> But yet, they keep talking, blissfully unaware of their track record of 
> uninterrupted failure. Yesterday, for example, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric 
> Cantor (R-Va.) visited the conservative Heritage Foundation to unveil what he 
> called "a no-cost jobs plan." 
>
> Andrew Leonard explained, "Without adding a single dime to the deficit, the 
> Republican's plan will ameliorate the worst unemployment crisis in 30 years. 
> One wonders how a political party capable of such innovative thinking ever 
> lost its hold of power."
>
> To recap: Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes. That's 
> the plan.
>
> Perfect definition of insanity!
>
> Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: GOP Jobs Plan - Deregulation and Tax Cuts for the Rich [no kidding]

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> 
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:25 AM, do.rflex wrote:
> 
> THE NO-SENSE JOBS PLAN Arguably the single most farcical aspect of 
> America's political discourse is listening to congressional Republicans talk 
> about economic policy. 
> 
> We're talking about a group of people who've managed to be spectacularly 
> wrong about practically every economic challenge in recent memory, but who 
> are nevertheless convinced of their own self-righteous expertise. It's hard 
> not to cringe.
> 
> But yet, they keep talking, blissfully unaware of their track record of 
> uninterrupted failure. Yesterday, for example, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric 
> Cantor (R-Va.) visited the conservative Heritage Foundation to unveil what he 
> called "a no-cost jobs plan." 
> 
> Andrew Leonard explained, "Without adding a single dime to the deficit, the 
> Republican's plan will ameliorate the worst unemployment crisis in 30 years. 
> One wonders how a political party capable of such innovative thinking ever 
> lost its hold of power."
> 
> To recap: Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes. That's 
> the plan.
> 
> Perfect definition of insanity!
> 
> Sal
>


Like Bill Maher said: "Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has 
moved into a mental hospital."

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Maharishi's Message II'...

[yifuxero]

thx, I know what the Scriptures say, but Scriptures are often wrong.
Now I'm thinking, that anything experienced as Bliss (even supposedly purely 
Subjective), is monitored by the nervous system, with a mind reporting on the 
fact of some experience.
 Assume no relative body/mind at all. Obviously, their would be no relative 
experience of Bliss.
Say Pure Consciousness is "Bliss" (In-Itself; i.e. Sat-Chit-Ananda).
But Shakti and the "feeling of Bliss" is relative; so is there a clear boundary 
between the unmanifest Bliss and the relative Bliss.?
I think not.  Nowhere have I read about anybody being able to distinguish the 
two Bliss's.  But if somebody did say there's a distinction, they would be 
dualists!
Therefore the relative Bliss must be an illusory superposition on the "Real" 
Bliss...pointing to the standard party line Advaitic ultimate conclusion of 
life.
...
Shankara's (and Guru Dev, MMY, and Jerry J.). The ultimate goal of life is to 
realize the Self (i.e. UC) and that's the end to evolution.
After the physical life runs out, there's no more relative existence.
...
I can't believe any reasonable person would believe this crap; and I don't care 
what "Authorities" fell into that delusion.
Though I'm a philosophical Advaitin, realization of the Self doesn't imply 
extinction.  Somebody made that up, fueled by the notion of the similar 
misinterpreted Buddhist concepts relating to Nirvana.  But obviously, relative 
life can go on even among Buddhas (Cf. the Pure Land School).
...
But I'm only pointing out a possible course of action. If somebody really wants 
to not exist, relatively speaking, so be it. It's just that I don't see any 
value in that course of action.  I know you TMO TB's have fallen into the trap 
of the "Last Snare of Maya" (i.e. that ultimately since maya is "illusory", it 
has no value and we can discard it.) Non Sequitur.
 The Advaitic flaw (one of several) pertains to the concept of value:, at least 
subjective considerations.  OK, let's say relative existence is illusory.  But 
even illusions are something, and the term should be clarified, perhaps 
substituted by another term or explained further.
  Some possibilities: a. illusion implies non-existence. Nope, not true. We can 
only say that the illusory entity A is NOT the same as entity B. (by "entity" 
we mean anything relative or Absolute).
Evaluate the concept "whatover is illusory is of no value". That's what the 
Neo-Advaitins seem to be saying.  But this couldn't be true in MMY's programs 
since the Yagya's are supposed to influence a wide variety of "illusory" facets 
of life, expecially re: money.
...back to square one then!  Relative existence is illusory but we're back to 
square one in terms of seeking money, fame, fortune, sexual pleasures,...etc 
all at the risk of committing a-Dharmic acts.
...
Any value in Bliss?  For some, perhaps not others. What's valued in economics 
is what individuals say is valued, not what others want to impose on them.
...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Turq,
> > > 
> > > I don't know why yifuxero or you think transcending is cultish, 
> > > but I do believe that that sort of labeling is hateful.
> > 
> > I don't think transcending (achieving samadhi, even
> > briefly) is cultish, or dangerous. I just don't think
> > that practitioners of TM do much of it. True samadhi is
> > not blissful, and can never be because samadhi transcends
> > everything, including emotion. "Bliss" is the subjective 
> > experience of certain stages that *precede* samadhi. IMO,
> > that is.
> > 
> 
> FWIW, according to Brahma-suutras, Brahma(n) is
> 
> aanandamayo 'bhyaasaat (sandhi-vigraha: aananda-mayaH; abhyaasaat)
> 
> That seems to mean Brahma(n) is 'made of' (mayaH) 'bliss' (aananda)
> 'from (here = because of) repetition'(abhyaasaat: because 'bliss' appears so 
> often in the Vedic literature in connection with Brahman??).
>

[FairfieldLife] Once again Kucinich shows great wisdom...

[Bhairitu]

But he's too cerebral for the American sheeple.

"Far from being a necessary part of the US's national security strategy, 
the Afghanistan war is actually a threat to it, says Ohio congressman 
Dennis Kucinich.

In a statement released two days after President Barack Obama announced 
a 30,000-troop surge for the war effort and a July, 2011, beginning for 
troop withdrawal, Kucinich argued that extending the war would 
destabilize the United States at home."

More here:
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/kucinich-war-threat-national-security/

Re: [FairfieldLife] GOP Jobs Plan - Deregulation and Tax Cuts for the Rich [no kidding]

[Sal Sunshine]

On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:25 AM, do.rflex wrote:

THE NO-SENSE JOBS PLAN Arguably the single most farcical aspect of 
America's political discourse is listening to congressional Republicans talk 
about economic policy. 

We're talking about a group of people who've managed to be spectacularly wrong 
about practically every economic challenge in recent memory, but who are 
nevertheless convinced of their own self-righteous expertise. It's hard not to 
cringe.

But yet, they keep talking, blissfully unaware of their track record of 
uninterrupted failure. Yesterday, for example, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric 
Cantor (R-Va.) visited the conservative Heritage Foundation to unveil what he 
called "a no-cost jobs plan." 

Andrew Leonard explained, "Without adding a single dime to the deficit, the 
Republican's plan will ameliorate the worst unemployment crisis in 30 years. 
One wonders how a political party capable of such innovative thinking ever lost 
its hold of power."

To recap: Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes. That's the 
plan.

Perfect definition of insanity!

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Earth could plunge into sudden ice age

[Bhairitu]

off_world_beings wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> Hmm, is this why we're having such a unusually cold fall in
>> 
> California?
>   
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/?GT1=43001
>> 
> 
>   
>
> But it is unusually warm in Vermont :-(
> Not enough snow yet !
>
> OffWorld
Are you going to have a drought?  California is in it's fourth year of a 
drought.  The water stasi is licking its chops too. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Earth could plunge into sudden ice age

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Hmm, is this why we're having such a unusually cold fall in
California?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/?GT1=43001

>

But it is unusually warm in Vermont :-(
Not enough snow yet !

