[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis"  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > By the way, an albatross is not a good choice of imagery, as albatrosses do 
> > not have the means to pull a trigger. This is basic avian physiology.
>  
> > This (above) is a great image for me; I keep seeing a web-footed albatross 
> > vainly fumbling with a firearm.
> 
> OK. I will buy this, very few people really want to shoot themselves in the 
> foot however, unless they are truly nuts.
>

Nuts, exactly. That's the point. Take your pick, a web-footed albatross or a 
dodo, armed to the beak, clumsily waddling through the weeds of unintended 
irony, and then KaaBOOOM! the crazy bastard slips in his own bullshit and shoot 
himself in the foot:

Albatross: A metaphor for a burden that feels like a curse, an allusion to 
"Rime of the Ancient Mariner:"

Ah ! well a-day ! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung. 

Or "Dead as a Dodo."

Or "The Dodo Bird Verdict:"

"In Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865), at a certain point 
a number of characters become wet. In order to dry themselves, the Dodo decided 
to issue a competition. Everyone was to run around the lake until they were 
dry. Nobody cared to measure how far each person had run, nor how long. When 
they asked the Dodo who had won, he thought long and hard and then said 
"Everybody has won and all must have prizes." 

Barry's Dodo Bird Verdict:
"You know what I would like to have seen? Robin arriving here incognito, 
introducing himself only as a former TMer now living in Canada and working as a 
substitute teacher. No past history at all...just another voice in the choir. 
And then talking about his various theories and spiritual beliefs, but as Just 
Another Poster. No past to either rely on or defend, no authority or stigma 
projected onto him, only his ideas, thrown out among other ideas, all of them 
equally unauthoritative."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/303431

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Maybe he meant deliberate in that I posted Wallace Stevens purposefully and 
> purposely, and I did :)  Thank you Anne for noticing and making the 
> connection.  
> 

Or maybe:
In Vaj's imagination, it's his not so veiled attempt to imply Robin's 
manipulative intent to *brainwash* his followers. IMO, of course. Very kind of 
you to give him an out, Emily. Me...not so kind.
 
> 
>  From: awoelflebater 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 3:23 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies
>  
> 
>   
> What do you mean "deliberate" and deliberate by who? And for what purpose? 
> Pleeeaase, enlighten me!!
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:15 PM, awoelflebater wrote:
> > 
> > > Very interesting that you picked a poem by Wallace Stevens. He was, 
> > > previously at least, one of Robin's absolute favorite poets. He read is 
> > > poetry to us all the time.
> > 
> > 
> > I know, I had to wonder if that was deliberate?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
>
> I had exactly the same response to Robin's posts as Barry did.  Right from 
> the first few posts, I felt as if his words were manipulating or mesmerizing 
> me.  Not that Robin was doing this intentionally.  I think he writes and 
> speaks (and thinks) this way by habit.  But it made me very uneasy - internal 
> alarms went off. In doing this, he seems to have some odd power, probably 
> much more so if you hear him speak like this.  On the page, you can reread 
> his words and take your time and notice the places his words grab at you. His 
> brilliance and ideas and sudden shifts from one train of thought to another 
> can be exciting for about 5 long seconds. Then I felt "used" and wary.  It 
> was tons of words, clever turn arounds, lots of arcane info all leading 
> to..not much, at least for me.
> 

Susan, Robin's words were, as you say, mesmerizing, brilliant and exciting. For 
me it was an an invitation to witness his journey to heal his past. His 
vulnerability, and willingness to bare his soul was as brave as anyone I've 
ever read on FFLife. Robin is a mystery, an interesting puzzle with many 
complex pieces I've yet to figure out.  Never once did I feel manipulated, or 
used. I'll leave that for those less tethered to reality. 

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I like to hear how others perceive Robin.
> > 
> > Because I have some time today, and because you seem to have a fairly
> > balanced view of him and seem honestly curious, I'll overcome my own
> > lack of interest in the guy and follow up on you being interested in how
> > others perceive(d) him.
> > 
> > He *started* (in his first post to FFL) by justifying MUM's decision to
> > ban people from the domes who had "seen saints." Not a good start, and
> > one that he later followed up on by similarly defending the Inquisition.
> > That first post was almost 700 words long; his second, to Curtis, was
> > over 2000 words long. I knew already, by the second post, given both the
> > uncontrollably long posts and his basically incoherent use of language,
> > that what I was dealing with was a Narcissistic Blowhard of the Third
> > Kind. :-)
> > 
> > I was not alone in this perception. Within a couple of days seventhray1
> > was saying that he lost interest in Robin's posts after 2 or 3
> > paragraphs; I was surprised that he lasted that long. :-) For me Robin's
> > writing was among the worst instances of narcissistic,
> > I-don't-care-about-the-reader-only-about-what-I-want-to-say writing I'd
> > ever encountered.
> > 
> > And almost completely self-serving writing, too. Within a couple of days
> > he was defending the validity of his "enlightenment" to Rick, while
> > claiming it was illusory to other people. Why oh why couldn't the guy
> > just have said, "I was delusional back then?" As far as I can tell, he
> > was. Clinging to the delusion emotionally while trying to distance
> > himself from it intellectually just didn't float my boat. It sounded too
> > much like every other "faux enlightened" person I'd ever encountered,
> > all of whom turned out to have much more  Narcissistic Personality
> > Disorder in their psyches than they did enlightenment.
> > 
> > I don't think I bothered to say this until I made a post in which I made
> > it clear that I was simply not interested in Robin's subjective
> > experiences, either in the past or in the future. He reacted then as he
> > did consistently in our few subsequent interactions -- he played the
> > Drama Queen card and tried to get me to either feel sorry for having
> > wronged him or argue with him, or both. He either really was or
> > pretended to be hurt by my "attack," and tried to suck me into the same
> > kind of long, convoluted, "I'm going to keep you arguing with me until
> > you agree with me" back-and-forths he was already having with Curtis. I
> > was no more interested in this than I was in him, and suspect that I
> > said so. I just don't DO Drama Queens. :-)
> > 
> > The bottom lines of the "FFL Robin Experience" for me were 1) bad
> > writing on his part, 2) consistent use of emotional blackmail and
> > manipulation on his part, 3) attempts to start or prolong arguments with
> > anyone who didn't buy his "I am Robin, thus I am interesting" act, 4)
> > constant appeals to someone else (either MMY or Aquinus) as an expert or
> > an authority, while never seeming to come up with any ideas of his own,
> > 5) attempts to butter up others and/or fall for them doing it to him,
> > and 6) attempts to form or join cliques and take advantage of such
> > cliques' character assassination memes to align himself with people who
> > he felt "supported him" against his perceived "enemies."
> > 
> > All in all, not a person I was the least bit interested in. My
> > experiences along the spiritual path have allowe

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Judy, I have to admire you, you came out of the gate like a racehorse.
> 

http://youtu.be/-mMRY2N6s2I

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the factual
> > misrepresentations in this post are deliberate. I think
> > they're a combination of poor memory, the inability to
> > fathom anything but superficial ideas, and, most of all,
> > the failure to read any more than the first few lines
> > of Robin's posts.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > He *started* (in his first post to FFL) by justifying
> > > MUM's decision to ban people from the domes who had
> > > "seen saints."
> > 
> > No, he did no such thing. Barry read only the first
> > few lines of this post and missed the whole point.
> > Robin said he could understand why the TMO authorities
> > had a no-saints policy, opining it was because TM had
> > had such disappointing results that TMers no longer
> > saw it as the be-all and end-all. IOW, if TM had
> > fulfilled its promise, no TMer would be tempted to see
> > saints and thus no such ruling would be necessary.
> > Seeing saints has become anathema to the powers-that-
> > be because they're trying to preserve the illusion
> > that saints have nothing to offer that TM can't
> > provide even better, according to Robin.
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/279675
> > 
> > Robin apparently was not aware that MMY himself had
> > instituted the no-saints policy. If he had been,
> > though, his take would most likely have been the same,
> > since he was pretty sure MMY himself had recognized
> > that things hadn't turned out as he had expected.
> > 
> > > Not a good start, and one that he later followed up
> > > on by similarly defending the Inquisition.
> > 
> > In fact, that is not what he did. What he said was
> > that he *could* defend Aquinas's alliance with the
> > Inquisition in terms of the situation back then (but
> > he didn't, so we don't know what he would have said).
> > He did say explicitly that the Inquisition could not 
> > possibly be defended from the modern perspective
> > (referring to it as "violent and pitiless and
> > fanatical").
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/295803
> > 
> > > That first post was almost 700 words long; his second,
> > > to Curtis, was over 2000 words long.
> > 
> > Minor point, but Barry makes this mistake repeatedly: It
> > was over 2000 words long only if you count the quotes
> > from Curtis's post. It was well under 2000 words if you
> > count only what Robin added.
> > 
> > > I knew already, by the second post, given both the
> > > uncontrollably long posts and his basically incoherent
> > > use of language,
> > 
> > Not at all incoherent. Occasionally *convoluted*, but
> > perfectly coherent.
> > 
> > 
> > > And almost completely self-serving writing, too. Within a
> > > couple of days he was defending the validity of his 
> > > "enlightenment" to Rick, while claiming it was illusory
> > > to other people.
> > 
> > He didn't say it was "illusory to other people." Not
> > sure what Barry misread here.
> > 
> >  Why oh why couldn't the guy just have
> > > said, "I was delusional back then?"
> > 
> > He did say this, countless times. He believes
> > enlightenment itself is a delusion and said so in
> > his post to Rick.
> > 
> > > As far as I can tell, he was. Clinging to the delusion 
> > > emotionally while trying to distance himself from it 
> > > intellectually just didn't float my boat.
> > 
> > Gee, that's tough. His point really wasn't *that*
> > difficult to grasp.
> > 
> > > It sounded too much like every other "faux enlightened"
> > > person I'd ever encountered, all of whom turned out to
> > > have much more  Narcissistic Personality Disorder in
> > > their psyches than they did enlightenment.
> > 
> > Robin, of course, put the responsibility for becoming
> > enmeshed in what he considered the delusion of
> > enlightenment squarely on his own shoulders, on his
> > own personal failings.
> > 
> > > I don't think I bothered to say this until I made a post
> > > in which I made it clear that I was simply not interested
> > > in Robin's subjective experiences, either in the past or
> > > in the future.
> > 
> > This entirely gratuitous slam was a comment on Robin's
> > response to Rick referenced above, in which Rick had
> > expressed doubt that Robin had ever been "really"
> > enlightened. In fact, Robin said practically nothing
> > about his subjective experiences in that post, other
> > than that he had had such experiences. Had Barry
> > actually read that post, he might even have found
> > himself in agreement with much of Robin said about the
> > belief in TM-style enlightenment.
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/280379
> > 
> > > He reacted then as he did consistently in our few
> 

[FairfieldLife] Super Bowl commercials

[raunchydog]

They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the game? Watch 
the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials this year. "One 
Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:

1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free baby.
3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl head-butt.
4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary Star War 
characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain irritating.
7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just show his 
dick already. 

http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[raunchydog]

More Super Bowl Commercials

And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl Ad - Adriana 
Lima)

http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the game? 
> Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials this year. 
> "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:
> 
> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free baby.
> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl head-butt.
> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary Star 
> War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain irritating.
> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just show 
> his dick already. 
> 
> http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Imaginary Subtitles

[raunchydog]

http://youtu.be/Lf0lKxpX8Lc

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlsr08A6sns&feature=endscreen
> 
> of course the Duke is in music too  here only interrupted by  a  too
> long speech by Paul McCartney as always.. ok
> let it be [:D]
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
> >
> >
> > As it pass'd me flying by —
> >
> >
> >
> > These two icons are compared quite a bit without given them a proper
> > duel. Well here's how you may decide your layer of onion.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkYHH7oYp4
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wd99TRgYgA&feature=related
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > one layer
> >
> > Clint Eastwood is the better total filmmaker, a well rounded filmmaker
> > who is a great actor, director, and film music composer. Everyone
> knows
> > him to be a good actor, many know him as a great director, but few
> > people realize how great his music compositions to his films are.
> >
> >
> > second layer (or vice versa)
> >
> >   Duke- John Wayne was a great actor no matter how many bad movies he
> was
> > in, and it was a lot. Still the man was a natural in front of the
> camera
> > and had an ease the few other actors have.  Many of the mannerisms he
> > used in his acting, the facial expressions and body language were
> > perfect that few other actors could pull off so naturally.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYNuwxKC02A
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >   Yeah the trouble with opinion-op-onion is if you do not want -
> > challenge -one and you peel one layer off your/his/our op-onion with
> the
> > remaining layer
> >
> > you still  are crying
> >
> > so watch-decide-and-always- weep seems be the only choice
> >
> > until you get rid off the last one
> >
> > no need of subtitle
> >
> >
> >
> > Clint Eastwood vs. John Wayne - interview fragment is from the series
> > "Inside the Actors Studio" in 2003(you should see the whole sequel)
> > Clint Eastwood tells how his characters differ from the ones from John
> > Wayne and Clint even imitates him : )
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ncnL0iejo
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > One of the things that constantly amazes me about FFL -- and, to be
> > > fair, about most other "spiritual" discussion groups as well -- is
> > that
> > > many of the participants seem to be reading a set of imaginary
> > subtitles
> > > to the posts they reply to.
> > >
> > > Judging from their replies, they seem to believe that the posts that
> > > they are responding to have a set of subtitles that say things like
> > > "This is why my ideas on this subject are RIGHT and yours are
> WRONG,"
> > or
> > > "My opinion on this matter is correct and yours is STOOOPID" or "I
> > > 'know' the 'Truth' about this subject and you do not" or "There is
> > > something WRONG with you if you don't believe what I believe."
> > >
> > > I propose this theory because that's what their replies sound like.
> > They
> > > almost MUST be seeing this set of imaginary subtitles, to respond to
> > > simple statements of opinion as they do.
> > >
> > > I don't see the subtitles. I see posters on this and other forums
> > often
> > > merely presenting their opinions on a matter AS OPINION. There is
> > often
> > > NO attempt to suggest the "supremacy" of their opinion, or the
> > > "rightness" of it, let alone the "wrongness" or "stupidity" of
> someone
> > > else's. Yet the respondents react as if such implications were, in
> > fact,
> > > there.
> > >
> > > WHY? Well, I think it's because of identification to one's own self
> or
> > > Ego. Some people are just SO identified with the ideas that go
> through
> > > their heads that they simply *cannot conceive* of there being
> another
> > > way of seeing an issue. These over-identified-with-their-Egos seem
> to
> > > believe that if anyone DOES see an issue differently, they "must" be
> > > "wrong," or there "must" be something "wrong" with them. It's like
> the
> > > subtext of every post they write in angry response to an opinion
> that
> > > differs from theirs is, "You HAVE to be wrong because you're
> > disagreeing
> > > with ME, and I am RIGHT."
> > >
> > > I just don't get this. I don't feel that I am "right" about much of
> > > anything. I just have opinions. I try to present them AS opinions,
> > > liberally sprinkled with a garnish of "IMO's" and other such
> > qualifying
> > > remarks. And yet people react to them often as if I had slapped them
> > > across the face with a glove and challenged them to a duel.
> > >
> > > I haven't. I have merely stated an opinion. Such as, for example, my
> > > opinion that Robin Carlsen is

[FairfieldLife] Re: Imaginary Subtitles

[raunchydog]

http://youtu.be/bIbKYtHu9Xg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> lol
> laughing tears and takes my breath away
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> wrote:
> >
> > http://youtu.be/Lf0lKxpX8Lc
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlsr08A6sns&feature=endscreen
> > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlsr08A6sns&feature=endscreen>
> > > of course the Duke is in music too  here only interrupted by  a  too
> > > long speech by Paul McCartney as always.. ok
> > > let it be [:D]
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As it pass'd me flying by —
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > These two icons are compared quite a bit without given them a
> proper
> > > > duel. Well here's how you may decide your layer of onion.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkYHH7oYp4
> > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkYHH7oYp4>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wd99TRgYgA&feature=related
> > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wd99TRgYgA&feature=related>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > one layer
> > > >
> > > > Clint Eastwood is the better total filmmaker, a well rounded
> filmmaker
> > > > who is a great actor, director, and film music composer. Everyone
> > > knows
> > > > him to be a good actor, many know him as a great director, but few
> > > > people realize how great his music compositions to his films are.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > second layer (or vice versa)
> > > >
> > > >   Duke- John Wayne was a great actor no matter how many bad movies
> he
> > > was
> > > > in, and it was a lot. Still the man was a natural in front of the
> > > camera
> > > > and had an ease the few other actors have.  Many of the mannerisms
> he
> > > > used in his acting, the facial expressions and body language were
> > > > perfect that few other actors could pull off so naturally.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYNuwxKC02A
> > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYNuwxKC02A>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >   Yeah the trouble with opinion-op-onion is if you do not want -
> > > > challenge -one and you peel one layer off your/his/our op-onion
> with
> > > the
> > > > remaining layer
> > > >
> > > > you still  are crying
> > > >
> > > > so watch-decide-and-always- weep seems be the only choice
> > > >
> > > > until you get rid off the last one
> > > >
> > > > no need of subtitle
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Clint Eastwood vs. John Wayne - interview fragment is from the
> series
> > > > "Inside the Actors Studio" in 2003(you should see the whole
> sequel)
> > > > Clint Eastwood tells how his characters differ from the ones from
> John
> > > > Wayne and Clint even imitates him : )
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ncnL0iejo
> > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ncnL0iejo>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the things that constantly amazes me about FFL -- and, to
> be
> > > > > fair, about most other "spiritual" discussion groups as well --
> is
> > > > that
> > > > > many of the participants seem to be reading a set of imaginary
> > > > subtitles
> > > > > to the posts they reply to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Judging from their replies, they seem to believe that the posts
> that
> > > > > they are responding to have a set of subtitles that say things
> like
> > > > > "This is why my ideas on this subject are RIGHT and yours are
> > > WRONG,"
> > > > or
> > > > > "My opinion on this matter is correct and yours is STOOOPID" or
> "I
> > > > > 'kn

[FairfieldLife] Re: Any suggestion for helping with the mental / spiritual side of fighting Cancer

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ultrarishi  wrote:
>
> Hi, FFL'ers.
> 
> My wife, who is not a TM'er like myself, was diagnosed with rectal cancer 2 
> weeks ago. Looks like we caught it early, too, thank God. We will begin chemo 
> and radiation in probably about another week.  Anyway, any healing practice 
> suggestions from the group out there.  She has signed up to learn Reiki since 
> it is being offered for free to the cancer patients.  At this time, she is 
> quite open to learning other things as well to supplement her healing and 
> recovery.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Morgan
> 
> To quote the late Don Cornelius, Peace, Love, and Soul.
>

TM, of course. Also, get lots of rest and stay strong with physical therapy 
exercises.

http://www.cancercenter.com/colorectal-cancer/oncology-rehabilitation.cfm

[FairfieldLife] What is ACTA?

[raunchydog]

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct 
powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs 
normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal 
oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering 
the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is ACTA?

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping 
> > direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. 
> > Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court 
> > order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply 
> > globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than 
> > SOPA or PIPA.
> > 
> > http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0
> 
> In what appears to be the opposite of a Polish joke,
> Poland is so far the only country with the common 
> sense to stop this treaty dead in its tracks. Good 
> for them.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120203/eu-poland-websites-attacked/
>

The fight for a free and open Internet has only just begun, and will likely 
never end. Right this second, there are a number of potentially dangerous 
efforts, from governments around the globe, that could be as detrimental to our 
online world as SOPA and PIPA may have been (or could be in the future). And 
while many of these efforts specifically target foreign countries, the 
connected nature of the Internet means they concern us all. Here is a brief 
rundown of those efforts, and what you can do to push back.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/occupy-this-5-internet-regulations-we-need-to-destroy/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> I love the Budweiser commercials. Check it out:
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQ AJ4qlltU
> 

Magnificent animals. Beautiful commercial. No longer pulling the plow, the 
Clydesdale established its niche in the market place as a valued Budweiser 
employee thereby ensuring perpetuation of its breed. Here's to business savvy 
horse sense and an amber cold one. 

"The Budweiser Clydesdales are a group of Clydesdale horses used for promotions 
and commercials by the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company. There are six "hitches" 
or teams of horses, five that travel around the United States and one that 
remains in their official home at the company headquarters at the 
Anheuser-Busch brewery complex in St. Louis, Missouri, where they are housed in 
a historic brick and stained-glass stable built in 1885. There are eight horses 
driven at one time, but ten horses are on each team to provide alternates for 
the hitch when needed. Assorted Clydesdales are also used as animal actors in 
television commercials for Budweiser beer, particularly in Super Bowl ads.

Many of the Clydesdales owned by Anheuser-Busch are raised at Grant's Farm near 
St. Louis, Missouri. The Budweiser Clydesdale Stables at Grant's Farm house 
approximately 35 mares, stallions and foals, with an average of 15 foals 
produced each year. Anheuser-Busch owns a total of about 250 Clydesdales, kept 
at various locations throughout the United States, one of the largest herds of 
Clydesdale horses in the world."

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

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Bhairitu,  How can you not enjoy the creativity of the Super Bowl ads?  
> > Sure it's for poisons and trivialities, but there's so much entertainment 
> > value.  It's not like you're being asked to enjoy the creative products of 
> > Nazis using human skin to make lamp shades even though it can be framed 
> > suchly. Why train your mind to be, well, so sour?  How does that serve you? 
> >  Does it keep you on some sort of "Orange Alert" that you feel keeps you 
> > from being brainwashed by the ads?  What?  
> > 
> > And as for sports, that's one thing, but what about fitness?  If you're not 
> > exercising, would you take a testimonial from me that it is not only fun 
> > but amazingly beneficial in obvious ways?
> > 
> > You're one of the good guys; hate to see you giving such bandwidth to so 
> > much angsteven though it's Kali Yuga.  
> > 
> > Edg
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 02/03/2012 11:39 PM, raunchydog wrote:
> > > > More Super Bowl Commercials
> > > >
> > > > And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl Ad - 
> > > > Adriana Lima)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > >> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the 
> > > >> game? Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials 
> > > >> this year. "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> > > >> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free 
> > > >> baby.
> > > >> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl 
> > > >> head-butt.
> > > >> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
> > > >> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary 
> > > >> Star War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> > > >> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain 
> > > >> irritating.
> > > >> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> > > >> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> > > >> 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just 
> > > >> show his dick already.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
> > > 
> > > Who wants to be part of Amerikan "group think"?  I don't.  Never watch 
> > > the Stupor Bowl (not into sports anyway) and could care less about the 
> > > commercials. ;-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> Thanks for that, and in addition there are videos showing how they train 
> these horses to do the things they do in the commercials. This is not 
> computer enhanced effects like I thought. Just google something like " the 
> making of Budweiser Clydesdale commercials" and there are mini documentaries 
> on how they got these horses to do all the stuff!
> 

Budweiser Snowball Fight, looks like a lot of fun.
http://youtu.be/Jh1qN88SDhM

How they trained Clydesdales for this commercial is a lot of work.

http://www.turtleranch.net/behind.htm#


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > I love the Budweiser commercials. Check it out:
> > >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQ AJ4qlltU
> > > 
> > 
> > Magnificent animals. Beautiful commercial. No longer pulling the plow, the 
> > Clydesdale established its niche in the market place as a valued Budweiser 
> > employee thereby ensuring perpetuation of its breed. Here's to business 
> > savvy horse sense and an amber cold one. 
> > 
> > "The Budweiser Clydesdales are a group of Clydesdale horses used for 
> > promotions and commercials by the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company. There are 
> > six "hitches" or teams of horses, five that travel around the United States 
> > and one that remains in their official home at the company headquarters at 
> > the Anheuser-Busch brewery complex in St. Louis, Missouri, where they are 
> > housed in a historic brick and stained-glass stable built in 1885. There 
> > are eight horses driven at one time, but ten horses are on each team to 
> > provide alternates for the hitch when needed. Assorted Clydesdales are also 
> > used as animal actors in television commercials for Budweiser beer, 
> > particularly in Super Bowl ads.
> > 
> > Many of the Clydesdales owned by Anheuser-Busch are raised at Grant's Farm 
> > near St. Louis, Missouri. The Budweiser Clydesdale Stables at Grant's Farm 
> > house approximately 35 mares, stallions and foals, with an average of 15 
> > foals produced each year. Anheuser-Busch owns a total of about 250 
> > Clydesdales, kept at various locations throughout the United States, one of 
> > the largest herds of Clydesdale horses in the world."
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_Clydesdales
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bhairitu,  How can you not enjoy the creativity of the Super Bowl ads?  
> > > > Sure it's for poisons and trivialities, but there's so much 
> > > > entertainment value.  It's not like you're being asked to enjoy the 
> > > > creative products of Nazis using human skin to make lamp shades even 
> > > > though it can be framed suchly. Why train your mind to be, well, so 
> > > > sour?  How does that serve you?  Does it keep you on some sort of 
> > > > "Orange Alert" that you feel keeps you from being brainwashed by the 
> > > > ads?  What?  
> > > > 
> > > > And as for sports, that's one thing, but what about fitness?  If you're 
> > > > not exercising, would you take a testimonial from me that it is not 
> > > > only fun but amazingly beneficial in obvious ways?
> > > > 
> > > > You're one of the good guys; hate to see you giving such bandwidth to 
> > > > so much angsteven though it's Kali Yuga.  
> > > > 
> > > > Edg
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 02/03/2012 11:39 PM, raunchydog wrote:
> > > > > > More Super Bowl Commercials
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl 
> > > > > > Ad - Adriana Lima)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the 
> > > > > >> game? Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the 
> > > > > >>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > Hey Barry,
> > I liked that you tried to go back and read the open letter 
> > again. It says something about you that I appreciate.
> > You say:
> > I'll bet that if I went back and read that sentence again, it 
> > might make more sense to me. But WHY would I want to do that? 
> > Is the state of attention being represented in that sentence 
> > one that I really have any desire to fully understand, much 
> > less re-experience?" 
> > 
> > Well, you'll only know that if you put a little effort into 
> > trying. 
> 
> Why would I *want* to "try?" You're speaking as if the 
> mindset I was supposed to grok was worth grokking.
> 
> 
> 
> > If his descriptions of his personal purgatory, maybe even 
> > hell, for these last 25 years is any indication he may have 
> > also like to have "taken a pass" on the whole episode. And 
> > I certainly don't think he is asking anyone to revere him 
> > (or to pity him) but I can tell you I am pretty thankful I 
> > only had to be the recipient of his demonic/divine 
> > perceptions and not the perceiver.
> 
> I can understand that in that you are a survivor of some-
> thing/someone you were once attracted to. I am just stating
> that I would never have been attracted.
> 

Around the time Ann was hanging out with Robin wasn't Barry hanging out with 
Frederick Lenz? Fifteen years, wasn't it? If he hadn't been so busy with Rama, 
maybe he would have crossed paths with Ann at one of Robin's seminars.

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Oh, this could explain a lot and certainly is a little bit interesting. Not 
> being much of a multiple guru groupie/slut my experience with all the 
> different flavours out there is limited. I practiced TM and later listened to 
> what Robin Carlsen had to say. This Rama guy sounds pretty entertaining. When 
> you read a bit of Wikipedia, thanks Raunchydog, it reads like some "Us" 
> magazine excerpt. For example:
> 
>  He claimed to be one of only twelve truly enlightened people on Earth.[24] 
> He claimed the enlightened twelve included his dog "Vayu".[25] Lenz believed 
> in reincarnation and suggested that through deeper awareness, one could 
> remember past lives. He claimed to remember several of his previous 
> reincarnations, including his life as a high priest at the Temple of Light in 
> Atlantis, and a teacher/leader in ancient Egypt, India, Japan, and Tibet.[22] 
> He often told his students that he was the reincarnation of Saint Thomas 
> More.[26]
> Some of his students claimed to have watched him performing miracles, 
> including levitation, teleportation, projecting light from his hands, and 
> transforming into an old, bearded Asian man before their eyes.[27] He also 
> claimed to have the ability to heal people by touching them, control the 
> weather, uplift people by sending them light,[clarification needed] and pass 
> through alternate dimensions.[27] He told his followers that he "wielded the 
> power to create and demolish the universes" and that "those criticizing him 
> would invariably get hit by a car or contract cancer."[13] 
> 
> Now, far be it from me to judge the legitimacy of this great teacher's claims 
> but let us just, for a moment, reflect on the fact that certain "facts" about 
> public figures can be taken out of context or be downright false.  I will 
> give Mr Lenz the benefit of the doubt and assume Wikipedia is pretty much out 
> to lunch here because if it is true that Barry spent 15 years with this guy 
> then, I am sorry, he has nothing to say about Robin.
> 
> Thanks for throwing me that bone Raunchydog, you knew I wouldn't be able to 
> resist.
> 

Arf!

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Barry,
> > > > I liked that you tried to go back and read the open letter 
> > > > again. It says something about you that I appreciate.
> > > > You say:
> > > > I'll bet that if I went back and read that sentence again, it 
> > > > might make more sense to me. But WHY would I want to do that? 
> > > > Is the state of attention being represented in that sentence 
> > > > one that I really have any desire to fully understand, much 
> > > > less re-experience?" 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, you'll only know that if you put a little effort into 
> > > > trying. 
> > > 
> > > Why would I *want* to "try?" You're speaking as if the 
> > > mindset I was supposed to grok was worth grokking.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > If his descriptions of his personal purgatory, maybe even 
> > > > hell, for these last 25 years is any indication he may have 
> > > > also like to have "taken a pass" on the whole episode. And 
> > > > I certainly don't think he is asking anyone to revere him 
> > > > (or to pity him) but I can tell you I am pretty thankful I 
> > > > only had to be the recipient of his demonic/divine 
> > > > perceptions and not the perceiver.
> > > 
> > > I can understand that in that you are a survivor of some-
> > > thing/someone you were once attracted to. I am just stating
> > > that I would never have been attracted.
> > > 
> > 
> > Around the time Ann was hanging out with Robin wasn't Barry hanging out 
> > with Frederick Lenz? Fifteen years, wasn't it? If he hadn't been so busy 
> > with Rama, maybe he would have crossed paths with Ann at one of Robin's 
> > seminars.
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[raunchydog]

Good rant, Ann. When we get overrun by deer in Iowa, we run over them with 
cars. I ran over a dead deer a few years ago, $500 damage to my car. Thank 
goodness the DNR controls deer populations by issuing more hunting tags or I'd 
see a lot more road kill than I do. 

Our planet can only sustain so many humans competing with other humans for 
resources and with animals for space. In survival of the fittest, humans always 
win more space but at what price? Perhaps our own demise.

Good information about wolves, thanks. Wolves don't kill indiscriminately if 
they have room to roam.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> I still contend that the planet does not belong exclusively to human beings 
> and that we all need to share. I don't feel sorry for small or big livestock 
> producers. As far as I am concerned they make money off of raising (sometimes 
> in the most brutal of conditions) and slaughter of feeling, thinking animals. 
> It's a crappy job. But humans are not content with getting their meat from 
> animals often raised in tiny enclosures, fattened with hormones and stuffed 
> full of antibiotics all after not even tasting one drop of their mother's 
> milk since they were virtually ripped out of the womb and isolated. We also 
> insist on toting our guns into the wilderness to take food from the natural 
> predators that roam there. Maybe if we shot a few less deer or wild goats the 
> wolves would not feel compelled to wander into the enclosures of domesticated 
> animals. (I have my tree-hugging hat on at this moment, I feel like ranting 
> so just let me.)
> 
> And who were the dummies who chose areas that close to ranchers to release 
> wolves or maybe who were the dummy ranchers to pick some God-forsaken place 
> in the middle of nowhere to set up an operation of this kind?
> 
> By the way, one source addresses your statement about over-kill by wolves:
> 
> Do wolves really attack their prey just for the fun of it?
> No. When they kill more than they can eat in one sitting, the pack usually 
> comes back for second helpings. Wolves achieve a very low yield on hunting 
> expeditions in the wild; somewhere between 4 percent and 8 percent of their 
> attacks are successful. (Lions, by contrast, manage a kill rate of 27 percent 
> or more when they hunt in groups.) Consequently, wolves are opportunistic 
> hunters. If the chance to kill prey en masse presents itself, they have been 
> known to go after more than they can consume. But they're rarely wasteful. 
> Hungry wolves are not above scavenging, and they often return to their 
> kill—or another animals'—days later. They may even bury the leftovers to hide 
> them from competitors such as wolverines.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, but how exactly do you mean pay?
> > 
> > I guess the livestock farms would prefer cash.
> > 
> > < I think I would put large amounts of money out there to preserve 
> > wolves/subsidize livestock farmers.>
> > 
> > My nephew's point (nice to be schooled by a youngster sometimes) was that 
> > the farmers were not factored into the decision to bring the wolves back to 
> > that area.  They lost the vote on that issue.  So they got a bunch of 
> > really big wolves in their back yards and laws to protect them from being 
> > shot. It kind of blindsided me because it started about a story of how his 
> > friend shot a wolf.  I reacted with a WTF?  I thought we were trying to 
> > bring back the wolf for the ecological benefit of us all, you know, big 
> > picture.  But part of that picture is that the small food producers, barely 
> > hanging on against the big agro-biz that solved its wolf problems with huge 
> > expensive fences that they can't afford, got screwed. They are the 
> > collateral damage for this project in that area.  Here is an extreme 
> > position that sums up how the ranchers in Utah feel:
> > 
> > 'Department of Natural Resources Director Michael Styler told a legislative 
> > committee Tuesday that the return of the wolves is comparable to "the 
> > resurrection of the T. rex and turning him loose on the landscape."'
> > 
> > Extreme I know.  But if you come out one morning and your income for the 
> > year is destroyed, it probably feels this way.
> > 
> > And I'm not sure this is a problem with a solution.  I don't believe we can 
> > afford to pay farmers to feed livestock to wolves. Its just that Darwin's 
> > rules apply here and they are competing for the same ecological niche we 
> > are.  It is a zero sum game.
> > 
> > 99% of the animals that have existed on this planet are now extinct. We 
> > helped plenty of them along, but most of the time it was just something 
> > bigger or smarter that took their ecological job away from them.  Starlings 
> > imported from England pushing bluebirds out of the available holes in trees 
> > cuz th

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[raunchydog]

Giants won 21-17

http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/giants-win-the-super-bowl-1328498124-slideshow/

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the game? 
> Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials this year. 
> "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:
> 
> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free baby.
> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl head-butt.
> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary Star 
> War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain irritating.
> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just show 
> his dick already. 
> 
> http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris

[raunchydog]

Who in God's Name Is Mitt Romney? by Frank Rich 
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/mitt-romney-2012-2/

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Judy, the second link is a repeat.  Can you repost it?
> 
> 
> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2012 5:54 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris
>  
> 
>   
> Via Andrew Sullivan's Dish blog on Daily Beast, two pieces
> that discuss points raised in Curtis's recent post on the
> protected status of religion.
> 
> The first, a longish blog post, details the history of
> anti-blasphemy laws in Great Britain--not quite the same
> as Curtis's framing in terms of factual challenges to
> religious belief, but dealing with many of the same types
> of trends, since factual challenges would qualify as
> blasphemy in certain contexts.
> 
> The writer then explores a point it had occurred to me to
> make in my discussion with Curtis but never got around to,
> as we were distracted by other details: that the protected
> status of religion has always been a sociopolitical
> manifestation more than a religious one. Her analysis is
> thorough and fascinating and establishes that it has almost
> nothing to do with the reason-vs.-belief aspect Curtis
> emphasizes.
> 
> http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/
> 
> The second piece, by Frank Rich, published in New York
> magazine, is an analysis of Romney entitled "Who in God's
> Name Is Mitt Romney?" It deals, in part, with Romney's
> religious identity and how it might affect his actions in
> the role of president. It's a much more thoughtful 
> approach, IMHO, than Curtis's fear that Romney might shape
> U.S. policy based on the "odd beliefs" of Mormonism.
> 
> http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris

[raunchydog]

Frank Rich painted a picture of Romney as "a smug, wooden...little man on the 
wedding cake." I'm no fan of Romney, but it reminded me of Camille Paglia's hit 
pieces on Hillary, derogatory potshots were the order of the day. Rich raises 
questions about why Romney avoids mentioning his Mormon faith and wonders if 
there's something he should be telling us but isn't. Perhaps, Rich, concerned 
about political correctness, or perhaps waiting for the election to drop a 
bombshell, knows something about Romney and the LDS *he* isn't telling us, such 
as:

"Michael Moody says political success was an institutional value of the LDS 
church.