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Michael Crichton on "consensus"

[off_world_beings]

Shemp, you are adding a lot hot air to the atmosphere with all this
bluster and offgasing in your posts about a discredited fringe idea that
only exists among you Neocons only.

OffWorld


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
> Okay. With this as a preparation, let's turn to the evidence, both
graphic and verbal, for global warming.  As most of you have heard many
times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is
already settled.  Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees
on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
>
> Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.  Science, on the
contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which
means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the
real world.  In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is
reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
precisely because they broke with the consensus.
>
> And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been
wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime,
that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words
of Mark Twain, who said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the
majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
>
> from:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickmays@ wrote:
> >
> > The following article summarizes findings of the
> > TM-Sidhi Program's beneficial societal influence
> > from 50 studies. The article also describes new
> > findings that this peace-giving influence is two
> > to five times as powerful as conventional
> > military and political factors. Very encouraging!
> > Jai Guru Dev.
> >
> >
>
> I'm afraid world peace shall never be achieved, because many
> of the richest and most powerful people on Earth may "hate"
> it, like "Big(gish) Pharma" would hate some methods to cure people
> without pills... :(  >>

...and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, the biggest company in the
world by assetts, and Barclays bank, the second biggest company in the
world by assetts (The Royal Bank of Scotland Group is the biggest of
those that were named as  "Too big to fail" )

"Barclays Links to the arms trade

""In December 2008 the British anti-poverty charity War on Want
  released a report
documenting the extent to which Barclays and other UK commercial banks
invest in, provide banking services for and make loans to arms
companies. The charity writes in its report that Barclays is the world's
largest arms investor, holding £7.3 billion in shares in the arms
manufacturers. The report also details Barclays' dealings with known
producers of cluster munitions
  and depleted uranium
 .[69]
 ""



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays_Bank#Links_to_the_arms_trade


http://www.waronwant.org/news/press-releases/16333-banks-slated-on-arms-\
sales


This is one of the reasons why Maharishi railed against the UK for it
being the biggest arms deal clearing house in the world.

But the good news that they wiil not succeed in these endevours anymore.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

[Vaj]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change
Popular Mechanics guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of  
geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and  
Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate  
scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about  
global warming—and what they don't.

[FairfieldLife] Carbon Dioxide for Dumbies

[Vaj]

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases — gavin @ 6 August 2007
We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation  
for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on  
climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation  
has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused  
and so we will try to break it down carefully.


Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the  
atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the  
Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean  
temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the  
planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is  
an upward surface flux of LW around [tex]\sigma T^4[/tex] (~390 W/ 
m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is  
roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4  
(~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the  
atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the  
absence of any greenhouse substances.


Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption  
is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic  
gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al,  
2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by  
each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption  
lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but  
it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The  
earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give  
very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono,  
1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the  
net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the  
spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so  
simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its  
own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however,  
the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.


Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to  
human emissions


CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%,  
tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons  
(CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of  
these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.


Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be  
calculated


Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated  
GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from  
whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface  
temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about  
2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/ 
m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the  
radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a  
change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance.  
However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the  
line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of  
temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date  
calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those  
are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.


These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data,  
such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see  
Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes  
from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and  
that the increase in forcing depends on the ‘wings’ (see this post  
for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as  
CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al  
use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different  
assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial  
heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about  
10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 – the  
same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.


There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept.  
One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation  
balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that  
balance and that changes the TOA forcing by a small but non- 
negligible amount. The surface response, which is much slower,  
therefore reacts more proportionately to the ‘adjusted’ forcing and  
this is generally what is used in lieu of the instantaneous forcing.  
The other wrinkle is depending slightly on the spatial distribution  
of forcing 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Michael Crichton on "consensus"

[Vaj]

Crichton was a Medical Doctor, not a Climate Scientist. He's also  
dead, so unfortunately he missed the latest update to the IPCC  
numbers. Sometimes it's helpful to still be alive in order to track  
opinion and "consensus" among Climate Scientists.


On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:40 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote:

Okay. With this as a preparation, let's turn to the evidence, both  
graphic and verbal, for global warming. As most of you have heard  
many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global  
warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first  
refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that  
the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of  
scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet,  
because you're being had.


Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with  
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the  
contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,  
which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by  
reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant.  
What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists  
in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.


And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been  
wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my  
lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the  
immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, "Whenever you find yourself  
on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."


from: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech- 
ourenvironmentalfuture.html

[FairfieldLife] Michael Crichton on "consensus"

[ShempMcGurk]

Okay. With this as a preparation, let's turn to the evidence, both graphic and 
verbal, for global warming.  As most of you have heard many times, the 
consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the 
claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to 
avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.  Whenever you hear 
the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your 
wallet, because you're being had. 

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. 
Consensus is the business of politics.  Science, on the contrary, requires only 
one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has 
results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.  In science, 
consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest 
scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the 
consensus. 

And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they 
were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did 
not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, 
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause 
and reflect."  

from: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Copenhagen must fail

[do.rflex]

A breath of fresh air [pun intended]. Thanks Hugo.

See why James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies is 
referred to as "the world's pre-eminent climate scientist."

James Hansen's outstanding and impeccable credentials, including awards and 
honors here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Honors_and_awards



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
>
> Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist
> Exclusive: World's leading climate change expert says summit talks so
> flawed that deal would be a disaster
> 
> * Suzanne Goldenberg
>  , US environment
> correspondent
> 
> * guardian.co.uk  , Wednesday 2 December
> 2009 20.54 GMT
>   [James Hansen]
> 'We don't have a leader who is able to grasp [the issue] and say
> what is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as
> usual,' say James Hansen. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA
> 
> The scientist who convinced the world to take notice
>  ange>  of the looming danger of global warming says it would be better
> for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen
> climate change summit 
> ended in collapse.
> James Hansen talks to Suzanne Goldenberg Link to this audio
>  ld-fail-hansen>
> In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen
>  , the world's pre-eminent
> climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the
> negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start
> again from scratch.
> 
> "I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right
> track because it's a disaster track," said Hansen, who heads the Nasa
> Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
> 
> "The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to
> reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing
>  ent-emissions-carbon>  then [people] will spend years trying to
> determine exactly what that means." He was speaking as progress towards
> a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a
> target to curb its carbon emissions
>  mission-target> . All four of the major emitters – the US
>  en> , China
>  bon-footprint> , EU and India – have now tabled offers on emissions,
> although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations
>  unding>  to deal with global warming remains deadlocked.
> 
> Hansen, in repeated appearances before Congress beginning in 1989, has
> done more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the
> causes of global warming and to prod them into action to avoid its most
> catastrophic consequences. But he is vehemently opposed to the carbon
> market schemes
>  -copenhagen-summit>  – in which permits to pollute are bought and
> sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most
> efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy
>  energy> .
> 
> Hansen is also fiercely critical of Barack Obama – and even Al Gore,
> who won a Nobel peace prize
>  tionalnews>  for his efforts to get the world to act on climate change
>   – saying
> politicians have failed to meet what he regards as the moral challenge
> of our age.
> 
> In Hansen's view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the
> compromises that rule the world of elected politics. "This is analagous
> to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism
> faced by Winston Churchill," he said. "On those kind of issues you
> cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a
> compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."
> 
> He added: "We don't have a leader who is able to grasp it and say what
> is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as usual."
> 
> The understated Iowan's journey from climate scientist to activist
> accelerated in the last years of the Bush administration. Hansen, a
> reluctant public speaker, says he was forced into the public realm by
> the increasingly clear looming spectre of droughts, floods, famines and

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Maharishi's Message II'...

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Turq,
> > 
> > I don't know why yifuxero or you think transcending is cultish, 
> > but I do believe that that sort of labeling is hateful.
> 
> I don't think transcending (achieving samadhi, even
> briefly) is cultish, or dangerous. I just don't think
> that practitioners of TM do much of it. True samadhi is
> not blissful, and can never be because samadhi transcends
> everything, including emotion. "Bliss" is the subjective 
> experience of certain stages that *precede* samadhi. IMO,
> that is.
> 

FWIW, according to Brahma-suutras, Brahma(n) is

aanandamayo 'bhyaasaat (sandhi-vigraha: aananda-mayaH; abhyaasaat)

That seems to mean Brahma(n) is 'made of' (mayaH) 'bliss' (aananda)
'from (here = because of) repetition'(abhyaasaat: because 'bliss' appears so 
often in the Vedic literature in connection with Brahman??).

[FairfieldLife] Earth could plunge into sudden ice age

[Bhairitu]

Hmm, is this why we're having such a unusually cold fall in California?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/?GT1=43001

[FairfieldLife] Re: Copenhagen must fail

[BillyG]

Yeah-just another right wing global warming denier!!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
>
> Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist
> Exclusive: World's leading climate change expert says summit talks so
> flawed that deal would be a disaster
> 
> * Suzanne Goldenberg
>  , US environment
> correspondent
> 
> * guardian.co.uk  , Wednesday 2 December
> 2009 20.54 GMT
>   [James Hansen]
> 'We don't have a leader who is able to grasp [the issue] and say
> what is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as
> usual,' say James Hansen. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA
> 
> The scientist who convinced the world to take notice
>  ange>  of the looming danger of global warming says it would be better
> for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen
> climate change summit 
> ended in collapse.
> James Hansen talks to Suzanne Goldenberg Link to this audio
>  ld-fail-hansen>
> In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen
>  , the world's pre-eminent
> climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the
> negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start
> again from scratch.
> 
> "I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right
> track because it's a disaster track," said Hansen, who heads the Nasa
> Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
> 
> "The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to
> reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing
>  ent-emissions-carbon>  then [people] will spend years trying to
> determine exactly what that means." He was speaking as progress towards
> a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a
> target to curb its carbon emissions
>  mission-target> . All four of the major emitters – the US
>  en> , China
>  bon-footprint> , EU and India – have now tabled offers on emissions,
> although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations
>  unding>  to deal with global warming remains deadlocked.
> 
> Hansen, in repeated appearances before Congress beginning in 1989, has
> done more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the
> causes of global warming and to prod them into action to avoid its most
> catastrophic consequences. But he is vehemently opposed to the carbon
> market schemes
>  -copenhagen-summit>  – in which permits to pollute are bought and
> sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most
> efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy
>  energy> .
> 
> Hansen is also fiercely critical of Barack Obama – and even Al Gore,
> who won a Nobel peace prize
>  tionalnews>  for his efforts to get the world to act on climate change
>   – saying
> politicians have failed to meet what he regards as the moral challenge
> of our age.
> 
> In Hansen's view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the
> compromises that rule the world of elected politics. "This is analagous
> to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism
> faced by Winston Churchill," he said. "On those kind of issues you
> cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a
> compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."
> 
> He added: "We don't have a leader who is able to grasp it and say what
> is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as usual."
> 
> The understated Iowan's journey from climate scientist to activist
> accelerated in the last years of the Bush administration. Hansen, a
> reluctant public speaker, says he was forced into the public realm by
> the increasingly clear looming spectre of droughts, floods, famines and
> drowned cities indicated by the science.
> 
> That enormous body of scientific evidence has been put under a
> microscope by climate sceptics after last month's release online of
> hacked emails sent by respected researchers at the climate research unit
> 

[FairfieldLife] Small Minds (was Re: Tiger!)

[ninepercent_bf]

Thanks for your post with the quote.  Yes, I skipped through the other posts in 
this thread after reading how much it seems to affect the emotions and lives of 
others in a negative way. It amazes me to see how much power one's personal 
life, celebrity or not, has over another.  Just an observation.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss 
> > > events. Small minds discuss people." 
> > > -- Eleanor Roosevelt
> >
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ninepercent_bf"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Although I'm not new to the forum and haven't posted 
> > much, I must say, personally, I find that quote 
> > appropriate. But, I may be a minority...and that's 
> > ok with me too;-P
> 
> I find it quite appropriate, too. That's why I 
> posted it.
> 
> If one were to read the blurb on the home page
> of Fairfield Life, one would get the idea that
> this was a forum on which people discussed *ideas*.
> 
> The reality is that it is a forum on which people 
> discuss other people, primarily using ad hominem 
> arguments to demonize and "discredit" them *for*
> discussing ideas that they don't like.
> 
> Interestingly, when a subject comes up that *does*
> involve discussion of ideas, the first reaction 
> of certain people on this forum is to derail and
> stifle it by *turning it into* ad hominem and 
> demonization and -- again -- discussing people.
> 
> I think Eleanor Roosevelt nailed it. That is why 
> these days I avoid discussions with the small minds 
> (and, in fact, even bothering to read them) and try
> to hold out for the occasional discussion of ideas. 
> They are sadly few and far between. I hope you 
> contribute to a few of them in the future.
>

[FairfieldLife] GOP Jobs Plan - Deregulation and Tax Cuts for the Rich [no kidding]

[do.rflex]

THE NO-SENSE JOBS PLAN Arguably the single most farcical aspect of
America's political discourse is listening to congressional Republicans
talk about economic policy.


We're talking about a group of people who've managed to be spectacularly
wrong about practically every economic challenge in recent memory, but
who are nevertheless convinced of their own self-righteous expertise.
It's hard not to cringe.

But yet, they keep talking, blissfully unaware of their track record of
uninterrupted failure. Yesterday, for example, House Minority Whip Rep.
Eric Cantor (R-Va.) visited the conservative Heritage Foundation to
unveil what he called "a no-cost jobs plan."
 


Andrew Leonard explained
 , "Without adding a single
dime to the deficit, the Republican's plan will ameliorate the worst
unemployment crisis in 30 years. One wonders how a political party
capable of such innovative thinking ever lost its hold of power."

To recap: Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes.
That's the plan.

I would really, really love to have access to an alternative universe in
which Cantor's plan could have been applied this past year, in parallel
with our world, in which the economy was injected with a massive
stimulus, so we could compare the efficacy of the two approaches in real
time. What would have happened if instead of spending money, the
government had sat on its hands?

I think about that all the time. Republicans controlled the levers of
power, and the results were nearly catastrophic for the economy.
Democrats were handed the reins, and while the economy is still
struggling, we're working our way out of the ditch. If we'd listened to
Cantor & Co., we'd still be digging.

As for the "no-cost jobs plan," it's hard not to laugh at the stupidity.
We tried it Cantor's way. We're still suffering the consequences.


NBC reported on Cantor's plan
 , and
explained, "The challenge for Cantor and Republicans is that these
solutions -- low taxes, free trade, and fewer regulations -- existed
during the Bush years, which saw three different economic downturns (in
2001, 2003, and 2008), and which produced the weakest eight-year span
for the U.S. economy in decades."

It's not just Cantor, of course. House Minority Leader John Boehner
(R-Ohio) has scheduled an "economic roundtable" today, to compete with
the White House's job summit. Roll Call reported
 , "A spokesman for Boehner
said the purpose of the meeting is to give a platform for economists who
have a different perspective on how Obama's agenda has affected the
economy."

And who are these experts? Apparently, House Republicans have turned to
 
"former Bush administration and McCain campaign staffers, who have
advocated disastrous tax and budget policies."

So, to summarize, less than a year from the last administration,
congressional Republicans believe it's time to re-embrace the
Bush/Cheney agenda that didn't work, and listen to the architects of the
Bush/Cheney agenda that didn't work.