"The instructions in my [patriarchal] blessing, which I believed came directly 
from Jesus, motivated me to seek a career in government and politics," he wrote 
in his 2008 book. Moody recently said that he ran for governor of Nevada in 
1982 because he felt he had been divinely directed to "expand our kingdom" and 
help Romney "lead the world into the Millennium. Once a firm believer but now a 
church critic, Moody was indoctrinated with the White Horse Prophecy.  Like 
Romney, Moody is a seventh-generation Mormon, steeped in the same intellectual 
and theological milieu.

"We were taught that America is the Promised Land," he said in an 
interview."The Mormons are the Chosen People.  And the time is now for a Mormon 
leader to usher in the second coming of Christ and install the political 
Kingdom of God in Washington, D.C."

In this scenario, Romney's candidacy is part of the eternal plan and the 
candidate himself is fulfilling the destiny begun in what the church calls the 
"pre-existence." 

Salon / By Sally Denton

"Is Mitt Romney's Candidacy Part of 'The Eternal Plan' of the Mormon Church?"
The seeds of Romney's unique brand of conservatism were sown in the secretive, 
acquisitive, patriarchal, authoritarian religious empire.
 
http://www.alternet.org/news/153945/is_mitt_romney%27s_candidacy_part_of_%27the_eternal_plan%27_of_the_mormon_church_
http://tinyurl.com/7ugahaz

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Sorry, Emily...thanks, Raunchy!
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > Who in God's Name Is Mitt Romney? by Frank Rich 
> > http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/mitt-romney-2012-2/
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy, the second link is a repeat.  Can you repost it?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2012 5:54 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > Via Andrew Sullivan's Dish blog on Daily Beast, two pieces
> > > that discuss points raised in Curtis's recent post on the
> > > protected status of religion.
> > > 
> > > The first, a longish blog post, details the history of
> > > anti-blasphemy laws in Great Britain--not quite the same
> > > as Curtis's framing in terms of factual challenges to
> > > religious belief, but dealing with many of the same types
> > > of trends, since factual challenges would qualify as
> > > blasphemy in certain contexts.
> > > 
> > > The writer then explores a point it had occurred to me to
> > > make in my discussion with Curtis but never got around to,
> > > as we were distracted by other details: that the protected
> > > status of religion has always been a sociopolitical
> > > manifestation more than a religious one. Her analysis is
> > > thorough and fascinating and establishes that it has almost
> > > nothing to do with the reason-vs.-belief aspect Curtis
> > > emphasizes.
> > > 
> > > http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/
> > > 
> > > The second piece, by Frank Rich, published in New York
> > > magazine, is an analysis of Romney entitled "Who in God's
> > > Name Is Mitt Romney?" It deals, in part, with Romney's
> > > religious identity and how it might affect his actions in
> > > the role of president. It's a much more thoughtful 
> > > approach, IMHO, than Curtis's fear that Romney might shape
> > > U.S. policy based on the "odd beliefs" of Mormonism.
> > > 
> > > http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:57 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> 
> > An excellent premise.
> 
> It would be if we could assume the arguer was actually being honest,  
> but Judy instead relies on armies of strawmen, a red herring market  
> and character assassination to meet her goals.
>


FFL Gong Show Host: Well Vaj what feats of strength will you perform for us 
today?

Vaj: I'm juggling a straw-man, a red herring and a box of matches.

FFL-GSH: Sounds familiar. Haven't we seen this before?

Vaj: Oh, but this is a brand new entirely-free-of-irony act.

FFL-GSH: O.K. what's new? 

Vaj: As you recall, in my last performance I dropped a bucket of SOS and stunk 
up the place. I exchanged the bucket for a box of matches. 

FFL-GSH: What's up with the matches? More flare?

Vaj: Yes, indeed. While I'm juggling, I light my pants on fire.

FFL-GSH: Maestro! Drum-roll, please.

Backstage: Judy, the intrepid slayer of falsehood, is at the ready with a fire 
hose.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> So here is another good example of what Barry and I have been discussing with 
> regard to "different strokes for different folks" in terms of spiritual 
> teachers and their ability to fulfill some people's needs/expectations or 
> not. Obviously Judy found/finds Robin at times mysterious, fascinating, 
> brilliant and worth the time and effort to try and decipher what he was/is 
> all about. Not so for Curtis (later on anyway), certainly not Barry for one 
> eentsy moment and Vaj claims to have been there and done all that and ho-hum. 
> All valid viewpoints because we are all different in every way possible. 
> Curtis loves music, I love horses, Judy appears to love to write.
> 
> But I am not sure anyone can make any ultimate pronouncements with regard to 
> whether Robin was valuable as a contributor to FFL or not, or whether he was 
> full of b.s. or speaking the highest of truths. We can only know what we know 
> coming from where each one of us are in our consciousness and our lives and 
> to argue with each other over his "value" as a contributor or even as a human 
> being is futile. It will convince no one of anything they already believe. I 
> have not seen one person switch their viewpoint on this subject since I 
> joined this little gathering three weeks ago. But you all like to exercise 
> your intellectual muscles so far be it from me to dissuade you, as if I could 
> (or even want to). Parry on!

touché
http://youtu.be/k7zvffHu_wo

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

There's no conspiracy to deceive you, Ann. I'm sorry you feel that way. What 
you're dealing with is a confluence of personalities, warts and all, some more 
warty than others. When you speak from the heart, as you do, you'd expect most 
folks to respond in kind. It's unnerving and upsetting to one's sense of 
fairness when they don't. It's hard to know who to trust on FFLife until you 
put yourself out there. It doesn't take long to figure out who's a straight 
shooter and who plays games with your head. If you're feeling manipulated, 
consider the source. It's always you're choice to either avoid or confront the 
warts as they appear. We can be fun and we can be nasty, it's a bag of mixed 
nuts. Pass the popcorn and enjoy the show.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Yes but Vaj, when people post publicly they are expressing a viewpoint. You 
> have been posting for example but there is not one thing in any of your posts 
> to make me think you feel any differently about Robin than you did three 
> weeks ago. Unless I am missing something, and it wouldn't be the first time, 
> there may be a play within a play going on at FFL. For all I know you are all 
> in some secret agreement to say the opposite of what you really mean, or a 
> few of you are in collusion to pretend one thing is happening when something 
> quite different is going on. I may be the butt of some gigantic joke. I have 
> no way of knowing. So I just read what people have to say and go by the 
> literal interpretation of their words. You say I shouldn't assume changes in 
> POV aren't going on. OK. But I don't see any proof of. I would be happy to be 
> proven wrong. However, this is not a big issue for  me, just a passing 
> observation. By the way, your post was a little hard to decipher so perhaps I 
> have not been addressing it clearly. Maybe it's all part of that big 
> behind-the-curtain-joke going on.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Feb 7, 2012, at 5:10 PM, awoelflebater wrote:
> > 
> > > I am not evaluating anything other than what has gone on in the three 
> > > weeks I have been on FFL and that is no one, within the 3 week time 
> > > frame, has significantly changed their stance in their opinions of Robin, 
> > > who he is , what he was doing on FFL etc. etc. etc.
> > 
> > Because we can't note changes in perception of others appreciation unless 
> > they decide to exhaustively and sensitively document it in writing (...in 
> > an email!), you probably shouldn't assume that changes in POV aren't going 
> > on. Few are willing to do this. I personally no longer would waste more 
> > than an occasional detailed email here - but I went through a bunch of 
> > perspectives on R. that you'll never see, unless I tell you privately.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

There's no conspiracy to deceive you, Ann. I'm sorry you feel that way. What 
you're dealing with is a confluence of personalities, warts and all, some more 
warty than others. When you speak from the heart, as you do, you'd expect most 
folks to respond in kind. It's unnerving and upsetting to one's sense of 
fairness when they don't. It's hard to know who to trust on FFLife until you 
put yourself out there. It doesn't take long to figure out who's a straight 
shooter and who plays games with your head. If you're feeling manipulated, 
consider the source. It's always your choice to either avoid or confront the 
warts as they appear. We can be fun and we can be nasty, it's a bag of mixed 
nuts. Pass the popcorn and enjoy the show.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Yes but Vaj, when people post publicly they are expressing a viewpoint. You 
> have been posting for example but there is not one thing in any of your posts 
> to make me think you feel any differently about Robin than you did three 
> weeks ago. Unless I am missing something, and it wouldn't be the first time, 
> there may be a play within a play going on at FFL. For all I know you are all 
> in some secret agreement to say the opposite of what you really mean, or a 
> few of you are in collusion to pretend one thing is happening when something 
> quite different is going on. I may be the butt of some gigantic joke. I have 
> no way of knowing. So I just read what people have to say and go by the 
> literal interpretation of their words. You say I shouldn't assume changes in 
> POV aren't going on. OK. But I don't see any proof of. I would be happy to be 
> proven wrong. However, this is not a big issue for  me, just a passing 
> observation. By the way, your post was a little hard to decipher so perhaps I 
> have not been addressing it clearly. Maybe it's all part of that big 
> behind-the-curtain-joke going on.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Feb 7, 2012, at 5:10 PM, awoelflebater wrote:
> > 
> > > I am not evaluating anything other than what has gone on in the three 
> > > weeks I have been on FFL and that is no one, within the 3 week time 
> > > frame, has significantly changed their stance in their opinions of Robin, 
> > > who he is , what he was doing on FFL etc. etc. etc.
> > 
> > Because we can't note changes in perception of others appreciation unless 
> > they decide to exhaustively and sensitively document it in writing (...in 
> > an email!), you probably shouldn't assume that changes in POV aren't going 
> > on. Few are willing to do this. I personally no longer would waste more 
> > than an occasional detailed email here - but I went through a bunch of 
> > perspectives on R. that you'll never see, unless I tell you privately.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Well, having read these pieces and the pieces embedded as links in them, I 
> would absolutely be worried about the Church's influence on Romney's 
> presidential agenda, should he be elected. Â 
> 

Excellent commentary on Romney, Emily. There are many compelling reasons Romney 
shouldn't be president. As a Democrat, IMO his religion ranks low on the list. 
Now, if I were an Evangelical Republican I'd be pissed that my end-times guy, 
Rick Perry, didn't make the cut and some damn Mormon is going to rapture us to 
Jesus.

> 
> 
> This is a link to the American Experience and Frontline documentary on 
> Mormonism which is long and which I have only started.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view/
>  

I watched your PBS link last night. I didn't realize the Mormons had such a 
bloody history of killing and being killed. The history of Nauvoo was 
particularly interesting because I've been there. 

In June 2002, during the dedication of the new Nauvoo Illinois Temple, for a 
very brief time they allowed a public tour. It was going to be a a first and 
only public viewing, so a male friend and I went there on a lark. It was worth 
the trip just to see the outstanding craftsmanship on the spiral staircase. 
There are just a few very small windows, I guess they want your attention 
inward. There are several rooms for successive level of instruction, each more 
beautiful than the next. Hand painted murals representing literal 
interpretations of the Bible, signify various stages of spiritual development. 
Twelve limestone oxen surrounded a spectacular baptismal pool where Mormons 
baptize the living and the dead. It's true, they wear holy underwear. They 
change clothes in a cloak room filled with white cotton gowns. After the tour, 
a friendly couple, introduced themselves. Since they thought my friend and I 
were a couple, we politely played along. Never say no to tea and cookies while 
being proselytized. 

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

> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2012 9:46 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris
>  
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > Frank Rich painted a picture of Romney as "a smug, wooden...
> > little man on the wedding cake." I'm no fan of Romney, but
> > it reminded me of Camille Paglia's hit pieces on Hillary, 
> > derogatory potshots were the order of the day.
> 
> That's his style. We loved it when his derogatory potshots
> were aimed at GWB...
> 
> Denton had a short piece in the Times in a Room for Debate
> collection of essays, "What Is It About Mormonism?" There
> are 320 comments on Denton's piece, most from Mormons.
> Some of the comments are just boilerplate, but others are
> interesting. (I read around 75 of them.) It sounds as if
> Denton may have gotten some of her facts wrong, and her
> piece is certainly very negatively slanted. Worth a look.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/30/what-is-it-about-mormons/a-male-dominated-world
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/6to3374
> 

Mormonism is just another patriarchal religion that doesn't reveal anything 
about Romney's faith that's any different from male dominated Catholicism or 
Islam. Men make the rules, they say from "GOD" that govern a woman's body, 
whether it's birth control, abortion or wearing a burka, it's all about 
controlling female sexuality. Real feminists are Wiccans. 
  
> Michael Moody, whom Denton quotes in the AlterNet piece,
> is an LDS apostate, so I wouldn't expect him to have a
> very objective view of the church either.
> 
> Uh-oh. Denton attributes a quote about the White Horse
> Prophecy to Romney when the original article she got it
> from attributes it to someone entirely different, a
> scholar who has studied it who was interviewed for the
> article. That is inexcusably sloppy work.
> 
> Here's the article, from the Salt Lake City Tribune,
> February 2007. The headline, "Romney candidacy has
> resurrected last days prophecy of Mormon saving the
> Constitution," is misleading; the rest of the article
> mostly debunks the notion that the White Horse
> Prophecy is important in Mormonism; it seems to be
> more of a fringe belief:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_6055090
> 

Just as you wouldn't expect Michael Moody to have a very objective view of 
Mormons, you can't expect that an article published in the Salt Lake City 
Tribune would resist putting a good face on the White Horse Prophecy. It's the 
same 

[FairfieldLife] Re: What Breast Cancer is, and is not!

[raunchydog]

WOW! A powerful, moving, well deserved smack-down. Thanks for posting,
Alex.

 
[http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/breast-cance\
r-planned-parenthood-Komen.jpg]


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
 wrote:
>
> One seriously kick-ass response to the Susan G. Komen Foundation:
>
> http://youtu.be/2ZwpSwm_4as
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Curtis and I Differ

[raunchydog]

Oxymorons
http://youtu.be/cWY_NTLFSa4
http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Dare I call you all oxymorons??
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, you nailed it.  
> >   
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ha hasee my postwe are all in tune here
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: curtisdeltablues 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:35 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Curtis and I Differ
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > I was just riffing off of how much is sounds like hillbilly heroin 
> > > Oxycontin.  I just saw one of those horror show specials where people 
> > > were doing that.
> > > 
> > > But your information is much more interesting.  Fascinating to see the 
> > > mechanics of a mother's love!
> > > 
> > > I don't think I need any.  I focused on the sensitive guy routine in the 
> > > 70's until I found out that the bad boys were banging all the chicks I 
> > > thought were prudes!  What a wake-up call that was in how the world 
> > > really works.
> > > 
> > > The type of blues I love is trance inducing.  Once you're both in the 
> > > zone it is the field of all possibilities, without the Mahesh.  I wonder 
> > > if he ever used seduction music.  Maybe if you play Sama Veda at half 
> > > speed so it sounds like Barry White you could get somewhere!
> > > 
> > > I'll stick to blues, oxytocin free.  Actually blues was always supported 
> > > most by women.  The guys from the 20's and 30's put out records that only 
> > > the African women domestic workers could afford.  They supported the 
> > > whole industry in the early days.  That is your Black history month 
> > > factoid for the day! 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not an MD but my understanding is that oxytocin is just about the 
> > > > same as pitocin.  You can inject pitocin - here's what it does:  it 
> > > > causes a woman to have contractions that lead to delivery of a baby!  
> > > > It is used in hospitals if a woman needs to have stronger contractions 
> > > > or to have labor induced.  Seven hours of a pitocin drip and the baby 
> > > > is born.  Ouch.  In addition to causing contractions, pitocin/oxytocin 
> > > > causes intense emotional bonding between mother and baby.  I think lots 
> > > > of it circulates in the blood stream as long as a mother nurses and is 
> > > > also present in females in general.
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure what it would do to a male, but I suspect you would not want 
> > > > to be the guinea pig on this one.  Making inhaling it would be ok.  
> > > > Hospitals have lots of it.  Your music alone probably does something 
> > > > powerful enough.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Much appreciated Susan.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Lemme know if you have a good source for that oxytocin.  Sounds like 
> > > > > something fun to heat up on a piece of tinfoil and inhale through a 
> > > > > straw!
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Curtis you wrote:
> > > > > > > > "When I was actually under a cyber
> > > > > > > > attack here by a member some people supported me and I 
> > > > > > > > appreciated that. But I
> > > > > > > > would never expect it, even from my online "friends". I can 
> > > > > > > > handle my business
> > > > > > > > here and everyone can handle theirs. So I don't have the kind 
> > > > > > > > of expectation
> > > > > > > > here I would in my personal life offline."
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You also state:
> > > > > > > > "We don't owe each other support or approval or any of the 
> > > > > > > > things we might value offline."
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Well, that is interesting for me to hear this viewpoint from 
> > > > > > > > you. I have considered it and I find that I live in a very 
> > > > > > > > different way. My rules for engagement, my definition of 
> > > > > > > > friends, my values of civility and interaction are not 
> > > > > > > > determined by the medium I am using , the location or the 
> > > > > > > > geographical situation I am in. I could be on Mars or in my 
> > > > > > > > kitchen, the way I conduct my life and how I view the world is 
> > > > > > > > not determined by the circumstances in which I find myself - 
> > > > > > > > i.e. whether I am typing to you online or speaking to you face 
> > > > > > > > to face I will treat you the same and expect you to do

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Judyatri Mantra

[raunchydog]