Historically, after a major electoral defeat, the losing side adapts and
shifts course. Congressional Republicans, for reasons that defy
comprehension, are doubling down on an agenda that's already failed.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021268.php

[FairfieldLife] Re: Copenhagen must fail

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
>
> Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist
> Exclusive: World's leading climate change expert says summit talks so
> flawed that deal would be a disaster
> 
> * Suzanne Goldenberg
>  , US environment
> correspondent
> 
> * guardian.co.uk  , Wednesday 2 December
> 2009 20.54 GMT
>

"World's leading climate change expert".

He's certainly eminent. But quite how he gets elevated 
to that Olympian height beats me. Is it a competition?
An award? A TV X factor for climatologists?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" 
 wrote:

> I'm verging on giving up here, every time I 
> spend more than a few minutes on a post 
> my computer crashes when I press send. 
> Does anyone else get this problem?

Is your computer male? It's quite a common
problem with the male of the species.

[snip]

> Give science a chance, it has only just 
> started probing the brain and it's a joyous
> and strange machine to be sure but already 
> we know that consciousness arises somehow in 
> the reticular activating system. Knock out the 
> RAS and you knock out the person whether they 
> are thinking about being a bat or not.

Is that last point significant? The fact RAS
is a necessary condition doesn't make it a 
sufficient condition, does it?

As per the "The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness"
article - an eyeball is a necessary condition for
sight. But is the eyeball "what sight IS"? (Or even
if you add in all the optical nerves and other mush)

[FairfieldLife] Copenhagen must fail

[Hugo]

Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist
Exclusive: World's leading climate change expert says summit talks so
flawed that deal would be a disaster

* Suzanne Goldenberg
 , US environment
correspondent

* guardian.co.uk  , Wednesday 2 December
2009 20.54 GMT
  [James Hansen]
'We don't have a leader who is able to grasp [the issue] and say
what is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as
usual,' say James Hansen. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA

The scientist who convinced the world to take notice
  of the looming danger of global warming says it would be better
for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen
climate change summit 
ended in collapse.
James Hansen talks to Suzanne Goldenberg Link to this audio

In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen
 , the world's pre-eminent
climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the
negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start
again from scratch.

"I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right
track because it's a disaster track," said Hansen, who heads the Nasa
Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to
reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing
  then [people] will spend years trying to
determine exactly what that means." He was speaking as progress towards
a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a
target to curb its carbon emissions
 . All four of the major emitters – the US
 , China
 , EU and India – have now tabled offers on emissions,
although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations
  to deal with global warming remains deadlocked.

Hansen, in repeated appearances before Congress beginning in 1989, has
done more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the
causes of global warming and to prod them into action to avoid its most
catastrophic consequences. But he is vehemently opposed to the carbon
market schemes
  – in which permits to pollute are bought and
sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most
efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy
 .

Hansen is also fiercely critical of Barack Obama – and even Al Gore,
who won a Nobel peace prize
  for his efforts to get the world to act on climate change
  – saying
politicians have failed to meet what he regards as the moral challenge
of our age.

In Hansen's view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the
compromises that rule the world of elected politics. "This is analagous
to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism
faced by Winston Churchill," he said. "On those kind of issues you
cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a
compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."

He added: "We don't have a leader who is able to grasp it and say what
is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as usual."

The understated Iowan's journey from climate scientist to activist
accelerated in the last years of the Bush administration. Hansen, a
reluctant public speaker, says he was forced into the public realm by
the increasingly clear looming spectre of droughts, floods, famines and
drowned cities indicated by the science.

That enormous body of scientific evidence has been put under a
microscope by climate sceptics after last month's release online of
hacked emails sent by respected researchers at the climate research unit
  of
the University of East Anglia. Hansen admitted the controversy could
shake public's trust, and called for an investigation. "All that stuff
they are arguing about the data doesn't really change the analysis at
all, but it does leave a very bad impression," 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[Hugo]

I'm verging on giving up here, every time I spend more than a 
few minutes on a post my computer crashes when I press send. 
Does anyone else get this problem?

It never crashes with other programmes so I think it must
have something to do with the yahoo software.

Shame as defending Richard Dawkins against the narrow-minded
bigto label he gets pinned on him is something I'm always happy
to do. He strikes me as someone who stands awestruck and humbled
before before the majesty of nature. His whole credo is 'let the evidence speak 
for itself' if it turns out that consciousness
is unexplainable except by supernatural means so be it. He won't
have been proved wrong.

But in a nutshell: Dawkins would be thrilled if conscious-
ness was external (or eternal) to the mind because it might mean
we survive death which is something everyone wants and is the 
main reason Darwinism doesn't get the take up it should and why creationists 
have to invent concepts like intelligent design to
get their voice into schools. ID is bollocks BTW, may risk an explanation later 
if you like.

Give science a chance, it has only just started probing the brain
and it's a joyous and strange machine to be sure but already we 
know that consciousness arises somehow in the reticular activating 
system. Knock out the RAS and you knock out the person whether they are 
thinking about being a bat or not.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> A long but well-written essay from Slate that ponders some
> of the same ideas I've been trying to bring up *as* ideas here
> lately. So many on this forum assume that certain questions
> have been "answered," at least to their satisfaction. I join the
> author in suggesting that says more about their low standards
> than it does the accuracy of their imagined "answers." My
> favorite quote from the essay is, "When I say the mystery of
> consciousness is a dangerous one, what I mean is that nobody
> wants to admit they don't have things All Figured Out, and it's
> particularly destabilizing not figuring yourself out." That's the
> True Believer phenomenon in a nutshell.
> The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
> We still need answers.By Ron Rosenbaum on Slate.com
> 
> There's a certain kind of mystery—unsolved and probably
> insoluble—that has a seductive attraction for me. I think the
> insolubility is the attraction. Historical and literary mysteries: What
> was the origin of Hitler's hatred? Did Shakespeare revise Hamlet? And
> I'm particularly troubled by metaphysical mysteries, the essential but
> oh-so-slippery mysteries of existence. Why is there something rather
> than nothing? What is the origin and nature of consciousness? What
> distinguishes living from nonliving being?
> 
> I can't get past the idea that they may never be solved. And what's most
> irritating is when people seem unaware they have not been solved. Or
> when people who should know better proclaim there are no real mysteries
> left. Consider, for instance, the problem of the origin and nature of
> consciousness. The failure to solve it without resorting to religion or
> quasi-religious "intelligent design"—which offers no real resolution
> since it doesn't explain what created the consciousness behind the
> intelligence of intelligent design—strikes many observers as
> dangerous. Dangerous because it threatens the foundation of scientific
> rationalism and materialism. Dangerous because it disrupts one's sense
> of any order in the universe and opens the floodgates of chaos.
> "Consciousness is the only thing in the world and the greatest mystery."
> This was Martin Amis at recent prepublication celebration of Nabokov's
> The Original of Laura
>  kCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0307271897> , at the
> 92nd Street Y, paraphrasing Nabokov, whose ability to evoke the tenor
> and texture of consciousness may be one of his most distinctive talents
> as a writer. Did it come from the fact that Nabokov was gifted with
> "synesthesia  "—itself a
> mystery of consciousness—which he experienced as the ability to see
> sounds as sight, as colors? The sound made by the letter "K" for
> instance, is something he said he experienced as the color of
> huckleberry. What an extraordinary, colorful spectacle his own words on
> the page must have been to him. If only we could reproduce it as he saw
> it.
> (By the way, one of the reasons I had reservations
>   about the publication of Laura was
> that I worried people would review it as a finished book when in fact it
> was an early draft. What I didn't expect was that people who claimed to
> share these concerns went ahead and reviewed it as though it were a
> finished book, gleefully heaping scorn on Nabokov's less well-turned
> phrases.)
> 
> But even for those of us who don't have synesthesia, the pa

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coulsong2001"  wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> ...
> 
> > I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look 
> > and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a 
> > regular human being - but the question of whether 
> > there IS such a thing as "being Barry" is a fact about 
> > the world (either true or false) regardless of whether 
> > or not anyone can possibly tell.
> 
> This is often referred to as the 'zombie' problem. I've just read a book by 
> Susan Blackmore called 'Conversations on Consciousness' (just google it) in 
> which Blackmore interviews a whole bunch of top consciousness researchers. 
> She asks all of them if they think zombies could exist - i.e. she asks if 
> there were a robot that could behave indistinguishably from a person do they 
> think the robot would necessarily be conscious, or would there be "nothing 
> that it was like to be it".
> 
> The interviewees give a fascinating range of answers to this question (+ 
> other ones). I'd strongly recommend the book.
> 
> Geoff
>

Sounds good Geoff. 