Ann, thanks for dispelling the ridiculous notion that Robin was afraid of you. 
I wonder if Barry and Vaj who invented this fantasy will be admit they were 
wrong, or will they be too afraid to admit they were wrong and do what they 
accused Robin of doing and turn tail?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Hi Again, you're that guy I like, that is so funny, whether you realize it or 
> not. And I mean it in the most positive of ways. How did a nice guy like you 
> end up in a place like this?!
> 
> Anyway, You ask:
> "You Ann, have stated that he probably said everything that needed to be
> > said.  To me, it's curious that that happened to coincide with your
> > arrival here."
> 
> I know a few of you have theories about this so I will try and clarify some 
> things. Although I have not seen Robin for 25 years and only stumbled on him 
> at FFL by mere (but fascinating) chance as I have already described I can 
> assure you all of one thing: Robin is not intimidated, worried, scared or 
> reluctant to face me. I know this in a very profound part of myself. I know 
> that many of you see this coincidence of our paths crossing via FFL and him 
> splitting pretty quickly after that as pretty much proof of him running away 
> from me or from what he was afraid I might say. But, if he was afraid of me 
> saying something damning then he would have definitely stuck around to 
> address it. Robin and I go way back, I have been pummelled at the microphone, 
> away from the microphone. I have been praised and nurtured within the group 
> that surrounded him.  He and I have run through the trenches, lobbed grenades 
> and torn ourselves on barbed wire in our times together. None of you have 
> even the faintest idea of any of it.
> 
> If Robin left when he did it was for a very good reason that most likely had 
> NOTHIING to do with me and certainly nothing to do with being afraid. I know 
> that he would have his reasons for going. I know that those reasons would 
> have something to do with preserving whatever knowledge he has fought his way 
> to gain regarding himself, his role in this big play called life, and to hold 
> as best he can onto his integrity. He is not someone to put in half an effort 
> or to knowingly begin something he can not finish well. He is, for all his 
> faults, a man who is willing to fall head first and headlong into whatever he 
> engages in. Robin hasn't gone away, he probably wishes he could. No, Robin is 
> very present in whatever situation he finds or has put himself. Just because 
> someone isn't on FFL doesn't mean they have found any reprieve or escaped the 
> harsh demands of this world. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Ditto.  I enjoyed your reply,  Barry.  I don't think you could read it,
> > and not feel empathy for your situation.  And that is not meant to be a
> > put down of Judy.
> > 
> > I think it's been a good week of posting, though I've been mostly on the
> > sidelines.
> > 
> > Getting back to Robin.  The one thing I take issue with, is that he
> > always presented himself as a "stand up" guy.  He seemed to really
> > emphasize that  point.  I didn't see it.  He would sometimes make
> > cutting statements, and then when asked to back them up, he would go
> > silent.
> > 
> > You Ann, have stated that he probably said everything that needed to be
> > said.  To me, it's curious that that happened to coincide with your
> > arrival here.
> > 
> > Let me say also Ann, that I don't quite follow your observation that
> > Judy can run circles, intellectually around anyone here.  To me, after
> > about the second or third round of dissecting an issue about who is
> > being disengenuous, or raising a straw man, I have a hard time following
> > her logic.  The only thing I know for sure is that she is somehow going
> > to "come out on top".  Yes, she has on several occassions found flaws in
> > conclusions that I have reached, and I have for the most part, been
> > happy to acknowledge those flaws.  That is her strength.  But I just
> > don't have the appetite or perhaps the intellecual stamina to ride
> > issues that hard.
> > 
> > I observe that Curtis seems capable of doing this.  But in Judy's mind,
> > at least, he is like Hamilton Burger in "Perry Mason".  Poor Hamilton
> > never won a case!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ai yi yi Barry. You know you really conveyed your frustration in your
> > response and I actually feel empathy for you, truly. You sound like
> > someone at your wit's end and I can really sense your frustration. It is
> > like you have been in a really bad, abusive relationship for 17 YEARS!!
> > You must really enjoy FFL because anyone else would have posted out by
> > now just to get away from Judy but you don't want to go and neither,
> > apparently does she.
> > >
> > > I can't say th

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Curtis and I Differ

[raunchydog]

Oxymorons
http://youtu.be/cWY_NTLFSa4
http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Dare I call you all oxymorons??
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, you nailed it.  
> >   
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ha hasee my postwe are all in tune here
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: curtisdeltablues 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:35 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Curtis and I Differ
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > I was just riffing off of how much is sounds like hillbilly heroin 
> > > Oxycontin.  I just saw one of those horror show specials where people 
> > > were doing that.
> > > 
> > > But your information is much more interesting.  Fascinating to see the 
> > > mechanics of a mother's love!
> > > 
> > > I don't think I need any.  I focused on the sensitive guy routine in the 
> > > 70's until I found out that the bad boys were banging all the chicks I 
> > > thought were prudes!  What a wake-up call that was in how the world 
> > > really works.
> > > 
> > > The type of blues I love is trance inducing.  Once you're both in the 
> > > zone it is the field of all possibilities, without the Mahesh.  I wonder 
> > > if he ever used seduction music.  Maybe if you play Sama Veda at half 
> > > speed so it sounds like Barry White you could get somewhere!
> > > 
> > > I'll stick to blues, oxytocin free.  Actually blues was always supported 
> > > most by women.  The guys from the 20's and 30's put out records that only 
> > > the African women domestic workers could afford.  They supported the 
> > > whole industry in the early days.  That is your Black history month 
> > > factoid for the day! 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not an MD but my understanding is that oxytocin is just about the 
> > > > same as pitocin.  You can inject pitocin - here's what it does:  it 
> > > > causes a woman to have contractions that lead to delivery of a baby!  
> > > > It is used in hospitals if a woman needs to have stronger contractions 
> > > > or to have labor induced.  Seven hours of a pitocin drip and the baby 
> > > > is born.  Ouch.  In addition to causing contractions, pitocin/oxytocin 
> > > > causes intense emotional bonding between mother and baby.  I think lots 
> > > > of it circulates in the blood stream as long as a mother nurses and is 
> > > > also present in females in general.
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure what it would do to a male, but I suspect you would not want 
> > > > to be the guinea pig on this one.  Making inhaling it would be ok.  
> > > > Hospitals have lots of it.  Your music alone probably does something 
> > > > powerful enough.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Much appreciated Susan.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Lemme know if you have a good source for that oxytocin.  Sounds like 
> > > > > something fun to heat up on a piece of tinfoil and inhale through a 
> > > > > straw!
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Curtis you wrote:
> > > > > > > > "When I was actually under a cyber
> > > > > > > > attack here by a member some people supported me and I 
> > > > > > > > appreciated that. But I
> > > > > > > > would never expect it, even from my online "friends". I can 
> > > > > > > > handle my business
> > > > > > > > here and everyone can handle theirs. So I don't have the kind 
> > > > > > > > of expectation
> > > > > > > > here I would in my personal life offline."
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You also state:
> > > > > > > > "We don't owe each other support or approval or any of the 
> > > > > > > > things we might value offline."
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Well, that is interesting for me to hear this viewpoint from 
> > > > > > > > you. I have considered it and I find that I live in a very 
> > > > > > > > different way. My rules for engagement, my definition of 
> > > > > > > > friends, my values of civility and interaction are not 
> > > > > > > > determined by the medium I am using , the location or the 
> > > > > > > > geographical situation I am in. I could be on Mars or in my 
> > > > > > > > kitchen, the way I conduct my life and how I view the world is 
> > > > > > > > not determined by the circumstances in which I find myself - 
> > > > > > > > i.e. whether I am typing to you online or speaking to you face 
> > > > > > > > to face I will treat you the same and expect you to do

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Curtis and I Differ

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> I am terribly pleased you posted this explanatory utube video.  
> 

You're obviously abstruse, I'm sure.
 
> ____
>  From: raunchydog 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:48 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Curtis and I Differ
>  
> 
>   
> Oxymorons
> http://youtu.be/cWY_NTLFSa4
> http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > Dare I call you all oxymorons??
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, you nailed it. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ha hasee my postwe are all in tune here
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  From: curtisdeltablues 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:35 PM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Curtis and I Differ
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > I was just riffing off of how much is sounds like hillbilly heroin 
> > > > Oxycontin.  I just saw one of those horror show specials where people 
> > > > were doing that.
> > > > 
> > > > But your information is much more interesting.  Fascinating to see the 
> > > > mechanics of a mother's love!
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think I need any.  I focused on the sensitive guy routine in 
> > > > the 70's until I found out that the bad boys were banging all the 
> > > > chicks I thought were prudes!  What a wake-up call that was in how the 
> > > > world really works.
> > > > 
> > > > The type of blues I love is trance inducing.  Once you're both in the 
> > > > zone it is the field of all possibilities, without the Mahesh.  I 
> > > > wonder if he ever used seduction music.  Maybe if you play Sama Veda at 
> > > > half speed so it sounds like Barry White you could get somewhere!
> > > > 
> > > > I'll stick to blues, oxytocin free.  Actually blues was always 
> > > > supported most by women.  The guys from the 20's and 30's put out 
> > > > records that only the African women domestic workers could afford.  
> > > > They supported the whole industry in the early days.  That is your 
> > > > Black history month factoid for the day! 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not an MD but my understanding is that oxytocin is just about 
> > > > > the same as pitocin.  You can inject pitocin - here's what it does:  
> > > > > it causes a woman to have contractions that lead to delivery of a 
> > > > > baby!  It is used in hospitals if a woman needs to have stronger 
> > > > > contractions or to have labor induced.  Seven hours of a pitocin drip 
> > > > > and the baby is born.  Ouch.  In addition to causing contractions, 
> > > > > pitocin/oxytocin causes intense emotional bonding between mother and 
> > > > > baby.  I think lots of it circulates in the blood stream as long as a 
> > > > > mother nurses and is also present in females in general.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not sure what it would do to a male, but I suspect you would not want 
> > > > > to be the guinea pig on this one.  Making inhaling it would be ok.  
> > > > > Hospitals have lots of it.  Your music alone probably does something 
> > > > > powerful enough.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Much appreciated Susan.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Lemme know if you have a good source for that oxytocin.  Sounds 
> > > > > > like something fun to heat up on a piece of tinfoil and inhale 
> > > > > > through a straw!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > > &g

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Barry and Curtis

[raunchydog]

American Idol Offers President Obama A Duet With Al Green 

http://jackseattle.radio.com/2012/02/01/american-idol-offers-president-obama-a-duet-with-al-green/

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Al Green - Love and Happiness - Studio Version
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsU6_eSG4k4&feature=fvwrel
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

Emily Hears a Who!

Mental techniques astronomical,
A veritable feast gastronomical!
When entrée effusing
And Smorgasbord confusing,
Remember the tale of the Who:
So tiny and small,
No one could hear them,
No one could hear them at all.
Then one wee voice,
The critical mass:
Suddenly in unison singing,
"Hear! Hear!" in joyous reprise,
"We are free at last,
Surprise! Surprise! 
Thank God Almighty we are free at last."

Peace, Sister
RD

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Thank you Azgrey, really.  Thank you.  There is a lot to digest here and I 
> am going to go away and do just that.  It is time for Phase 2 of the 
> recovery process.  Yes, there was a perfect storm of work stress/corporate 
> death spiral, teenagers, adrenal system collapse, menopause / hormone 
> imbalance, anti-depressant side effects, rapid weight gain (15 pounds of 
> which in a single month, without even eating), personal trauma, loss of close 
> relationship(s), family fracture, existential crisis, constant brain fog, 
> health issues, major depressive episode, insomnia, etc., etc., etc.  I 
> prepared for the end and dragged myself and my children to go see Amma in 
> complete desperation.  PTSD?  Let me count the ways and I haven't even been 
> to war.  I could not sage the house enough to rid it of the negative energy. 
>  I could not down enough Rescue Remedy to ease the pain.  
> 
> But, it appears that I don't have as much control as I might have thought. 
>  It looks like my job as a parent is not over.  It looks like I might have 
> to get another job, as much as I'd like to retire.  It looks like I might 
> have to pull myself together and carry on.  This was a very timely post, 
> actually.   I see other practitioners.  Today, I had another cranial sacral 
> appt. with a guy with over 20 years experience, who is vegan, who has studied 
> with one of the 14 grandmothers (a shaman who lives in the Brazilian amazon) 
> and who, aside from giving me certain plants essences to take, has informed 
> me he is assisted by "spiritual guides", and would I give permission for the 
> "guides" to help me, because they are telling him they think they can.  This 
> was after last week, when he pulled a Byron Katie inquiry move on me..."do 
> you really know?."
> 
> HO.K. then...and lo and behold, a shift.  I don't know how or why, 
> but he was pulling shit out of me while I was almost catatonic on the table 
> and working to clear the untanglements to help bring a better clarity to one 
> of the situations in my family life that has created nothing but chaos.  I 
> subsequently called my older daughter - she was having a good day, she agreed 
> to see someone "objective" to help us, if I go to the trouble to find and 
> screen family therapists and have a shortlist ready for her to interview this 
> summer. (Because, after all, there are an amazing number of unqualified 
> therapists out there and we need someone smarter than us.) Amazing really 
> that she would agree.  "Yes, honey, I will do that for us...and maybe you'd 
> like to see this cranial sacral guy too?"  "And , O.K, you may live here 
> this summer."  (I understand how upsetting it might be to have one's 
> SuperMom descend into a nervous breakdown right in front of one
>  within a few short months.)  "Oh yes, that was nice you let your 15 year 
> old sister borrow your boots; she needs shoes."  "And no, we are not going 
> to Whistler this year :)"
> 
> Alright, I dedicate this post to the wine and the song.  I have to go listen 
> to some blues now.  I will say that this forum has saved my fuckin' ass in 
> many ways and I hold nothing but gratitude for it.  I had no context, zero, 
> when I got here.  I thought I had lost my mind and looked for things to 
> relate to.  There weren't many.  I couldn't decipher any of the 
> conversations in whole.  I remember reading something that Judy wrote, where 
> she acknowledged that she read *all* the traffic.  It gave me courage as I 
> thought there was someone out there who would read my posts, no matter how 
> stupid or confused they were.  I was barely even acknowledging my own 
> existence, so that was important to me.  Ravi also replied to me in the 
> beginning.  This forum is a gift, the way I see it, and I appreciate every 
> last insult and insight, in the end, and find all of it worthwhile.  But, 
> that's just me and the wine talking.  It's not as bad as it sounds.
>   Regards, ~Em.
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Judyatri Mantra

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Vaj you say:
> "Once Robin had made a complete and utter fool out of himself, you're right, 
> he did have that reason to make a quick 'exit stage left'."
> 
> Are you speaking of his Open Letter to Barry here? Because shortly after that 
> he left. And if you contend that he made a fool of himself in his letter I 
> don' think you and I read the same post. If you think he made a fool of 
> himself because he said he had struck people within the context of Sunnyside 
> how does that compute? He still asserted, as I did, that he did not hit 
> people or engage in physical assault in any way at seminars. That had been 
> the question and that was still the answer. It is like asking someone if they 
> drank beer when they watch football. "No", they say. Then they admit 
> later,"Well, but I did drink beer when I used to bowl ten years before that." 
> How does this make them a liar? 
> 
> Then you write,"But there's no excuse for an old friend not to give a kind 
> "hello" or  
> > some words of acknowledgment to you. No one's that busy. And you were  
> > a pretty important person in his circle."
> 
> Who are you to comment on my relationship with Robin and what he should or 
> should not do? First of all, FFL is hardly the place to start inviting people 
> to tea or, at the other extreme, to welcome someone back into one's life 
> given the circumstances and the rare and complex nature of what that life was 
> for the two people before. We aren't talking about old college roommates 
> here,"Hey bud, how's it goin'? Long time, no see. How's it hangin'? We should 
> go out for a couple a beers, eh?" I would never expect or want Robin to 
> approach me via FFL. This place is not what our relationship in the past was 
> about and I would not want it to be what it may have become in the future. He 
> and I both respect that unspoken fact. And it gives me optimism that we still 
> understand each other on some fundamental level. So Vaj, at the risk of 
> sounding really rude, you are placing the most mundane expectations on a far 
> more complex relationship than you obviously grasp. Stop trying to define 
> what would be inexcusable or not for Robin (your really don't know him AT 
> all, whether you were there all those years ago or not, ultimately you have 
> no idea who he was or is). And because of that fact I have changed my mind 
> about addressing the last part of your post. If you don't get it by now Vaj, 
> you never will. Whether it is because you just aren't able to or because you 
> willfully continue to be perverse I don't know. And at this point I am 
> starting not to care. Sorry about that.
> 

In my opinion, "perverse, subtly vain, narcissistic, prone to hypomania, 
personality disorder" nails it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 10 Most Promiscuous City in the US

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> One may ask: How did they gather the data to make this conclusion?
> 

Cash receipts from condom vending machines, drugstores, sex shops, and the red 
beanie boys caught on tape, tell the story. Except for the possibility of STD's 
men don't like to wear condoms. They rather free the willy and let women take 
responsibility for birth control but deny free access to Planned Parenthood 
birth control. Go figure.

> http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-501465_162-10009007-10.html?tag=page;next
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gilberto Gil - Todo menina baiana

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> Smiled with the risin' stars at this  dark night..
> I breathed a song into the air
> It fell to earth, I knew not where
> For who has sight so keen and strong,
> That it can follow the flight of song
> 
> Sit by my doorstep
> Singin' sweet songs
> Of melodies pure and true,
> Sayin',This is my message to you-ou-ou
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY_NQZyBc3g
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVzBxPd5oa8&feature=related
> 

"For who has sight so keen and strong,
That it can follow the flight of song"
Beautiful lines, meruda. Describes Emily perfectly. I'll miss her. For Emily:

Endymion

THE RISING moon has hid the stars;   
Her level rays, like golden bars,   
Lie on the landscape green,   
With shadows brown between.   
   
And silver white the river gleams,   
As if Diana, in her dreams,   
Had dropt her silver bow   
Upon the meadows low.   
   
On such a tranquil night as this,   
She woke Endymion with a kiss,   
When, sleeping in the grove,   
He dreamed not of her love.   
   
Like Dian's kiss, unasked, unsought,   
Love gives itself, but is not bought;   
Nor voice, nor sound betrays
Its deep, impassioned gaze.   
   
It comes, - the beautiful, the free,   
The crown of all humanity, -   
In silence and alone   
To seek the elected one.  
   
It lifts the boughs, whose shadows deep   
Are Life's oblivion, the soul's sleep,   
And kisses the closed eyes   
Of him who slumbering lies.   
   
O weary hearts! O slumbering eyes!   
O drooping souls, whose destinies   
Are fraught with fear and pain,   
Ye shall be loved again!   
   
No one is so accursed by fate,   
No one so utterly desolate,   
But some heart, though unknown,   
Responds unto his own.   
   
Responds, - as if with unseen wings,   
An angel touched its quivering strings;   
And whispers, in its song,
"Where hast thou stayed so long?" 