Am currently reading her "10 Zen Questions". Brilliant in
some ways. 

OTH I can't quite *get* some of the ways she sees some
things.

Early on she discusses trying to ask yourself the question 
"Am I conscious now?". When you ask yourself that question,
she says, it feels as though you just suddenly "wake up".

Mmm... is that right? 

Seems to me you're lost in something (e.g. typing a post),
then you ask her magic question, and... 

You're just focussed on something else! 

(The crazy coot describes how she has all sorts of
post-it notes with the magic question stuck everywhere
- on her fridge, in the car, whatever).

"Am I conscious now?"

"Am I conscious now?"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution

[seekliberation]

I remember seeing a lot of this online when I became interested in Ravi Shankar 
after reading about a lot of his work worldwide.   I remember being somewhat 
excited about it, and I remember it didn't last for very long.  I haven't seen 
any continuance of it in the really heavily war-torn provinces.  If he would've 
remained there much longer than he did, he would have become a target 
eventually, especially for being associated with groups that advocate women's 
rights.  Remember the assassination of Bhutto in Pakistan?  In tribal run areas 
where people advocate peace or women's rights, the extremist factions become 
infuriated.  It's very similar to ignorant rednecks in America who are either 
racist or male chauvinists.   The only difference is that we are about 50-60 
years ahead of them in evolving past some of their behaviors. 
  
Another thing to consider is that he was only in areas that were currently 
under control and had ample security.  He would've never made it into the 
Helmand or Farah Province of Afghanistan; it would've been too risky.  
Moreover, Ravi Shankar understands the need for military forces in these 
countries, as indicated in the quote below:

Interacting with the media here, Sri Ravi Shankar said: "India believes that 
international forces have played a major role in Afghanistan and they need to 
continue to play a major role.  And I hope countries, including the US should 
stay in Afghanistan to bring about a balance."  

This is part of the reason i've always preferred Ravi's point of view.  Not 
because it justifies my own, but more so because it is balanced.  He 
understands peace must be brought to these areas, but at least acknowledges 
that in the beginning stages there will be a formidable resistance that has to 
be dealt with.  Although he praises Islam as a whole, he will still make 
occasional remarks of how many of these terrorists are misguided.  

But his point of view is unlike many people who believe we can just send 
doctors, teachers and other healers without any risk or serious threat.  They 
often think they can just walk into these villages without someone disliking 
them to a point of serious mistreatmentor much worse.  At least Sri Ravi is 
a bit of a realist in the midst of his idealism.  

The good thing is that there are provinces in Afghanistan that are becoming 
much safer, mostly in the northeast though.  But in the south, and southwest 
civilians are still being killed by Taliban.  If they are seen seeking medical 
care by American military doctors they can be executed.  I've heard from 
someone overseas now that they tried to blame civilian casualties on American 
aircraft bombings somewhere out west, problem is they were killed by Chinese 
grenades, which no NATO forces carry at all.  They will kill civilians to make 
it look like us.  It's often times their best chance of victory.  I also 
remember a village about 30-40 miles from where I was based that a 15 year old 
boy was hung to death for carrying American currency.  These are not safe 
places for anyone who is not Islamic, or anyone not living in accordance with 
the warlord faction's guidelines.  

seekliberation

> 
> ""Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's organization started an operation in Iraq
>   in 2003, aimed at relieving the
> war-ravaged Iraqi population of stress.[12]
>  [13]
>   A
> Program was implemented in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006 teaching to war
> victims, UN and ngo personnel. In 2007, Sri Sri visited Iraq at the
> invitation of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, and also met with Sunni,
> Shia, and Kurdish leaders.[14]
>  [15]
>   He
> visited Pakistan in 2004 and met with some political and religious
> leaders there as a part of his efforts to promote global peace.[16]
>   ""
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3393327.stm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OffWorld
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The leader Republicans have been waiting for

[Mike Dixon]

So, does this mean that Chris Mathews thinks of a Taliban Madrasa as a 
*friendly camp*?



From: WillyTex 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 10:13:06 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The leader Republicans have been waiting for

  
> > The leader Democrats have been 
> > waiting for...
> > 
Mike Dixon wrote:
> Minnisotans would vote for him...
> 
"MSNBC reached a new shameful low tonight 
when Chris Matthews referred to West Point 
as an "enemy camp"..." 

Posted by Kathryn Jean Lopez
The Corner, December 1, 2009
http://tinyurl. com/ykaatuo

Howard Dean Declares Debate Between 
Capitalism and Socialism to Be Over:
http://tinyurl. com/yzcggwt





  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[coulsong2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
...

> I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look 
> and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a 
> regular human being - but the question of whether 
> there IS such a thing as "being Barry" is a fact about 
> the world (either true or false) regardless of whether 
> or not anyone can possibly tell.

This is often referred to as the 'zombie' problem. I've just read a book by 
Susan Blackmore called 'Conversations on Consciousness' (just google it) in 
which Blackmore interviews a whole bunch of top consciousness researchers. She 
asks all of them if they think zombies could exist - i.e. she asks if there 
were a robot that could behave indistinguishably from a person do they think 
the robot would necessarily be conscious, or would there be "nothing that it 
was like to be it".

The interviewees give a fascinating range of answers to this question (+ other 
ones). I'd strongly recommend the book.

Geoff

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
>  wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > There's a certain kind of mystery—unsolved and 
> > probably insoluble—that has a seductive 
> > attraction for me. 
> [/snip]
> 
> Yes, very interesting article. Thanks.

And thank you for following it up with a "post about
ideas." I think that the author would like that.
 
> "Mysterian" - I like that. 
> 
> - "What are you?"
> 
> - "Advaitan Tibetan Triple-Buddhist Yogi with well-
> developed lower absortions. You?"
> 
> - "Me? Oh I am a mysterian".
> 
> Yes - that'll do nicely!

Absolutely. I think I'll start using it in exactly
those situations. It really captures things better
than "Anarcho-Tantric Buddhist," which I've used to
fill in the "Religion" blank on another forum. :-)

Plus, it suggest things that the other description
does not. Hearing "Anarcho-Tantric Buddhist," one
might be led to think that I *believe* in either
anarchy, tantrism, or Buddhism. I do not. I *like*
aspects of each of these things, and find much of 
value in them. But the bottom line is that pretty
much the only thing I really believe in the essential
Mystery of it all.

> The problem of consciousness is sooo difficult 
> to think about. Like lighting a match in the dark
> to "see" the dark...
> 
> The article refers to the philosopher Nagel. Nagel I 
> think gets it down clearly for me in his piece "What 
> Is It Like To Be A Bat".
> 
> http://www.jstor.org/pss/2183914
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel
> 
> It goes something like this as I recall (but best to 
> read the original!):
> 
> Consider these two propositions:
> 
> 1) There is such a thing as a bat (true)
> 2) There is such a thing as "being a bat" (true?)
> 
> Quite simple if put that way. Belief in the truth
> of(2) is belief in consciousness. Hard core
> scientific materialism is in great difficulty
> over (2) - unless, as some would argue, all
> statements such as (2) are in fact false.

Absolutely fascinating analysis. I *love* it,
because it gets down to essentials, to the things
that we assume as givens. Most people would assume
(2) to be true such that they would never question
its truth. But is it? 

> I don't think there IS such a thing as "being my 
> computer" (and never will be I suspect). 

If there is, mine must be quite bored with me by now. :-)

> I DO think there is such a thing as "being Barry" 

I'm leaning in that direction myself.

> ...although I can't possibly claim certainty for that 
> belief. Maybe I CAN claim certainty for "there is such 
> a thing as "being Me" - a bit of Descartes' "Cogito" 
> there...

Or at the very least the *perception* that there
is such a thing as 'being You.'

> I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look 
> and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a 
> regular human being - 

Some here would disagree even with that. :-)

> ...but the question of whether 
> there IS such a thing as "being Barry" is a fact about 
> the world (either true or false) regardless of whether 
> or not anyone can possibly tell.

And yet so much of spiritual and religious belief
is based on the idea that one can not only "possibly 
tell," but be *certain* about such things. Just today
we've had a post suggesting that the question of 
consciousness can be resolved by simply having the
right subjective experiences. I think that if pressed,
you would find many on this forum who would admit to
believing that they consider that which they exper-
ience subjectively to be "true."

But is it? Or is it merely Just Another Subjective
Experience? Could the experience of enlightenment -- 
and one's view of what constitutes reality and Truth 
from the *standpoint* of enlightenment -- be Just
Another Subjective Experience?

Much of spiritual practice and religion is predicated
on a "No" answer to those last two questions above. They
envision the world as a series of hierarchical truths,
the highest of which is enlightenment. Anything per-
ceived from that level *must*, in their view, be 
equivalent to Truth. 

I don't believe this. I think that the view from 
enlightenment is Just Another Subjective Experience.
And I'll continue thinking this even if someone 
enlightened claims to know for sure that there is
such a thing as "being Barry."  :-)  :-)  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"
 wrote:
>
> there is a minor problem with getting meditators in the middle
east.the possibility that they would be killed by muslims that are
aware someone is practicing something other than Islam. You can say
science this, science that, but it came from an eastern Indian. Anything
coming from a predominantly Hindu country justifies the most horrifying
and brutal killings in their mind.
>
> Deepak Chopra said something similar, that Afghanistand doesnt need
soldiers, they need doctors and teachers. I so badly wanted to offer him
a personal flight to Kandahar and buy him a vehicle and let him drive
himself up and down the only highway in the country and see how long an
eastern Indian doctor/teacher lives in that country.
>
> seekliberation


Hm

""Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's organization started an operation in Iraq
  in 2003, aimed at relieving the
war-ravaged Iraqi population of stress.[12]
 [13]
  A
Program was implemented in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006 teaching to war
victims, UN and ngo personnel. In 2007, Sri Sri visited Iraq at the
invitation of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, and also met with Sunni,
Shia, and Kurdish leaders.[14]
 [15]
  He
visited Pakistan in 2004 and met with some political and religious
leaders there as a part of his efforts to promote global peace.[16]
  ""

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


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3393327.stm




OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
 wrote:

[snip]
> There's a certain kind of mystery—unsolved and 
> probably insoluble—that has a seductive 
> attraction for me. 
[/snip]

Yes, very interesting article. Thanks.

"Mysterian" - I like that. 

- "What are you?"

- "Advaitan Tibetan Triple-Buddhist Yogi with well-
developed lower absortions. You?"

- "Me? Oh I am a mysterian".

Yes - that'll do nicely!

The problem of consciousness is sooo difficult 
to think about. Like lighting a match in the dark
to "see" the dark...

The article refers to the philosopher Nagel. Nagel I 
think gets it down clearly for me in his piece "What 
Is It Like To Be A Bat".

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2183914

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

It goes something like this as I recall (but best to 
read the original!):

Consider these two propositions:

1) There is such a thing as a bat (true)
2) There is such a thing as "being a bat" (true?)

Quite simple if put that way. Belief in the truth
of(2) is belief in consciousness. Hard core
scientific materialism is in great difficulty
over (2) - unless, as some would argue, all
statements such as (2) are in fact false.

I don't think there IS such a thing as "being my 
computer" (and never will be I suspect). 

I DO think there is such a thing as "being Barry" 
although I can't possibly claim certainty for that 
belief. Maybe I CAN claim certainty for "there is such 
a thing as "being Me" - a bit of Descartes' "Cogito" 
there...

I don't think the Turing test helps. Barry may look 
and act in a way that is indistinguishable from a 
regular human being - but the question of whether 
there IS such a thing as "being Barry" is a fact about 
the world (either true or false) regardless of whether 
or not anyone can possibly tell.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Maharishi's Message II'...

[WillyTex]

> > I don't know why yifuxero or you think 
> > transcending is cultish, but I do believe 
> > that that sort of labeling is hateful.
> >
TurquoiseB wrote: 
> I don't think transcending (achieving samadhi, 
> even briefly) is cultish, or dangerous. I 
> just don't think that practitioners of TM do 
> much of it. 
>
Don't you just hate those TMers.

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds 
discuss events. Small minds discuss people." 
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

> I'm a member of many different spiritual 
> forums...
>
Go git em' Uncle Tantra! LOL!

"i tell god, either kill me now
or give me a break. this middle
of the road horseshit may have
worked for buddha thousands
of years ago but to me its just
tedium felicity ad nauseum ad
infinitum..."

Read more: 

From: ^...@%>---*=#**
Subject: Re: The Buddha Speaks
Newsgroups: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
Date: November 28, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/yha9s7k

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[WillyTex]

TurquoiseB wrote
> That's the True Believer phenomenon in 
> a nutshell...
> 
Don't you just hate those 'True Believers'.

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds 
discuss events. Small minds discuss people." 
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

> A long but well-written essay from Slate 
> that ponders some of the same ideas I've 
> been trying to bring up *as* ideas here
> lately. So many on this forum assume that 
> certain questions have been "answered," 
> at least to their satisfaction. I join 
> the author in suggesting that says more 
> about their low standards than it does 
> the accuracy of their imagined "answers." 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution

[Vaj]

On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:37 PM, yifuxero wrote:


> Peace in the Middle East is easily within our
> grasp, as indicated by a new scientific paper
> recently published in the "Journal of Scientific
> Exploration."
>

Bogus science. Flying smart bombs would be more effective.



Hilarious journal publication though. The Journal of Scientific  
Exploration is a pseudoscience journal:


"...the JSE was initially established to provide a forum for three  
main fields that had largely been neglected by mainstream science:  
ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology. They have also published  
research articles, essays and book reviews on many topics, including  
the philosophy of science; pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact;  
astrology, alternative medicine; the process of peer review for  
controversial topics; astrology; consciousness; reincarnation,  
minority opinion scientific theories; and paranormal phenomena."


The current issue has papers on the Loch Ness monster and several UFO  
papers. It's always a hoot to look at when you need a good laugh. And  
of course MUM "researchers" publish there now. It looks like they've  
finally found their niche in the scientific community!


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> >.By Ron Rosenbaum on Slate.com
> > 
> > "There's a certain kind of mystery—unsolved and probably
> > insoluble—that has a seductive attraction for me. I think the
> > insolubility is the attraction. 
> > I'm particularly troubled by metaphysical mysteries, the 
> > essential but oh-so-slippery mysteries of existence. Why is 
> > there something rather than nothing? What is the origin and 
> > nature of consciousness? What distinguishes living from 
> > nonliving being?
> > 
> > I can't get past the idea that they may never be solved. And 
> > what's most irritating is when people seem unaware they have 
> > not been solved. Or when people who should know better proclaim 
> > there are no real mysteries left. Consider, for instance, the 
> > problem of the origin and nature of consciousness. "
> 
> Oh son, more than another idea you just need deeper 
> experience for a better perspective. 