~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
> wrote:
> >
> > Fun VideoO.K.  Sayonara - Namaste - Keep the Faith - Until We Meet
> Again - Jai Guru Dev
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF2jUUsOosA&feature=related
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: So Much "Ouch" reframed as: "What;'s a little owie between friends"

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Feb 11, 2012, at 9:46 PM, awoelflebater wrote:
> 
> > I never said  you had an obligation to defend others, this is something you 
> > need to decide for yourself if you want to do or not. What I am saying is 
> > that in the case of your post to Robin you were battering at Robin in order 
> > to somehow absolve Vaj, gloating even. Is there not a way to make a point 
> > that you think is valid without undermining the other person? And I have to 
> > say (God, I hate beating this very dead and stinky horse), I still don't 
> > see the rationale for why Vaj was right. He said he saw a tape of a seminar 
> > where someone was being struck. Robin had said he never struck anyone at a 
> > seminar. I said I don't remember ever seeing him strike a person at a 
> > seminar. Why do you still say Vaj was correct? Because Robin hit someone at 
> > Sunnyside, in a private house that pre-dated Vaj's supposed involvement 
> > with Robin by at least 4 years? Anyway, I don't get it.
> 
> 
> I can't speak for Curtis, but I suspect that he trusts the fact that I've 
> stated clearly that a benefactor of R's and his wife insisted I view this 
> video - they wouldn't take no for an answer - and that all the people I knew 
> locally severed any connection after that tape surfaced and circulated. I've 
> also clarified my dim remembrance of the video to point out it looked as if 
> Robindra was at the end of a long (and unsuccessful) confrontation and, as if 
> in exasperation, began pounding his fists on the person. It looked like a 
> person at their wits end. What it was not was a person punching a person, or 
> hitting them in the face or anything of that sort. But this video represented 
> a "last straw" for many late hangers on.
> 
> Once Robin admitted to hitting someone, despite numerous lies to the 
> contrary, the cat was out of the bag.
> 
> Understand these were also the same people who I went with to confront R. 
> later in person, the so-called ego food incident.
> 
> If I can get an answer as to what confrontation this was and who the person 
> was, I'll drop you a line privately both so you'll know and because I'd love 
> to hear your perspective.
>

Vaj just doubled down on his story contingent on finding out "what 
confrontation this was and who the person was." Red herring. Not gonna happen. 

Information that Vaj could more easily provide that Ann could verify:
1. Who was Robin's benefactor and wife that insisted Vaj view a video?
2. When did Vaj see the video and when and where was it filmed? There were no 
videos of meetings at Sunnyside. Four years after Sunnyside Ann was behind the 
camera filming and/or attending all Robin's seminars. If such a tape existed 
during this time she would have known about it. 
3. Where was "locally" when the tape surfaced and circulated and people saw it? 
If the video was a "last straw" for many late hangers on, Ann would have heard 
about people leaving because of a video.

Clues, Vaj, we need clues. Who shot the video? Was it Colonel Mustard in the 
kitchen? Did he use film or digital? Inquiring minds want to know.

[FairfieldLife] Re: So Much "Ouch" reframed as: "What;'s a little owie between friends"

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Gonna horn in on this discussion, if you don't mind.
> > 
> > Your many opinions about how I conducted myself with someone
> > else here are duly noted.  If you were me, everything be
> > different, wouldn't it?
> >
> > But then you would not have had the long conversations with
> > him which required me for, so you get the good with the bad
> > right?
> 
> Speaking of empty rhetoric...
> 
> > We are obviously seeing him differently and pretty much
> > always have.
> 
> Amusingly transparent attempt at context-shifting. This
> post was almost exclusively about you and your tactics,
> not about Robin. And that's awfully amusing spin about
> our having "pretty much always" seen Robin differently
> as well.
> 
> Jeez, you couldn't even tackle what I pointed out about
> Vaj and your ridiculous "smear campaign" notion.
> 
> But I can understand why you're getting tired of defending
> yourself. The more you try to defend yourself, the more
> there is *to* defend, because you just can't seem to do it
> with integrity.
> 
> 

Mayella's Guilt
http://youtu.be/C841wEogE4U

[FairfieldLife] Re: So Much "Ouch" reframed as: "What;'s a little owie between friends"

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Are you a fan of the Turner Classic Movie channel Ranchy?  I'm gunna ditch 
> Netflix because I've gone so mad for it.  As they like to say in all those 
> old movies, I think it's swell!
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Gonna horn in on this discussion, if you don't mind.
> > > > 
> > > > Your many opinions about how I conducted myself with someone
> > > > else here are duly noted.  If you were me, everything be
> > > > different, wouldn't it?
> > > >
> > > > But then you would not have had the long conversations with
> > > > him which required me for, so you get the good with the bad
> > > > right?
> > > 
> > > Speaking of empty rhetoric...
> > > 
> > > > We are obviously seeing him differently and pretty much
> > > > always have.
> > > 
> > > Amusingly transparent attempt at context-shifting. This
> > > post was almost exclusively about you and your tactics,
> > > not about Robin. And that's awfully amusing spin about
> > > our having "pretty much always" seen Robin differently
> > > as well.
> > > 
> > > Jeez, you couldn't even tackle what I pointed out about
> > > Vaj and your ridiculous "smear campaign" notion.
> > > 
> > > But I can understand why you're getting tired of defending
> > > yourself. The more you try to defend yourself, the more
> > > there is *to* defend, because you just can't seem to do it
> > > with integrity.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Mayella's Guilt
> > http://youtu.be/C841wEogE4U
> >
>

Mendacity - Cat On A Hot Tin Roof 
http://youtu.be/GiiE-h9ZYag

[FairfieldLife] Re: Group Use

[raunchydog]

Hey Buck, what's the subject?
http://youtu.be/7SB16il97yw

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> I don't blame you!!
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > Off Topic,  I am thinking of starting a group as a forum for a different 
> > subject and different group of people entirely.
> > 
> > 
> > How do you folks see the difference between Yahoo groups and Google groups 
> > as for forums hosting/facilitating discussion?  How is Google groups 
> > different from Yahoo groups to use??
> > 
> > I don't have much experience with Google groups.  I've never really used 
> > google's groups much.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance,
> > -Buck
> > 
> > you can e-mail me off this list at dhamiltony2k5 at yahoo.com
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: At Ralphs in Venice

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> right...another economic theory is that Capitalism in it's present form not 
> only has major glitches in it, but that were're witnessing the end of an 
> evolutionary progression in which this (our present situation); represents 
> the end of the road for the status quo, and major changes are needed to end 
> all corruption and set things straight.  In other words, the meltdown and 
> recession are symptoms of the decline rather than results of miss-steps of 
> any particular Administration, although one can easily point to some 
> culprints: W. Wilson, Hoover, FDR (for duping people into getting suckered 
> into Keynesian economics); Nixon (for many reasons), and then in recent 
> decades, any/all Presidents and Congresses contributing to the housing mess 
> including Clinton. From this longer term perspective, Obama is more off the 
> hook but is simply on the wrong track with more bail outs. Keynesianism 
> doesn't work, and won't.
> ...
> Let's see what Forbes has to say about the immediate post WWII era,
> (Forbes, Nov. 7):
> ...
> [first, he goes back to 1948 saying thjat Truman won through a combination of 
> Republican complacency and a sudden collapse in agricultural prices., 
> saying]: "In terms of vogers the "farm bloc" at that time, was 
> proportionally, about ten times the size it is today"
> ...
> "By the way, those do-nothing Republicans led the charge after WWII that 
> scrapped all warime rationing and price-and-wage controls.  They severly cut 
> government spending, reduced taxes and pushed through the Taft-Hartly Act, 
> which curbed the destructive powers of the labor unions.  Truman fought every 
> single one of those initiatives. But because of them the US experienced a 
> fantastic postwar economic boom, during which unemployment - even with the 
> return of millions of veterans - never went above 5%."
> ...
> [In essense, I'm saying that the history Forbes presents is part of an 
> inevitable trend that many capitalist systems may or may not go through; and 
> unfortunately the destructive influences go far beyond what faults lie in the 
> decisions of one or a few Presidents].
> ...
> As to the "cure"...first I'd opt for a more "Spiritual" type of capitalism 
> but haven't considered the particulars in detail. I'm willing to listen to 
> the input of anybody along those lines; since without the "Spiritual" 
> component, Capitalism may be doomed in its present form; hastening to add 
> that socialism would be far worse.
> 
>   Too little, too late.  But as to what those specific changes should be, I 
> don't know. Maybe Mr. Creme has something concrete to offer.  I'm willing to 
> listen "even" to him. However, between the Obama-type Community Activist 
> bail-outs and Forbes-type plans, I'd definitely go with the latter, ymmv as 
> usual.
> ...
> http://www.popaganda.com/media/blogs/store/graveyard%20guernica%20-%20Copy.JPG
> by Ron English "Graveyard Guernica".
> 
> 

Paul Krugman is tired of trying to reason with you people:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/ive-never-actually-seen-the-resemblance/

[FairfieldLife] Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> 
> Patrick, I do not deny your experience with the TM 
> puja, but I would suggest another explanatin for it. 
> I wouldn't use the words "placebo effect," as Vaj 
> does, but I would certainly call any subjective 
> effect associated with performing the puja an 
> exercise in "trained moodmaking."
> 
> If you think back on it, what could possibly BE more
> of an exercise in moodmaking than the way we were 
> taught to perform the puja? It (at least as taught
> on my TTC) was *not* about the mere "power of the
> words" and reciting them. We were taught explicitly
> to (contravening MMY's "Don't divide the mind" dictum)
> maintain a constant awareness of the meaning of the
> words in the puja in our minds while chanting/singing 
> them. We were told endless stories about the personal-
> ities of the teachers and/or gods and goddesses being 
> invoked by the words of the puja, and taught explicitly 
> to keep a conscious awareness of those meanings in our 
> minds. It was also implied in no uncertain terms that the
> puja was *supposed* to make you high, to change your
> state of attention and boost you into a higher one.
> 

On my TTC the mind "floats" on the meaning of the Puja, which happened quite 
effortlessly after the performing the it hundreds of times. It's not just my 
hundreds of times that enlivens the Woo Woo-shakti-magic-whatcha-ma-call-it of 
the Puja, it's the collective performance of TM initiators for many years that 
enlivens the Puja. 

Rituals become more powerful over time. Whether it's Dexter collecting blood 
slides or thousands of priests celebrating the rite of the Holy Eucharist, such 
rituals evoke a specific quality of energy one plugs into. 

For me, if I put my attention on it, anything associated with the Puja, a piece 
of fruit, a flower, a candle, the scent sandalwood, can evoke a feeling of 
devotion in the heart, a sense of "Mother is at Home" or the deep comfort one 
feels enjoying family life. It's an inner smile. Barry will dismiss this as 
"moodmaking" of course, but I'd say that when he became an initiator he was 
simply unable to open his heart to the experience of gratitude and devotion and 
that's why he's such a sourpuss about TM today.

Note to johnt: The Puja has nothing to do with "brainwave entrainment." You 
made that up. Furthermore, studying Bandler and Grinder will never give you any 
insight into the power of the Puja if you just focus on one individual doing 
the Puja. Study the years of collective performance of the Puja to enliven the 
mantras and you might be on to something.

> 
> I honestly believe that the reverence many TM teachers
> have for the puja and its magical Woo Woo qualities is
> based on not being able to tell the difference between
> a light buzz and a profound shift in one's state of
> attention. 

Barry, if you're going to make a distinction implying that a "profound shift in 
one's state of attention" is *better* than a "light buzz" without defining 
"buzz" or "shift" or explaining the difference (as if you have had some such 
*superior* experience and know the difference) you're just setting up a straw 
man for the sake of denigrating Patrick's experience of the Puja and being 
nasty and snide, as usual.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[raunchydog]

Robin, you have quite a talent for removing the mask from slippery
characters. Kudos! Judy has calling Barry out for the same behavior for
years and he still doesn't get it. Never will.  A zebra doesn't change
its stripes.


  [http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Orange-jelly-Nailed-it.jpg]

http://youtu.be/1pAcfJQgxjE 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> The Barry Wright Syndrome
>
> Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is
trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club
members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent
of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has
to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a
kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point
of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince
even himself that what he says is true.
>
> This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but
refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating
a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate
the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is
quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional
reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the
purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism.
Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never
thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really
believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my
point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate
this opinion?
>
> But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to
ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own
experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and
opinion that Barry expresses—we are mostly talking here about
matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e.
what has first drawn us into posting at FFL—is worth considering,
examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his
negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and lets
that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post here—happens
is that someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a
whore." The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized
wonders: "Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she prostituting
herself?"
>
> But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats
his insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his
post—as if this description of the person does not need explanation
or defence; Barry Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true.
>
> Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it
out as so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that
what he is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the
merits of his point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively,
reflexively ignores even the theoretical possibility that there is data
contradictory to his point of view; he merely ignores the very idea of
another, competing point of view. Barry is thus selectively biased in
this sense: Barry decides it serves his psychological needs to believe a
certain thing is one way; or rather he has a strong emotional need to
have the world appear a certain way to him. If he can pretend that it
does seem this way, then this enables him to project onto the world what
is most convenient for the perpetuation of his own undisciplined
predilections. Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. I
experience x to be a certain way 2. I will insist that x must be the way
I experience x.
>
> Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere
fact that you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to
your need for them to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort
required to go from being predisposed—compelled somehow—to see
things a particular way, to deciding well, they must be that way. We, on
the other hand, have to see how it is reasonable to draw the same
conclusions as Barry has. But he deprives us of this opportunity, and
makes his own subjective consciousness the only arbiter of the matter:
we either trust him on this, or else we are unable to enter into the
context within which he has come to believe what he says is the case. If
only Barry Wright would contemplate: I despise anyone on FFL who tries
to argue on behalf of a point of view which is at odds with my own point
of view. Therefore I am just going to attack that point of view as if it
is stupid and indefensible—but I will never explain why this is so.
I will just go on repeating my own judgment, without ever attempting to
persuade, convince, much less convert, others to my point of view.
>
> Is this no

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beyond Opinion (& Monkees Fan Clubs)

[raunchydog]

Love Keith Jarrett. Thanks for posting. Beautiful.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/230295

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wivo94ylmhE
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> 
> 
> RESPONSE: It makes all the difference in the world to have known Maharishi 
> personally and moreover to have become a teacher of TM and actually initiated 
> persons into TM. This utterly alters the context of one's experience. There 
> is a bigger difference (in my mind) between a meditator and an initiator than 
> there is between a non-meditator and a meditator. At least in making this 
> assertion I am getting at a real and substantial truth.
> 
> Maharishi was for those of us who knew and loved and served him, a Christ. We 
> were his more than 12 disciples. And the way he conveyed how we were to trust 
> and adore him left no room for doubt, for hedging our bets: he was a human 
> being who embodied and expressed the whole truth about creation. To have any 
> thoughts contrary to this was completely incompatible with even being a TM 
> teacher in the first place. No, whynotnow, to become an initiator—at least 
> before 1976—was to enter into an experience and process which had the 
> inevitable effect of knowing—as one knew nothing else—that Maharishi was the 
> most beautiful and wise and loving and strong human being in our lifetime. He 
> made sure, whynotnow, that we could find no fault in him—at least in his 
> public persona. He was a dazzingly and incredible personality, whose every 
> movement and gesture seemed to give us the physical example and proof of what 
> enlightenment must be.
> 

Maharishi gave me the impression that since the field of karma is unfathomable, 
we cannot know the level of consciousness of a person by his or her actions, 
Maharishi's actions included, IMO. Maharishi's personal technique for 
enlightenment was attuning himself to Guru Dev.  His devotion to Guru Dev set 
the condition for understanding that Guru Dev was the sine qua non for teaching 
TM, not himself. Whenever someone attempted to thank Maharishi, venerate him, 
or extol his greatness, he would humbly say, "Jai Guru Dev."  In other words: 
"It's not me you should be thanking. It's not me you should adore. [I did and 
still do adore him.] It's the through the grace of Guru Dev that we have the 
blessing of TM. We bow down to Guru Dev, none other."  

> For me, whynotnow, TM—the experience of transcending—was inextricably bound 
> up with the person and integrity of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. 
> 

Perhaps, Robin your inability to separate the experience of transcending from 
Maharishi means you didn't get the memo to focus on Guru Dev, not Maharishi. 
Wouldn't it have been more of a stretch to conclude that Guru Dev, that a man 
you never knew or met, was under the spell of demons or so dear to matter so 
deeply that he could scar your soul if he ignored or rejected you?

> I know this is not the case for many meditators—and even teachers—who 
> continue to value his technique. And obviously this is what is true for you 
> too: you separate, even in holding Maharishi to be a true Master, the 
> practice of TM from the human being Maharishi. 
> 

I'm with Jim on this score. It's not incompatible in my experience to hold 
Maharishi as both a flawed human being and a Master Teacher. TM is his great 
gift to the world and that far outweighs his human failings.

> And I would not wish to dissuade you (I couldn't anyway) from this point of 
> view. I only say for myself that my experiences of doing TM (and what was 
> added to TM) were always fused perfectly with the person Maharishi. And I 
> could never conceive of separating them out one from the other. And I 
> continue to believe that metaphysically this is the case. This is an original 
> idea, of course—and I won't attempt to defend its reasonableness here—but my 
> deepest intuition is: whatever Maharishi was (and is), so goes Transcendental 
> Meditation. A startling and seemingly strange notion perhaps, but for me the 
> very simplest and most inspired idea that I have about TM and Maharishi. If 
> Maharishi could be corrupt, then it means that TM has this same capacity to 
> corrupt (although I don't say TM will corrupt the person along the lines of 
> how Maharishi allegedly was corrupt—or became corrupt; no, I rather say: TM 
> is not finally a reliable and trustworthy methodology for self-improvement. 
> No matter what astonishing changes first begin to take place in one's 
> life—and of course no matter what heavenly bliss and ecstasy TM brings (and 
> it has brought a lot of this to hundreds of thousands of persons I am sure)).
> 
> WNN: So it depends whether you worked for the company, or simply used their 
> services.
> As a consumer, it was a good deal, especially work/study, where I could earn
> techniques as a trade for learning a vocation, especially in my mid-20's when 
> I
> didn't know anything anyway.
> 
> RESPONSE: I understand you here, and of course there is nothing that could be 
> said against any of this.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> 
> 
> RESPONSE: It makes all the difference in the world to have known Maharishi 
> personally and moreover to have become a teacher of TM and actually initiated 
> persons into TM. This utterly alters the context of one's experience. There 
> is a bigger difference (in my mind) between a meditator and an initiator than 
> there is between a non-meditator and a meditator. At least in making this 
> assertion I am getting at a real and substantial truth.
> 
> Maharishi was for those of us who knew and loved and served him, a Christ. We 
> were his more than 12 disciples. And the way he conveyed how we were to trust 
> and adore him left no room for doubt, for hedging our bets: he was a human 
> being who embodied and expressed the whole truth about creation. To have any 
> thoughts contrary to this was completely incompatible with even being a TM 
> teacher in the first place. No, whynotnow, to become an initiator—at least 
> before 1976—was to enter into an experience and process which had the 
> inevitable effect of knowing—as one knew nothing else—that Maharishi was the 
> most beautiful and wise and loving and strong human being in our lifetime. He 
> made sure, whynotnow, that we could find no fault in him—at least in his 
> public persona. He was a dazzingly and incredible personality, whose every 
> movement and gesture seemed to give us the physical example and proof of what 
> enlightenment must be.
> 

Robin, Maharishi gave me the impression that since the field of karma is 
unfathomable, we cannot know the level of consciousness of a person by his or 
her actions, Maharishi's actions included, IMO. Maharishi's personal technique 
for enlightenment was attuning himself to Guru Dev.  His devotion to Guru Dev 
set the condition for understanding that Guru Dev was the sine qua non for 
teaching TM, not himself. Whenever someone attempted to thank Maharishi, 
venerate him, or extol his greatness, he would humbly say, "Jai Guru Dev."  In 
other words: "It's not me you should be thanking. It's not me you should adore. 
[I did and still do adore him.] It's the through the grace of Guru Dev that we 
have the blessing of TM. We bow down to Guru Dev, none other."  