Doug, I'm going to respond to this because even
though you *might* have been parodying the TM TB
Party Line by saying this, you also *might* have
been either serious or partly serious. It's hard
to tell with you. 

Why I'm replying is that you did in your reply 
*exactly* what I've been talking about -- you took
a discussion about *ideas* and reduced it to a
discussion about *people*. In Eleanor Roosevelt's
terms, you took it from a discussion among great
minds and tried to transform it into a discussion
among small minds.

First you portrayed the author's position as due 
to a lack of experience that, coincidentally, you 
and others who believe like you have had. At the 
same time you demeaned him by calling him "son," 
and then by saying outright that your position 
(the one you suggest he should adopt) is both 
"better" and "deeper."

> Is way more than speculation.  

No, it's really not. You are speculating based on
1) your subjective experience, and 2) what you 
have been told that subjective experience "means."
Neither is anything *more* than speculation.

> Do you meditate? Have you had your meditation checked 
> recently?  Sat with a Sat-guru any time?  

More demeaning. If he *hasn't* done these things,
he's obviously lesser than you are.

> May be go ask the knows-it-alls over on the experiential 
> list, buddha at the gas pump. They are a friendly bunch 
> and from some lay experience might help you towards the 
> experience you seek.  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/s

Yeah, just do what we who are far more advanced
and knowledgeable than you are tell you to do, and
someday you will understand The Truth about conscious-
ness the way we do.

Doug, again it's difficult to tell whether you really
believe this elitist crap you spout from time to time
or are parodying it. Either way, someone needs to point
out that it *is* elitist crap.

No matter how much you'd like to believe it, your sub-
jective experience of something does *not* make it true,
let alone Truth. It's just a subjective experience. And
when you have spent decades being indoctrinated with
dogma telling you what such subjective experiences 
"mean," it's even less true. 

Dogma -- even dogma that seems to "explain" subjective
experiences you've had -- doth NOT equal Truth. Never
has, never will. 

At best believing that it does is a pleasant mind-number,
something to keep you from pondering the great questions
of life because you've convinced yourself that you 
already know "the answer" to them. At worst it's blind
adherence to dogma, made even worse by the fact that 
those spouting dogma often don't even *know* that they 
are spouting -- and clinging to -- dogma. 

You're smart enough to know, and to handle being told
if you don't. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution

[seekliberation]

> I'm afraid world peace shall never be achieved, because many
> of the richest and most powerful people on Earth may "hate" 
> it, like "Big(gish) Pharma" would hate some methods to cure people
> without pills... :(
>

I agree that world peace may never be achieved, but not necessarily due to rich 
or powerful people.  That is almost like saying poor and underprivelaged 
individuals are in a perfectly peaceful state of mind.  I grew up in a poor 
neighborhood and lived in poor areas most of my life until about 5 years ago.  
I do not see any more peacefulness in the hearts of poor or powerless people 
than I do in their opposite (Fairfield, some countries in Europe, and a few 
other countries are obvious exceptions).  Many people would create the same 
problems, if not more if they were in a powerful position.  

One Hindu priest explained that this world is a place where younger souls 
incarnate until they mature as a soul and move on to bigger and better places.  
The only way to have true heaven on earth is to deny this world to the younger 
souls.  Kind of like a 3rd grade classroom.  The only way to have perfect 
orderliness is to kick out all the trouble makers, and that presents a serious 
problem because then the ignorant people remain ignorant.  

seekliberation

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution

[seekliberation]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> wrote:
> >
> > there is a minor problem with getting meditators in the 
> > middle east.the possibility that they would be killed 
> > by muslims that are aware someone is practicing something 
> > other than Islam.  
> 
> Heresy. Don't you read the TM dogma? 
> 
> They would be "invincible." Nothing bad could possibly 
> happen to them. 
> 
> That, after all, is how the TMO presents the benefits
> of butt-bouncing to countries that it's trying to get
> to pay big bucks to sponsor mass butt-bouncing. Should
> not the TMO prove that it *believes* the stuff about
> "invincibility" it preaches and *sells* by sending 
> its own invincible "troops" into the heart of conflicts?


You know, you and I don't always see things the same way, but this time you've 
really brought me back down to earth.  I can't believe how stupid I was to 
forget the 'invincible' principle.  Thanks, now my head is back on right. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[dhamiltony2k5]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
>.By Ron Rosenbaum on Slate.com
> 
> "There's a certain kind of mystery—unsolved and probably
> insoluble—that has a seductive attraction for me. I think the
> insolubility is the attraction. 
> I'm particularly troubled by metaphysical mysteries, the essential but
> oh-so-slippery mysteries of existence. Why is there something rather
> than nothing? What is the origin and nature of consciousness? What
> distinguishes living from nonliving being?
> 
> I can't get past the idea that they may never be solved. And what's most
> irritating is when people seem unaware they have not been solved. Or
> when people who should know better proclaim there are no real mysteries
> left. Consider, for instance, the problem of the origin and nature of
> consciousness. "


Oh son, more than another idea you just need deeper experience for a better 
perspective. Is way more than speculation.  Do you meditate?  Have you had your 
meditation checked recently?  Sat with a Sat-guru any time?  May be go ask the 
knows-it-alls over on the experiential list, buddha at the gas pump. They are a 
friendly bunch and from some lay experience might help you towards the 
experience you seek.  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/s

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soldiers On Acid (video)

[Premanand]

For some reason the link didn't link, but this one might do better:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX7m4fqTLKU
Classic footage of 'the way we were'. I wonder if they followed up the 
experiment and charted the behaviour of these soldiers over a longer period?




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> This is really an interesting film, because of what it
> reveals about the mindset of the people who commissioned
> it. It's a 1963 film of an experiment the British conducted 
> on its own troops, feeding them LSD and then sending them 
> into combat exercises and filming the results. 
> 
> The troops wind up laughing and becoming incapable of even
> mock-killing other human beings, almost as if they realized
> that such behavior was insane. The makers of the film are 
> concerned about this, because they consider war and the 
> killing of other people not only sane, but admirable. 
> 
> Clearly, the people they should have fed the acid to was
> not the troops who fight the wars, but the politicians who 
> start them.
> 
> Link to the article:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/soldiers-on-acid-1963-bri_n_377579.html
> 
> Direct link to the YouTube clip:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptc5RHbJRvs=
>

[FairfieldLife] The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness

[TurquoiseB]

A long but well-written essay from Slate that ponders some
of the same ideas I've been trying to bring up *as* ideas here
lately. So many on this forum assume that certain questions
have been "answered," at least to their satisfaction. I join the
author in suggesting that says more about their low standards
than it does the accuracy of their imagined "answers." My
favorite quote from the essay is, "When I say the mystery of
consciousness is a dangerous one, what I mean is that nobody
wants to admit they don't have things All Figured Out, and it's
particularly destabilizing not figuring yourself out." That's the
True Believer phenomenon in a nutshell.
The Dangerous Mysteries of Consciousness
We still need answers.By Ron Rosenbaum on Slate.com

There's a certain kind of mystery—unsolved and probably
insoluble—that has a seductive attraction for me. I think the
insolubility is the attraction. Historical and literary mysteries: What
was the origin of Hitler's hatred? Did Shakespeare revise Hamlet? And
I'm particularly troubled by metaphysical mysteries, the essential but
oh-so-slippery mysteries of existence. Why is there something rather
than nothing? What is the origin and nature of consciousness? What
distinguishes living from nonliving being?