> For me, whynotnow, TM—the experience of transcending—was inextricably bound 
> up with the person and integrity of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. 
> 

Perhaps, Robin your inability to separate the experience of transcending from 
Maharishi means you didn't get the memo to focus on Guru Dev, not Maharishi. 
Wouldn't it have been more of a stretch to conclude that Guru Dev, that a man 
you never knew or met, was under the spell of demons or so dear to matter so 
deeply that he could scar your soul if he ignored or rejected you?

> I know this is not the case for many meditators—and even teachers—who 
> continue to value his technique. And obviously this is what is true for you 
> too: you separate, even in holding Maharishi to be a true Master, the 
> practice of TM from the human being Maharishi. 
> 

I'm with Jim on this score. It's not incompatible in my experience to hold 
Maharishi as both a flawed human being and a Master Teacher. TM is his great 
gift to the world and that far outweighs his human failings.

> And I would not wish to dissuade you (I couldn't anyway) from this point of 
> view. I only say for myself that my experiences of doing TM (and what was 
> added to TM) were always fused perfectly with the person Maharishi. And I 
> could never conceive of separating them out one from the other. And I 
> continue to believe that metaphysically this is the case. This is an original 
> idea, of course—and I won't attempt to defend its reasonableness here—but my 
> deepest intuition is: whatever Maharishi was (and is), so goes Transcendental 
> Meditation. A startling and seemingly strange notion perhaps, but for me the 
> very simplest and most inspired idea that I have about TM and Maharishi. If 
> Maharishi could be corrupt, then it means that TM has this same capacity to 
> corrupt (although I don't say TM will corrupt the person along the lines of 
> how Maharishi allegedly was corrupt—or became corrupt; no, I rather say: TM 
> is not finally a reliable and trustworthy methodology for self-improvement. 
> No matter what astonishing changes first begin to take place in one's 
> life—and of course no matter what heavenly bliss and ecstasy TM brings (and 
> it has brought a lot of this to hundreds of thousands of persons I am sure)).
> 
> WNN: So it depends whether you worked for the company, or simply used their 
> services.
> As a consumer, it was a good deal, especially work/study, where I could earn
> techniques as a trade for learning a vocation, especially in my mid-20's when 
> I
> didn't know anything anyway.
> 
> RESPONSE: I understand you here, and of course there is nothing that could be 
> said against any o

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is 'devotion to the Master' a mask for homosexuality?

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
>
> So what if following a guru is gay?   Is that costing you any money?  Are
> gay followers of gurus following you home at night?   Are they trying to
> break into your house, blaring their car horns outside you bedroom window
> at night?   Do they use the word mauve in conversations with you or call
> you Mary or Girl?
> 

"At a hearing Thursday for a bill that would repeal the federal ban on same sex 
marriage, [DOMA] Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) encouraged his Republican colleagues 
not to worry because 'straight people aren't suddenly going to become gay.'"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/10/franken-rebukes-marriage-inequality-straight-people-wont-suddenly-become-gay/

> Sometimes you make some interesting observations.  Sometimes you say some
> pithy things.  But other times your guru follower bashing is just so
> repetitive, just so far fetched, just so transparent, just so repetitive.
> I am a survivor of PTSD and TM, the TMO, Maharishi and the other followers
> played a prominent role in the later part of my PTSD.  I like to read about
> these things and also like to vent my spleen about these things because for
> me it's a continuation of my healing process and learning about TM, the TMO
> and Maharishi in an adult context.But what did or do your suffer from?
>   Are you afraid you're gay?  Well, don't be.  Happens to the best and
> worst of people.   Are you just trying to goad people every possible way?
> What if people who follow gurus wear sweaters?   What if they're liberals?
> What if they're conservatives?   What if they think Ron Paul has a
> snowball's chance in Hell of being elected, let alone being listened to
> except by a far out minority?   So what?Do you take words out of the
> dictionary, out of a thesaurus and charge the followers of gurus with the
> word of the day?   We had a really nice word a couple days ago.
> Consanguinity.   You haven't charged guru followers as being from the same
> blood line?   Why not write a rap on how bloody bad it is to follow a guru?*
> **
> *
>

[FairfieldLife] Rick Perry is Toast

[raunchydog]

Very funny and pathetically true.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-10-2011/indecision-2012---mercy-rule-edition

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick Perry is Toast

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
wrote:
>
> I'm glad Perry is running.  The guy is worth the entertainment value, despite 
> the scare that he could become president.  He is almost an exact replica of 
> GWB.  Horrible and incoherent speaker, southern accent, and a simplistic 
> mindset.  The only thing he has going for him is that his state does well 
> economically (historically speaking), but not necessarily of his own doing.  
> 
> I think it's too bad Ron Paul has to be associated as coming from the same 
> place as Perry and GWB.  I happen to look at him as potential for common 
> sense when it comes horrible spending policies and committing to the wrong 
> wars.  But he's old and not a 'cool' guy like Obama.  He'll never get elected.
> 
> seekliberation
> 

Unless Occupy Wall Street can inspire a populist change in our political system 
and once again the Democrats become the party of the 99%, common working 
people, we're stuck with a two party system controlled by thieving banksters 
and corporatists.  In the meantime, let's not mistake the Libertarian ideology 
of Ron Paul as a panacea for what's wrong with our system of government. 
Libertarians need to join the OWS rebellion against a flawed political system 
instead of boring us to death with their stupid ideology when we ask them to 
vote Blue by rallying around candidates who support working folks.

Personal freedom is at the heart the Libertarian worldview. They believe 
everyone should do whatever they want at all times. Do you want legalized 
drugs, gay marriage, no wars? Great! That certainly sounds attractive to a 
liberal like me, but don't be fooled.  Along with the personal freedom stuff 
they tout, Libertarian baggage includes either anti-taxation, or a regressive 
flat tax and zero regulation of commerce and the environment, all of which got 
us into the financial mess were in today. Plus, they would do away with the 
social safety net and put grandma on the street in her wheelchair in the dead 
of winter. Heartless SOB's, IMO. 

If you scratch beneath the surface, Libertarians are just a bunch of spoiled 
brats who think the "me-me-me-rugged individualism" of Ayn Rand, who just 
happened to be an unabashed serial killer groupie, is something to emulate.

In the South Park episode "I Do What I Want" Cartman shows the true face of 
Libertarian ideology.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153246/i-do-what-i-want

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > Very funny and pathetically true.
> > http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-10-2011/indecision-2012---mercy-rule-edition
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] DHS FBI & Police Cooridinated Attacks on OWS Cities

[raunchydog]

"Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict "Occupy" 
protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last 
night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of 
characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions 
was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal 
police agencies."

Read More:
http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies

http://skydancingblog.com/2011/11/15/did-feds-coordinate-occupy-crackdowns/

Mother Jones OWS Video
http://youtu.be/PVFcMpmN00M

[FairfieldLife] Police State: NYPD kills journalism and that's not news

[raunchydog]

"In the early hours of Tuesday morning, New York City reporters described 1) 
feeling too intimidated to report what the police were doing; and 2) incidents 
in which police physically prevented the press from doing its job--two 
characteristics of a police state.  A third characteristic of a police state is 
when news organizations conceal the fact that their reporters are not free to 
report stories."

http://jotman.blogspot.com/2011/11/at-ows-camp-nypd-prevents-journalism.html

Thom Hartman: "Journalists Enter at your own Risk" 
http://youtu.be/HsS4QaNQQOM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> "Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict 
> "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case 
> in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a 
> number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of 
> those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and 
> other federal police agencies."
> 
> Read More:
> http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies
> 
> http://skydancingblog.com/2011/11/15/did-feds-coordinate-occupy-crackdowns/
> 
> Mother Jones OWS Video
> http://youtu.be/PVFcMpmN00M
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Police State: NYPD kills journalism and that's not news

[raunchydog]

Live Stream Occupy Dallas: many police cars, mounted police, police in riot 
gear have tear gas will clear campers out of park in 15 minutes. 
http://www.wfaa.com/video?id=70231852&sec=553117

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> "In the early hours of Tuesday morning, New York City reporters described 1) 
> feeling too intimidated to report what the police were doing; and 2) 
> incidents in which police physically prevented the press from doing its 
> job--two characteristics of a police state.  A third characteristic of a 
> police state is when news organizations conceal the fact that their reporters 
> are not free to report stories."
> 
> http://jotman.blogspot.com/2011/11/at-ows-camp-nypd-prevents-journalism.html
> 
> Thom Hartman: "Journalists Enter at your own Risk" 
> http://youtu.be/HsS4QaNQQOM
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > "Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict 
> > "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the 
> > case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions 
> > shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, 
> > each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the 
> > FBI and other federal police agencies."
> > 
> > Read More:
> > http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies
> > 
> > http://skydancingblog.com/2011/11/15/did-feds-coordinate-occupy-crackdowns/
> > 
> > Mother Jones OWS Video
> > http://youtu.be/PVFcMpmN00M
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Police State: NYPD kills journalism and that's not news

[raunchydog]

The police have an unbelievable show of force. There's maybe 30 tents at most 
and 60 to 80 police vehicles, vans, cars, line the two sides a the street 
corner, barricading the park. About 50 police stand in a line facing the 
parking riot gear. Swat Team have told about 45 remaining protesters they have 
to leave. Protesters have barricaded them selves in. Police are about to make 
arrests.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> Live Stream Occupy Dallas: many police cars, mounted police, police in riot 
> gear have tear gas will clear campers out of park in 15 minutes. 
> http://www.wfaa.com/video?id=70231852&sec=553117
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > "In the early hours of Tuesday morning, New York City reporters described 
> > 1) feeling too intimidated to report what the police were doing; and 2) 
> > incidents in which police physically prevented the press from doing its 
> > job--two characteristics of a police state.  A third characteristic of a 
> > police state is when news organizations conceal the fact that their 
> > reporters are not free to report stories."
> > 
> > http://jotman.blogspot.com/2011/11/at-ows-camp-nypd-prevents-journalism.html
> > 
> > Thom Hartman: "Journalists Enter at your own Risk" 
> > http://youtu.be/HsS4QaNQQOM
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > "Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict 
> > > "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the 
> > > case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions 
> > > shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice 
> > > official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland 
> > > Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies."
> > > 
> > > Read More:
> > > http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies
> > > 
> > > http://skydancingblog.com/2011/11/15/did-feds-coordinate-occupy-crackdowns/
> > > 
> > > Mother Jones OWS Video
> > > http://youtu.be/PVFcMpmN00M
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Multiple Departments Battle Fire in Fairfield | KCRG-TV9 | Cedar Rapids, Iowa News, Sports, and Weather | Local News

[raunchydog]

It's Marty Brodeur's building. Terrible loss.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Multiple-Fire-Departments-Battle--134023038.h
> tml
>

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul Pin-Ups

[raunchydog]

In Tip of the Hat and Wag of the Finger, Stephen wags his finger at the Pin-Ups 
for Ron Paul calendar. He says the allegedly Libertarian product features all 
the Federally mandated holidays. "Who is the Federal Government to tell me what 
day to celebrate the 4th of July?" Very funny. Stephen cuts right to the heart 
of Libertarian ideology. "You are the only one that matters!"

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/402492/november-16-2011/tip-wag---pin-ups-for-ron-paul--movie-torture-tactics---offensive-merchandisee-mechandise
http://tinyurl.com/7fmhhjv

[FairfieldLife] Global Revolution Livestream

[raunchydog]

Occupy Now Playing:
Austin
NYC
LA
Philadelphia
Toronto
http://www.livestream.com/guide/livetv

[FairfieldLife] Re: Moonlight Sonata - Gilel

[raunchydog]

Thanks for posting. In the three years of piano lessons I took in Jr. High, 
Moonlight Sonata was one of my favorites pieces. It's easy enough for a 
beginner to do it justice, but never as beautifully played as Gilel. It brings 
back memories of my piano teacher demonstrating a new piece to give me a feel 
for the music. From fortissimo to pianissimo her red nail polished fingers 
swooshed passionately over the ivories. I loved her. She smelled good too. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuKdFJYPx2U
>

[FairfieldLife] Oprah in the Dome

[raunchydog]

>From Facebook: Oprah Winfrey, looking good, practicing TM in the dome.
http://www.facebook.com/oprahwinfrey?sk=photos


 
[http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/318598_10150437809787220\
_22433917219_8176691_2056404035_n.jpg]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Moonlight Sonata - Gilel

[raunchydog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaTG-LIQ7sY

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
>  <http://www.douban.com/photos/photo/761695572/#next_photo>
> please do not ask : which key is the "any" key ?
> http://www.douban.com/photos/photo/761695590/
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for posting. In the three years of piano lessons I took in Jr.
> High, Moonlight Sonata was one of my favorites pieces. It's easy enough
> for a beginner to do it justice, but never as beautifully played as
> Gilel. It brings back memories of my piano teacher demonstrating a new
> piece to give me a feel for the music. From fortissimo to pianissimo her
> red nail polished fingers swooshed passionately over the ivories. I
> loved her. She smelled good too.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuKdFJYPx2U
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Occupy Des Moines

[raunchydog]

I had two complimentary tickets for the Iowa Democratic Party's annual 
Jefferson Jackson Dinner fundraiser in Des Moines at Hy-Vee Hall. I invited a 
fellow Democrat and good friend to be my guest. We decided to make a side trip 
to the nearby Occupy Des Moines campsite in Stewart Park. There are about 25 
regular campers and about that many tents on site. By the time we arrived very 
few people were there because the Occupiers were assembling in Nollen Plaza for 
a march to Hy-Vee Hall to protest the Democrats choosing Rahm Emauel as keynote 
speaker.

I made two videos of Occupy Des Moines, which I'll post this evening. I'll post 
the Jefferson Jackson event soon after I finish editing.

Flip Camera Videos:

3:57 Occupy Stewart Park
http://youtu.be/hgLNSKpfNgY

5:40 Occupy Nollen Plaza
http://youtu.be/G9kGGAn184c

[FairfieldLife] Full of Mice

[raunchydog]

The diet of the owl is not
For delicate digestions.
He goes out on a limb to hoot
Unanswerable questions

And just because he winks like men
Who utter sage advice,
We think him full of wisdom when
He's only full of mice.

Owl
by X.J. Kennedy

Cute Owl on Youtube

http://youtu.be/3G1PFLuTrgM 

 
[http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01793/owl-mouse_1793880i.jp\
g]  

[FairfieldLife] JJ Dinner

[raunchydog]

Chicago Mayor, Rahm Emauel was the keynote speaker for the Iowa Democratic 
Party's annual fundraiser, Jefferson Jackson Dinner at Hy-Vee Hall, Des Moines, 
Iowa 11-19-2011. This video features highlights of the speeches.
http://youtu.be/KEF1I4R2RWw

[FairfieldLife] Re: Getcher red-hot pepper spray rightchere...

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy, they were breaking the law!
> > 
> > BillyG, go look up "civil disobedience" in Mr. Dictionary.
> 
> A debate about civil disobedience vs. the rule of law with you would be a 
> waste of time and I don't appreciate your condescending dismissive attitude 
> either.
>

BillyG, if you don't want to debate Judy, debate the use of pepper spray in 
civil disobedience with Rachel Maddow then defend the militarization of police 
and the use of non-lethal weapons, pepper spray, tear gas, bullets and sound 
cannons. Non-lethal weapons only increase the occasion for unnecessary use of 
force against nonviolent protesters.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/45395647#45395647

Pepper Spray is off the Scoville Scale, 3 to 5 times greater than any known 
type of pepper. It can cause permanent damage to the lungs, eyes and the immune 
system. 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/45410896#45410896

"Citizens who engage in civil disobedience do so knowing that they risk arrest; 
in some cases they actually welcome it. And if police and prosecutors choose to 
accommodate by filling our jails and our courts with peaceful protesters, 
that's up to them. But physically assaulting protesters for refusing to obey an 
order, lawful or otherwise, should not be an option for officers of the peace.

Officers and their commanders need to remind themselves that by the SPD's own 
policy (.pdf), "less lethal" weapons like pepper spray are intended as 
"alternatives to the use of deadly force." They are not meant to be used as a 
convenient means of crowd dispersal. They are not intended as some sort of 
righteous street justice against disruptive protesters. Essentially, if the 
officer wouldn't otherwise shoot the person in the face, he has no business 
pepper spraying him.

If protesters are breaking the law and refuse to desist in response to a lawful 
order, the police have the right to arrest them. Yes, mass arrests can be time 
consuming and labor intensive. And yes, calmly surrounding the protesters, 
cuffing them, and hauling them off one by one sure does take a long time to 
clear out a blocked intersection. But, you know, it's their job.

Civil disobedience can be awfully inconvenient to authorities. In fact, that's 
kinda the point.

But unless the police believe they have no other choice but to open fire on the 
crowd, then they have no right to viciously, remorselessly, and lazily resort 
to the use of chemical weapons against unarmed civilians."

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/17/spd-should-do-their-job-and-arrest-occupy-protesters-not-assault-them

http://occupywallst.org/

[FairfieldLife] UC Davis chancellor “Chemical” Linda Katehi

[raunchydog]

"Here's the sordid back-story: Linda Katehi was born in Athens in 1954 and got 
her undergraduate degree at the famous Athens Polytechnic. She just happened to 
be the right age to be a student at the Polytechnic university on the very day, 
November 17, 1973, when the junta sent in tanks and soldiers to crush her 
fellow pro-democracy students. It was only after democracy was restored in 
1974–and Greek university campuses were turned into police-free "asylum 
zones"–that Linda Katehi eventually moved to the USA, earning her PhD at UCLA.