I can't get past the idea that they may never be solved. And what's most
irritating is when people seem unaware they have not been solved. Or
when people who should know better proclaim there are no real mysteries
left. Consider, for instance, the problem of the origin and nature of
consciousness. The failure to solve it without resorting to religion or
quasi-religious "intelligent design"—which offers no real resolution
since it doesn't explain what created the consciousness behind the
intelligence of intelligent design—strikes many observers as
dangerous. Dangerous because it threatens the foundation of scientific
rationalism and materialism. Dangerous because it disrupts one's sense
of any order in the universe and opens the floodgates of chaos.
"Consciousness is the only thing in the world and the greatest mystery."
This was Martin Amis at recent prepublication celebration of Nabokov's
The Original of Laura
 , at the
92nd Street Y, paraphrasing Nabokov, whose ability to evoke the tenor
and texture of consciousness may be one of his most distinctive talents
as a writer. Did it come from the fact that Nabokov was gifted with
"synesthesia  "—itself a
mystery of consciousness—which he experienced as the ability to see
sounds as sight, as colors? The sound made by the letter "K" for
instance, is something he said he experienced as the color of
huckleberry. What an extraordinary, colorful spectacle his own words on
the page must have been to him. If only we could reproduce it as he saw
it.
(By the way, one of the reasons I had reservations
  about the publication of Laura was
that I worried people would review it as a finished book when in fact it
was an early draft. What I didn't expect was that people who claimed to
share these concerns went ahead and reviewed it as though it were a
finished book, gleefully heaping scorn on Nabokov's less well-turned
phrases.)

But even for those of us who don't have synesthesia, the pageant, the
palette of consciousness is one of life's great unsolved mysteries. I
was reminded of the vexing mystery of consciousness a few days before
the Nabokov event when I found a link on the valuable Bookforum blog to
an essay in the Philosophers' Magazine by Raymond Tallis, a philosopher
whose regular critiques of Postmodernism and its metaphysics (especially
those of Foucault) I'd admired for some years in the London Times
Literary Supplement.

Here, in an essay titled "The Unnatural Selection of Consciousness
 ," Tallis took on what he
regards as the overconfident assumptions of some evolutionists, who
argue that the problem of the evolution of consciousness will be solved
the same way the problems of the evolution of the Panda's thumb or the
beak of the finch had been.

Neither Tallis, an atheist, nor I, an agnostic, are anti-evolutionists.
I hope science will one day offer an explanation for the emergence of
awareness from unconscious matter. I'd like to know how consciousness is
preserved, coded, and expressed by the genes, and whether we should then
start worrying that consciousness is genetically determined, which
therefore implies the impossibility of free will. Not to mention the
answer to even more fundamental questions about consciousness, or more
accurately awareness: What is it? That is, is it made up of the same
elementary particles, the quarks that make up the rest of the universe?
If not, what sort of material is it? Where does it exist? If it exists
in the mind, is the mind contained

[FairfieldLife] Small Minds (was Re: Tiger!)

[TurquoiseB]

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss 
> > events. Small minds discuss people." 
> > -- Eleanor Roosevelt
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ninepercent_bf"  
wrote:
>
> Although I'm not new to the forum and haven't posted 
> much, I must say, personally, I find that quote 
> appropriate. But, I may be a minority...and that's 
> ok with me too;-P

I find it quite appropriate, too. That's why I 
posted it.

If one were to read the blurb on the home page
of Fairfield Life, one would get the idea that
this was a forum on which people discussed *ideas*.

The reality is that it is a forum on which people 
discuss other people, primarily using ad hominem 
arguments to demonize and "discredit" them *for*
discussing ideas that they don't like.

Interestingly, when a subject comes up that *does*
involve discussion of ideas, the first reaction 
of certain people on this forum is to derail and
stifle it by *turning it into* ad hominem and 
demonization and -- again -- discussing people.

I think Eleanor Roosevelt nailed it. That is why 
these days I avoid discussions with the small minds 
(and, in fact, even bothering to read them) and try
to hold out for the occasional discussion of ideas. 
They are sadly few and far between. I hope you 
contribute to a few of them in the future.

[FairfieldLife] Soldiers On Acid (video)

[TurquoiseB]

This is really an interesting film, because of what it
reveals about the mindset of the people who commissioned
it. It's a 1963 film of an experiment the British conducted 
on its own troops, feeding them LSD and then sending them 
into combat exercises and filming the results. 

The troops wind up laughing and becoming incapable of even
mock-killing other human beings, almost as if they realized
that such behavior was insane. The makers of the film are 
concerned about this, because they consider war and the 
killing of other people not only sane, but admirable. 

Clearly, the people they should have fed the acid to was
not the troops who fight the wars, but the politicians who 
start them.

Link to the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/soldiers-on-acid-1963-bri_n_377579.html

Direct link to the YouTube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptc5RHbJRvs=

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays  wrote:
>
> The following article summarizes findings of the 
> TM-Sidhi Program's beneficial societal influence 
> from 50 studies.  The article also describes new 
> findings that this peace-giving influence is two 
> to five times as powerful as conventional 
> military and political factors.  Very encouraging!
> Jai Guru Dev.
> 
> 

I'm afraid world peace shall never be achieved, because many
of the richest and most powerful people on Earth may "hate" 
it, like "Big(gish) Pharma" would hate some methods to cure people
without pills... :(

[FairfieldLife] Small Minds (was Re: Tiger!)

[ninepercent_bf]

Although I'm not new to the forum and haven't posted much, I must say, 
personally, I find that quote appropriate.  But, I may be a minority...and 
that's ok with me too;-P

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > WillyTex wrote:
> > > So, Tiger's wife, Elin, got very upset 
> > > with him when she found out that he was 
> > > secretly seeing another woman. Tiger got 
> > > all hopped up on pain pills and started 
> > > blabbing... [blah, blah, blah]
> > 
> > Don't you just hate these golfing celebrities?
> > 
> > Don't you just hate that when I though we were going to 
> > get through the week without a Tiger Woods thread you 
> > start one?
> 
> "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss 
> events. Small minds discuss people." 
> -- Eleanor Roosevelt
>

[FairfieldLife] Pathlights, a short film by Zachary Sluser

[nablusoss1008]

http://dlf.tv/2009/pathlights/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Peace in the Middle East: Scientific solution

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
wrote:
>
> there is a minor problem with getting meditators in the 
> middle east.the possibility that they would be killed 
> by muslims that are aware someone is practicing something 
> other than Islam.  

Heresy. Don't you read the TM dogma? 

They would be "invincible." Nothing bad could possibly 
happen to them. 

That, after all, is how the TMO presents the benefits
of butt-bouncing to countries that it's trying to get
to pay big bucks to sponsor mass butt-bouncing. Should
not the TMO prove that it *believes* the stuff about
"invincibility" it preaches and *sells* by sending 
its own invincible "troops" into the heart of conflicts?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ebineezer Scrooge

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nelson"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of "simple stories," how's this one:
> > The universe simply exists, 
> snip,,
>Why?

Why not?  :-)

More seriously, by even asking such a question
you are anthropomorphizing the universe, project-
ing onto it a "reason" for its existence. No such 
reason may exist, no more than it does for the 
existence of a rock, or your own existence.

Humans would *like* there to be a reason, a "Why"
that makes them feel better about things. To
ponder and search for such a reason seems to be
human nature. But that doesn't mean that such a
reason exists.

I am merely stating that I am as comfortable with
a universe that has NO reason or "Why" for its
existence as I am with one that has such a reason.
That *frees* me to invent my *own* reasons for
living the way I feel is best. That seems a more
intelligent way to live my life than to just accept
what someone else tells me is the "Why" of it all.
YMMV.