Earlier this year, Linda Katehi served on an "International Committee On Higher 
Education In Greece," along with a handful of American, European and Asian 
academics. The ostensible goal was to "reform" Greece's university system. The 
real problem, from the real powers behind the scenes (banksters and the EU), 
was how to get Greece under control as the austerity-screws tightened. It 
didn't take a genius to figure out that squeezing more money from Greece's 
beleaguered citizens would mean clamping down on Greece's democracy and doing 
something about those pesky Greek university students. And that meant taking 
away the universities' "amnesty" protection, in place for nearly four decades, 
so that no one, nowhere, would be safe from police truncheons, gas, or bullets.

Thanks to the EU, bankers, and UC Davis chancellor Linda Katehi, university 
freedom for Greece's students has taken a huge, dark step backwards."

Read more:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/mark-ames-how-uc-davis-chancellor-linda-katehi-brought-oppression-back-to-greece%E2%80%99s-universities.html
http://tinyurl.com/bngc4jb

[FairfieldLife] Re: UC Davis chancellor “Chemical” Linda Katehi

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM, raunchydog  wrote:
> 
> > Thanks to the EU, bankers, and UC Davis chancellor Linda Katehi,
> > university freedom for Greece's students has taken a huge, dark step
> > backwards."
> >
> >
> UC Davis' Affirmative Action Chancellor.  There was a time in a universe
> far away where people had to be qualified to hold a position other than by
> quota.
>

So it's all about a bug about blacks and women, again. Sounds familiar, Tom. 
Moaning about the excesses of affirmative action is such an old saw. What's up 
with that? Are you concerned that some poor pissed upon white guy who usually 
gets a leg up from *his* good old boy affirmative action network might not be 
able to compete on a level playing field with a person with equal 
qualifications from an underrepresented group?  Do you think there are so many 
job openings for chancellor of a university that Katehi's appointment simply 
fulfilled a quota?

Katehi isn't a lightweight who didn't earn or deserve her position as 
chancellor of UC Davis. Her curriculum vitae could compete with any man for the 
job she holds. 
http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/about/index.html

But that's not the point of the article, is it?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Music Video: Occupy the Future

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> This is my latest Captain Bebops video "Occupy the Future":
> http://youtu.be/EuVxn0RdLNc
> 
> Enjoy!
>

Thanks for posting. I like that your characters are from all walks of life. My 
favorite video on your channel is "Night of the Dreadful Republicans" Very 
funny. What program did you use to make that?

[FairfieldLife] Re: UC Davis chancellor “Chemical” Linda Katehi

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2011, at 5:42 AM, whynotnow7 wrote:
> 
> > It was an interesting article. I've heard the Chancellor interviewed here 
> > on TV and radio a fair amount following the UC Davis debacle, and she comes 
> > across to me anyway as genuinely concerned about this, beyond just saying 
> > the right things. Seems like a decent enough soul in the middle of a very 
> > ugly situation. 
> 
> Then you would have been perfect bait for the Nazis, Jim.  A lot of 
> them came across as "decent souls," too.  Wake up. Anyone can put on a pious 
> act for the cameras.  It's  what they do that counts, and her actions were 
> reprehensible.  
> 

Jim is awake, Sal. You're the one asleep, and too lazy as usual to actually 
exert a little brain power to find out that Katehi says she didn't order campus 
police to use pepper spray. It must really suck to wake up on the wrong side of 
the bed everyday feeling crabby and pissed off at the world, which by the way, 
is a tiresome, reprehensible characteristic of your personality. 

Katehi says she directed the police to remove tents but not make any arrests or 
use force.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1123/Pepper-spray-explanation-doesn-t-wash-with-UC-Davis-students

At Katehi's request, the University of California is launching an independent 
investigation of the pepper spraying incident. An advisory panel of students, 
faculty, staff and other members of the UC community will review the report and 
make recommendations to preserve the safety of peaceful protesters. 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/11/23/uc-davis-investigation-pepper-spray.html

I won't make a judgement on Katehi's actions until after the investigation. 
Given the recent use of pepper spray on protesters in other cities, maybe she 
should have specifically told campus police not to use pepper spray. Maybe she 
did and they ignored her orders. We won't know who said what until there's an 
investigation showing evidence of written memos or emails. 

I can only imagine how difficult it is for police to physically remove 
protesters who refuse to obey a order to disburse, but it's their job. They're 
trained to cuff-em and take them away without injuring them. Unfortunately, 
pepper spray seems to make police lazy about dealing with civil disobedience. 
It should never be used as long as protesters remain non-violent and pose no 
threat to the safety of the police. I hope this investigation puts a light on 
the apparent increase of unwarranted use of pepper spray on occupiers in many 
cities around the county. It's an an ugly police state tactic and must stop.

It's ironic that Katehi was a student at Athens Polytechnic in 1973 and there's 
a plaque on UC Davis campus in memory of the students killed at Athens 
Polytechnic November 17, 1973 by the military junta ruling Greece. She said she 
was there and will never forget it.

Raw Story had a link to youtube of Katehi's heartfelt apology to the students. 
She choked-up with emotion when she referenced the plaque on campus. Youtube 
has since banned the video and Raw Story no longer links to it. I don't know 
why.
http://bannedfromyoutube.com/watch_video.php?v=1HBWHXDD93RU  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Music Video: Occupy the Future

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 11/23/2011 10:28 PM, raunchydog wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >> This is my latest Captain Bebops video "Occupy the Future":
> >> http://youtu.be/EuVxn0RdLNc
> >>
> >> Enjoy!
> >>
> > Thanks for posting. I like that your characters are from all walks of life. 
> > My favorite video on your channel is "Night of the Dreadful Republicans" 
> > Very funny. What program did you use to make that?
> 
> This is another take off on "Night of the Living Dead" by JibJab who are 
> pros at doing this (I'm just a hobbyist).  Quite funny.
> "Night of the Living Republicans":
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX8izgW4gi
>

Your link doesn't work. 

[FairfieldLife] Flex your rights

[raunchydog]

Billy G, just in case you decide it would be fun to do some hippie punching at 
a peaceful occupy protest coming to your hometown soon and in the melee of mass 
arrests the police pepper spray you, here's what you should do: 

1. Remain calm even if your eyeballs feel on fire.

2. Don't scream. Politely say you wish to remain silent because the police can 
legally lie to use words and pleas for mercy against you.

3. You should also politely ask, "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" If 
the officer says you are being detained, rather than WTF? say, "What is the 
reasonable suspicion that you have to detain me?"  

4. Never consent to searches. Simply say, "I don't consent to a search." That 
won't stop police from finding the dogeared copy of Mein Kampf in your 
underwear, but asserting your 4th Amendment rights means that even if they find 
some pot, your lawyer has a better chance of getting charges against you 
dropped. 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/05/flex-your-rights-the-top-3-things-to-do-in-every-police-encounter/

[FairfieldLife] Flex your rights

[raunchydog]

Billy G, just in case you decide it would be fun to do some hippie punching at 
a peaceful occupy protest coming to your hometown soon and in the melee of mass 
arrests the police pepper spray you, here's what you should do:

1. Remain calm even if your eyeballs feel on fire.

2. Don't scream. Politely say you wish to remain silent because the police can 
legally lie to use your words and pleas for mercy against you.

3. You should also politely ask, "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" If 
the officer says you are being detained, rather than WTF? say, "What is the 
reasonable suspicion that you have to detain me?"

4. Never consent to searches. Simply say, "I don't consent to a search." That 
won't stop police from finding the dog-eared copy of Mein Kampf in your 
underwear, but asserting your 4th Amendment rights means that even if they find 
some pot, your lawyer has a better chance of getting charges against you 
dropped.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/05/flex-your-rights-the-top-3-things-to-do-in-every-police-encounter/

[FairfieldLife] Flex your rights

[raunchydog]

Billy G, just in case you decide it would be fun to do some hippie punching at 
a peaceful occupy protest coming to your hometown soon and in the melee of mass 
arrests the police pepper spray you, here's what you should do:

1. Remain calm even if your eyeballs feel on fire.

2. Don't scream. Politely say you wish to remain silent. FYI the police can 
legally lie to use your words and pleas for mercy against you.

3. You should also politely ask, "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" If 
the officer says you are being detained, rather than WTF? say, "What is the 
reasonable suspicion that you have to detain me?"

4. Never consent to searches. Simply say, "I don't consent to a search." That 
won't stop police from finding the dog-eared copy of Mein Kampf in your 
underwear, but asserting your 4th Amendment rights means that even if they find 
some pot, your lawyer has a better chance of getting charges against you 
dropped.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/05/flex-your-rights-the-top-3-things-to-do-in\-every-police
 encounter/

[FairfieldLife] For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

Robin, if you're out there. I made a video of Lady Gaga's HBO Monster Ball 
special just for you. This is the one where she climbs on the piano and plays 
the guitar with her foot. Wild Woman! Enjoy.
http://youtu.be/W7d1dDgRCuA

[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Sal Sunshine 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 7:26:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for 
> levitation
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:37 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> 
> > As much as I delighted in watching 2-3/4 year old
> > Maya watching it, at the same time as an adult I
> > couldn't help but be struck by the fact that this
> > "we hope it'll become a Christmas classic" film
> > called upon us to believe stuff that can only be
> > called ludicrous. That is, that Mammoths and other
> > creatures who lived 4700 years before Christ 
> 
> That recently?  I thought they had all disappeared 
> during the last ice age, maybe 15,000-20,000 years 
> ago. But I also have no idea.  Maybe I'm thinking of 
> someone else.
> 
> Sal 
> 
> ***You're treading on dangerous ice here, 
> you're likely up for an email warning, you should know better; KB does not
> like to be contradicted by women; one can only imagine the heated scientific
> arguments with Maya (might be why we needed to know a two year old
> is 2 years 9 months; I guess that was needed to make her juxtaposition to the
> "adult" more effective). Knowing the loyalty of "Ice Age"
> fans I imagine the "adult" is still smarting from the bruising he received
> at Maya's hands (kids that age can be vicious), which may explain his attempt
> to take Lawson's post out of *context*. And Sal, just a heads up; if you're
> going to disagree with your initiator about the factual basis of cartoons, 
> make
> sure you remember your sources, the last thing we would ever want you to be 
> accused
> of is being *slothful* in your thinking.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8b5v4USEWY
> 

Awww...

FYI Sal,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth

[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
>
> "If anyone can honestly present a case WHY we should put any credence 
> whatsoever on Maharishi's Sidhi Scam and claims about levitation, without 
> parroting his words the way Lawson did, I'd love to hear it."
> 
> ** You'd 'love to hear it'? OK, though please excuse my massive skepticism -- 
> 
> First, I don't think Lawson is trying to make anyone else see something as 
> credible, especially if they are predisposed not to. 
> 
> Second, it seems that if the TM Sidhis were in fact a "Scam", it would 
> probably make the news at some point, with hundreds of former unsatisfied 
> practitioners bringing lawsuits, or otherwise legally challenging the TM 
> Sidhis claims. After all, they have been taught for 30 years. 
> 
> Third, any technique  of this nature cannot be substantiated except by 
> experience. It sounds like you got nothing from the Sidhis, and you are 
> trying to express that as the norm for everyone else. These days, with 
> avenues for expression everywhere, you really don't hear about people's great 
> dissatisfaction with the TM Sidhis and demands for their money back. Ever.
> 
> Fourth, so it must just be you, and a few others. Sorry dude, maybe we could 
> establish a fund on FFL for people that want some kind of financial 
> compensation for their incomplete spiritual experiences. 
> 
> Fifth, I'll contribute the first five bucks. :-)  
> 

Young kid wants his money back 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSlT7EwhJWY

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > Robin, if you're out there. I made a video of Lady Gaga's HBO Monster Ball 
> > special just for you. This is the one where she climbs on the piano and 
> > plays the guitar with her foot. Wild Woman! Enjoy.
> > http://youtu.be/W7d1dDgRCuA
> >
> 
> Ops...
> 
> "This video contains content from UMG. It is not available.
> Sorry about that."
>

I figured I'd have problem posting a link to Gaga if I selected "Public"(anyone 
can search for and view) so I selected "Unlisted" (anyone with the link can 
view). Apparently, they didn't like that either. Here's the "Private" link 
(only people you choose can view). If that doesn't work, come over for a bottle 
of O'Doul's and we'll watch Gaga do her thing in "Sparky the Bra." She's 
fabulous! 

http://youtu.be/W7d1dDgRCuA

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> 
> Robin, if you're out there. I made a video of Lady Gaga's HBO Monster Ball
> special just for you. This is the one where she climbs on the piano and plays
> the guitar with her foot. Wild Woman! Enjoy.
> http://youtu.be/W7d1dDgRCuA
> 
> Dear raunchydog:
> 
> Thanks for this, but I have had the Madison Square Garden HBO Monster Ball 
> special recorded ever since it first appeared on HBO.
> 
> However, I consider it (obviously) a most generous and thoughtful gesture on 
> your part to have made the video—By the way, it won't download here in sleepy 
> non-Gaga Canada.
> 
> It was this concert when I first got the Gaga spirit—I think it her very best 
> performance—this, and when she played the piano and sang for Howard Stern.
> 
> This may seem (and I think is) somewhat incongruous to introduce here, 
> raunchydog, but you will know that Ted Hughes's Crow lecture came up 
> (courtesy of video from PaliGap—rugby winger, Hendrix connoisseur) indirectly 
> in reference to someone who posts at FFL—and I posted two of his [Hughes's] 
> poems [contrasting]. Well, here is a quote of his [TH] that I like very 
> much—It very much applies to Gaga, I think; and I know it applies to me; I 
> would argue even that it applies to everyone who posts at FFL (although it 
> needs explication, because what I believe he is saying is a lot more subtle 
> than what might be taken to be what he means—I think this is an unconscious 
> thing as well):
> 
> "Poetic imagination is determined finally by the state of negotiation—in a 
> person or in a people—between man and his idea of the Creator. This is 
> natural enough, and everything else is naturally enough subordinate to it. 
> How things are between man and his idea of the Divinity determines everything 
> in his life, the quality and connectedness of every feeling and thought, and 
> the meaning of every action."
> 
> I doubt that Gaga can ever soar higher than she did that night in Manhattan 
> at MSG.
> 
> Robin
>

In the link below (which should work), Gaga reflects on her success saying it 
was her destiny, then asks, "Who created this?" and concludes, "It's God."  She 
owes her poetic imagination to Divinity as well as her connectedness to her 
fans, New York roots.
http://youtu.be/T0zVHMV1sqs

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> 
> > > Robin, if you're out there. I made a video of Lady Gaga's HBO Monster Ball
> special just for you. This is the one where she climbs on the piano and plays
> the guitar with her foot. Wild Woman! Enjoy.
> > > http://youtu.be/W7d1dDgRCuA
> > >
> >
> > Ops...
> >
> > "This video contains content from UMG. It is not available.
> > Sorry about that."
> >
> 
> I figured I'd have problem posting a link to Gaga if I selected 
> "Public"(anyone
> can search for and view) so I selected "Unlisted" (anyone with the link can
> view). Apparently, they didn't like that either. Here's the "Private" link 
> (only
> people you choose can view). If that doesn't work, come over for a bottle of
> O'Doul's and we'll watch Gaga do her thing in "Sparky the Bra." She's 
> fabulous!
> 
> http://youtu.be/W7d1dDgRCuA
> 
> Raunchydog:
> 
> Looks like we'll have to share that bottle of O'Doul's [Gaga can handle her 
> whiskey: I can't] as this too is blocked.
> 
> LG lives like Cinderella at the ball: the moment she ever becomes 
> self-conscious, there will only be pumpkins and wicked (or perhaps dull) 
> stepsisters.
> 
> What intrigues me—besides her talent (you notice that Tony Bennett conceives 
> of her eventually becoming the American Picasso) —is the quality of grace 
> which keeps her from becoming subjectively aware of herself in the moment of 
> performing as LG.
> 
> Robin
>

Great description of LG as Cinderella at the ball. Her request for life 
affirming applause for herself as Tinkerbell at the Monster Ball, made the 
monsters happy. She must perform for the monsters or die. Her creativity cannot 
be restrained. It is a matter of life and death to be as true to her unique 
self as she can possibly be.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > Great description of LG as Cinderella at the ball. Her request for life 
> > affirming applause for herself as Tinkerbell at the Monster Ball, made the 
> > monsters happy. She must perform for the monsters or die. Her creativity 
> > cannot be restrained. It is a matter of life and death to be as true to her 
> > unique self as she can possibly be.
> 
> RESPONSE: I like this take on LG, raunchydog. We have an agreement inside 
> reality, it would seem.
>

O.K. One last try. I uploaded Lady Gaga to my Picasa account. Let me know if it 
works. 
https://picasaweb.google.com/106545400900838340106/LadyGaga?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCNHTqfHlr6SD9QE&feat=directlink
http://tinyurl.com/cq2h2sp

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Yeah Babythat was a joy to watch.  
>  
> > From: raunchydog 
> >
> >O.K. One last try. I uploaded Lady Gaga to my Picasa account. Let me know if 
> >it works. 
> > https://picasaweb.google.com/106545400900838340106/LadyGaga?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCNHTqfHlr6SD9QE&feat=directlink
> > http://tinyurl.com/cq2h2sp
> >
> >

Great! Here's more: In the "Boys, Boys, Boys," Gaga paid tribute to gay pride. 
The choreography was an all out head banging, camp it up, crotch grabbing 
spectacle with just a hint of swish stamped on sheer muscular power as only gay 
guys can do. Fabulous!

https://picasaweb.google.com/106545400900838340106/BoysBoysBoys?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCKbAxuXTmNSuywE&feat=directlink
http://tinyurl.com/7t6988d

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > O.K. One last try. I uploaded Lady Gaga to my Picasa account. 
> > > Let me know if it works. 
> > > https://picasaweb.google.com/106545400900838340106/LadyGaga?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCNHTqfHlr6SD9QE&feat=directlink
> > > http://tinyurl.com/cq2h2sp
> > 
> > Link works, but I remain completely baffled by the whole 
> > Lady Gaga phenomenon. To me, that was just a half-naked 
> > woman screaming into a microphone while other musicians 
> > play random noises.
> 
> Thank you for this, Alex. I was beginning to fear
> that standards here had reached a new low. People 
> are such suckers for a little cheap flash.
>

And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, 
stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. 
It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. 
And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. 
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. 
What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store. 
What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > 
> > > No one has—to universal consensus—decoded the context of
> > > LG's art—or even personality. I don't think it it a
> > > matter of whether you 'get it' or don't 'get it'. I myself
> > > do not pretend to have understood exactly what is going on
> > > when LG performs—or just speaks in her normal person. But
> > > one thing is certain: she is more isolated from the world
> > > than anyone I have ever known—not such as to make her
> > > naive or removed; but in terms of a certain aesthetic—I
> > > would even say metaphysical—autonomy. It does not seem fake
> > > to me. There is no unmasking the mask. And besides this,
> > > she is able to ride on her sincerity without experiencing
> > > any falseness in this.
> > 
> > No falseness, but maybe some loneliness at times? I'm
> > guessing that's what was behind her weeping on the
> > interview video raunchy posted. That was painful to
> > watch.
> 
> RESPONSE: I think she knows she has to suffer like this, Judy. And I think 
> her loneliness is more or less unconscious—if one can say such a thing. She 
> has been swept up in some kind of drama that, for me at least, entails losing 
> control of everything. But the weeping, it is all part of her context I 
> think. She has a profound trust—explicit—in providence. For me she is the 
> proof that life contains—even after Monte Cassino(!)—some intrinsic meaning. 
> I understand your take on her, though, and I am hardly in a position to say I 
> am right.
> > 

IMO her tears are more about injustice than loneliness. From the school yard 
bully to the teacher she mentioned at the Monster Ball who told her she would 
never make it in show business because she was too "ethnic", to which she 
replied, "What about Liza Minnelli?" she fought back at the injustice of being 
told she was less than or could not be who she believed she could be. She 
believed in herself when no one else would. 

Her tears were about fighting against feeling the injustice of being beaten by 
those wishing to destroy her free spirit. This is why she sympathizes with so 
strongly with gays. How can you be anyone but who you are unless you accept 
defeat and disown your truth? She kept her truth but still fights the shadow of 
those who tried to tell her, "You cannot be you."

> > 
> > > I have never known any woman who seems to contain a more 
> > > interesting secret than Gaga does. And I am able to
> > > appreciate the truth of not entirely being sure what is
> > > finally behind her shtick. I think underneath it all—I
> > > have said this before—is a lovely good girl.
> > 
> > That's my sense. I just hope her enormous generosity
> > doesn't consume her, that she's not *so* isolated from
> > the world that she can't take something back for herself.
> >
> RESPONSE: I think she likes the sacrifice of herself (to her destiny) such 
> that in a sense she feels honoured that "she can't take something back for 
> herself". Besides, I have a feeling that were you pose this in the form of a 
> question to her, you would get an answer that would surprise you. She is 
> unpredictable, but in a way that suggests a coherent integrity behind her 
> lovely strangeness and originality. I think, Judy, she relishes being 
> "consumed" by her "enormous personality". She loves her fate.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> wrote:
>   In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > > Thank you for this, Alex. I was beginning to fear
> > > that standards here had reached a new low. People
> > > are such suckers for a little cheap flash.
> > >
> >  And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow,
> > stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without
> ribbons.
> > It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags.
> > And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore.
> > Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before.
> > What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store.
> > What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.
> >
> He pushed your buttons!  He pushed your buttons!
>

Right, and I pushed yours.

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> [Robin wrote:]
> > > > I have never known any woman who seems to contain a more 
> > > > interesting secret than Gaga does. And I am able to
> > > > appreciate the truth of not entirely being sure what is
> > > > finally behind her shtick. I think underneath it all—I
> > > > have said this before—is a lovely good girl.
> > > 
> > > That's my sense. I just hope her enormous generosity
> > > doesn't consume her, that she's not *so* isolated from
> > > the world that she can't take something back for herself.
> > >
> > RESPONSE: I think she likes the sacrifice of herself (to
> > her destiny) such that in a sense she feels honoured that
> > "she can't take something back for herself". Besides, I
> > have a feeling that were you pose this in the form of a
> > question to her, you would get an answer that would 
> > surprise you. She is unpredictable, but in a way that
> > suggests a coherent integrity behind her lovely
> > strangeness and originality. I think, Judy, she relishes 
> > being "consumed" by her "enormous personality". She loves
> > her fate.
> 
> (Enormous *generosity*, not "enormous personality.") I'm not
> questioning her integrity or coherence or the sincerity of
> her self-sacrifice. I just don't want to see her do herself
> in (physically or emotionally). She may need to rein in her
> instinct to sacrifice not just for her own sake but for the
> sake of those for whom she's sacrificing, if you see what I
> mean.
>

I suspect folks have been telling LG to rein herself in her whole life and 
that's exactly what drives her ambition while happily giving the middle finger 
to anyone who would dampen her spirit. Is she one of those bright lights like 
Janis, or Jimmy who burned brightly then flamed out? I don't know. But I 
wouldn't want her to be anything but her genuine self, an enormously generous 
personality, for sure. I hope she's with us for a very long time. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> I'm more a sucker for a good dance beat and a catchy melody. I generally 
> don't listen to pop music, but Petra managed to get me hooked on Katy Perry's 
> song 'Firework', and I found a cover version on YouTube by an a cappella 
> singer/beatboxer that I like even better than the original. And yesterday, on 
> his YouTube channel, I found a cover version of a song I'd never heard by 
> singers I don't know, and it has been my musical crack cocaine all day:
> 
> http://youtu.be/eaDS3yktLlY
> 
> Keep in mind that every sound is made by either voice or mouth.
>

Alex, if this doesn't set your toes a-tappin' and get you funky cooking in your 
kitchen, I don't know what will:

"Gaga Dance Beat for Alex"

https://picasaweb.google.com/106545400900838340106/GagaDanceBeatForAlex?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCKfqwqfQ5av-EQ&feat=directlink
http://tinyurl.com/7dkk7yc 

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > > (Enormous *generosity*, not "enormous personality.") I'm not
> > > questioning her integrity or coherence or the sincerity of
> > > her self-sacrifice. I just don't want to see her do herself
> > > in (physically or emotionally). She may need to rein in her
> > > instinct to sacrifice not just for her own sake but for the
> > > sake of those for whom she's sacrificing, if you see what I
> > > mean.
> > 
> > I suspect folks have been telling LG to rein herself in her
> > whole life and that's exactly what drives her ambition while
> > happily giving the middle finger to anyone who would dampen
> > her spirit.
> 
> Don't think she'd have to "dampen her spirit," actually.
> 
> > Is she one of those bright lights like Janis, or Jimmy who
> > burned brightly then flamed out? I don't know. But I wouldn't
> > want her to be anything but her genuine self, an enormously 
> > generous personality, for sure. I hope she's with us for a
> > very long time.
> 
> Same here, and it's the Janis/Jimi phenomenon that worries
> me. But again, there's no need for her to be anything but
> her genuine self for her to do what I'm talking about. I
> think she's *unlike* Janis and Jimi in that regard. I doubt
> they had a choice, but I think she does.
>

I don't get the vibe that she's self destructive, thank goodness. I trust her 
drive to be creative will keep her safe from the excesses of addiction. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> wrote:
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > > He pushed your buttons! He pushed your buttons!
> > >
> >
> > Right, and I pushed yours.
> >
> Actually, you didn't.  But  Barry did.  It always strikes me as odd that
> Barry can rarely make a point without some kind of cutting remark.  Most
> of the time I don't respond, but occassionally, I feel the need to make
> a reply.  Is this what his participation has turned into?  I mean apart
> from TV and movie reviews.
>

It's the same old Barry. You can always count on him to put the turd in the 
paper bag on the front porch then run away.  I don't know why he can't figure 
out something better to do with his time. Once in awhile Judy asks him how his 
book on the Cathars is coming along, but he never seems to get back to her 
about it...funny that.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I've heard that masturbating will make you go blind and will
> > > cause hair to grow on your palms. It's also my understanding
> > > that the Church holds it to be a mortal sin. If you don't
> > > stop, you'll go to Hell.
> > 
> > Ruh-Roh!
> 
> Are you blind yet? If not, you still have some time left.
> Keep checking your palms, though.
>

Theme song for Vaj:
http://youtu.be/nkqfa-kaRFM

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > O.K. One last try. I uploaded Lady Gaga to my Picasa account. 
> > > > Let me know if it works. 
> > > > https://picasaweb.google.com/106545400900838340106/LadyGaga?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCNHTqfHlr6SD9QE&feat=directlink
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/cq2h2sp
> > > 
> > > Link works, but I remain completely baffled by the whole 
> > > Lady Gaga phenomenon. To me, that was just a half-naked 
> > > woman screaming into a microphone while other musicians 
> > > play random noises.
> > 
> > Thank you for this, Alex. I was beginning to fear
> > that standards here had reached a new low. People 
> > are such suckers for a little cheap flash.
> >
> 
> I'm more a sucker for a good dance beat and a catchy melody. I generally 
> don't listen to pop music, but Petra managed to get me hooked on Katy Perry's 
> song 'Firework', and I found a cover version on YouTube by an a cappella 
> singer/beatboxer that I like even better than the original. And yesterday, on 
> his YouTube channel, I found a cover version of a song I'd never heard by 
> singers I don't know, and it has been my musical crack cocaine all day:
> 
> http://youtu.be/eaDS3yktLlY
> 
> Keep in mind that every sound is made by either voice or mouth.
>

After awhile his music gets monotonous, but I think the kid's got talent. Good 
sound mixing and video editing.

Born This Way - A Cappella - Peter Hollens
http://youtu.be/-v42pkodIlw

Born This Way - A Cappella - Lady GaGa
http://perezhilton.com/2011-02-22-lady-gaga-performs-born-this-way-acapella#.TtHBZVagmuI
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > > (Enormous *generosity*, not "enormous personality.") I'm not
> > > questioning her integrity or coherence or the sincerity of
> > > her self-sacrifice. I just don't want to see her do herself
> > > in (physically or emotionally). She may need to rein in her
> > > instinct to sacrifice not just for her own sake but for the
> > > sake of those for whom she's sacrificing, if you see what I
> > > mean.
> > 
> > I suspect folks have been telling LG to rein herself in her
> > whole life and that's exactly what drives her ambition while
> > happily giving the middle finger to anyone who would dampen
> > her spirit.
> 
> Don't think she'd have to "dampen her spirit," actually.
> 
> > Is she one of those bright lights like Janis, or Jimmy who
> > burned brightly then flamed out? I don't know. But I wouldn't
> > want her to be anything but her genuine self, an enormously 
> > generous personality, for sure. I hope she's with us for a
> > very long time.
> 
> Same here, and it's the Janis/Jimi phenomenon that worries
> me. But again, there's no need for her to be anything but
> her genuine self for her to do what I'm talking about. I
> think she's *unlike* Janis and Jimi in that regard. I doubt
> they had a choice, but I think she does.
>

In an interview with Howard Stern Lady GaGa says she doesn't do drugs and tells 
her fans to not do drugs. She hides nothing, very genuine and real. I like her 
a lot. Lordy, Lordy, I thinking I'm becoming a Fangirl.
http://www.ivillage.com/lady-gaga-drug-use-her-sex-life/1-a-365736

[FairfieldLife] Re: What Rick should do.

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Here we got our good-guy Rick interviewing all the souls out there that claim 
> some sort of spiritual authenticity, and what made it all possible for Rick?
> 
> FairFieldLife did.
> 
> I say, Rick should amass a list of everyone who was ever a member, and, in 
> chronological order, interview each and all in some manner.
> 
> That would be scientific, right?  Gotta have all the data.
> 
> Edg
>

And what made FairFieldLife possible, Edg? Rick did. Nice to see you're back to 
stir the pot.

[FairfieldLife] Fairfield exodus (was Re: "Occupy the Domes!!")

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Well, it is official now.  My application for a current dome badge was 
> rejected this last week.  After considered probing and a deliberation it is 
> left now that I am welcome, 'except' for the anti-saint guideline. The 
> anti-saint guideline is very much unchanged and administratively enforced as 
> such without exception.  From on high,  so it is.
>   
> 

So when are you going to pitch a tent on campus and occupy the domes 
forthrightly? I can lend you a sleeping bag. It's good to zero degrees.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Are Optimists Dumber? (actual article)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> Of a green evening, clear and warm,
> She bathed in her still garden, while
> The red-eyed elders watching, felt
> 
> The basses of their beings throb
> In witching chords, and their thin blood
> Pulse pizzicati of Hosanna.
> 
> Wallace Stevens
> 
> 

Robin, I just loved the musicality of the phrase "Pulse pizzicati of Hosanna" 
but hadn't a clue about "pizzicati." Goodness, is there anything Wikipedia 
doesn't know? Perhaps the poem expresses a similar reference I made about Vaj 
in his Wanker theme song http://youtu.be/nkqfa-kaRFM but tip of the hat for 
finding a more refined way of saying Barry is a wanker. They're two of a kind, 
which as most everyone knows, isn't the best hand to play with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Quince_at_the_Clavier> 

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I found this article.  kind of entertaining to read.
> > > 
> > > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/09/optimism-science-study-shows-optimists-block-out-information.html
> > 
> > Fascinating. Thanks for the find, and for posting
> > it here. It explains a great deal about True
> > Believerism and cult apologetics, and well, about
> > pretty much everything. 
> > 
> > I just loved the phrase, "frontal lobes going on 
> > strike in the face of unwelcome information." 
> > That just nails it. Did you notice, for example,
> > that no one else followed up on your post but me? 
> > Says a lot, doesn't it.  :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> Then one hot day when fields were rank
> With cowdung in the grass the angry frogs
> Invaded the flax-dam: I ducked through the hedges
> To a coarse croaking that I had not heard
> Before. The air was thick with a bass chorus.
> Right down the damn gross-bellied frogs were cocked
> On sods; their loose necks pulsed like sails. Some hopped:
> The slap and plop were obscene threats. Some sat
> Poised like mud grenades, their blunt heads farting.
> I sickened, turned, and ran. The great slime kings
> Were gathered there for vengeance and I knew
> That if I dipped my hand the spawn would clutch it.
> 
> Seamus Heaney
> 

Mud Grenades: FF Life's weapon of choice. Terrific poem. Thanks for posting and 
s apropos Barry.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Nov 26, 2011, at 11:11 AM, raunchydog wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Robin, if you're out there. I made a video of Lady Gaga's 
> > > > HBO Monster Ball special just for you. This is the one 
> > > > where she climbs on the piano and plays the guitar with 
> > > > her foot. Wild Woman! Enjoy.
> > > > http://youtu.be/W7d1dDgRCuA
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If you knew Robin like I knew Robin!
> > > 
> > > His original fanboy crush was on Michael Jackson when I met 
> > > him. Said he was an 'angel on earth' [rough paraphrase]. 
> > > I guess it's normal for these types of angels to enter 
> > > parinirvana via overdoses of Propofol. It's likely some 
> > > esoteric Catholic doctrine I'm not privy to...
> > > 
> > > Apparently Gaga is a reincarnated Monte Cassino casualty 
> > > or somethin'? I dunno - but I always considered Tony a great 
> > > Dzogchenpo benefactor.
> > 
> > 
> > I thought it was just "Drama queen likes drama queen." :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

The Andante Of Snakes

They weave a slow andante as in sleep,

Scaled yellow, swampy black, plague-spotted white;
With blue and lidless eyes at watch they keep
A treachery of silence; infinite
Ancestral angers brood in these dull eyes
Where the long-lineaged venom of the snake
Meditates evil; woven intricacies
Of Oriental arabesque awake,
Unfold, expand, contract, and raise and sway
Swoln heart-shaped heads, flattened as by a heel,
Erect to suck the sunlight from the day,
And stealthily and gradually reveal

Dim cabalistic signs of spots and rings
Among their folds of faded tapestry;
Then these fat, foul, unbreathing, moving things
Droop back to stagnant immobility.
Arthur Symons




 
[http://images.clipartof.com/small/1048180-Royalty-Free-RF-Clip-Art-Illu\
stration-Of-A-Cartoon-Evil-Snake.jpg]


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> Dear Vaj,
>
> Look, Vaj: if you can furnish *any* proof that you know me beyond
having (perhaps) been a  witness to an hour's conversation in
Washington, DC 25 years ago where I resisted hearing my astrology chart
read aloud to me (being at that time a serious convert to Catholicism,
and having understood the Church's Teaching about the harm of accepting
some mystical determinism as the explanation for the person that I was),
I will promise to support and champion you here at FFL. And why am I
willing to become a Vaj apologist (if you provide the slightest evidence
to back up your claim: "I'd be happy to refresh your memory!")? Because
clearly, if there is any truth whatsoever in this assertion of
yours—not to mention that indeed you were in fact a TM
initiator—it means that you have decided, even knowing that you are
telling the truth about these things, that you deliberately wish to
arouse suspicion about the veracity of those same claims. And
this—the motive you have in wanting people to doubt the truth of
what you say—intrigues me, as suggesting you are following some
enigmatic and impenetrable mission, a mission whose success evidently
depends upon your acquiring a reputation as a liar and a mountebank.
>
> What this amounts to, then, is some kind of manipulated martyrdom: you
are in fact a TM initiator; you did in fact have personal contact with
Maharishi; you did practice the Sidhis; and you really did have a
face-to-face conversation with me (even hearing me speak about Michael
Jackson—although once I became a Catholic I certainly altered my
idea of everything, including what I took to be something—at that
time 1984-85—angelic about Jackson)—but you choose to shroud all
this in doubt and skepticism. What a fascinating strategy—but I ask:
to what end?
>
> On the other hand, I have decided if this aforementioned
interpretation is in defiance of the actual facts of the matter, then I,
in all sincerity, Vaj, ask that you seek professional help; or, if that
is considered too infra dig, that you seriously attempt to get control
of your compulsions, your Pinocchio-Walter Mitty Syndrome, through some
act of will.
>
> [The American Heritage Dictionary defines a Walter Mitty as "an
ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams
of personal triumphs.]
>
> Now I don't of course dismiss your intelligence, nor your knowledge of
various Eastern spiritual practices. And perhaps you are even an
accomplished person in the world. But this hunger to have a purely
imaginary life—associating yourself with TM, with Maharishi, with
being a TM initiator, with knowing (and even having confronted)
myself—when, as you know in your conscience all this is a lie, well,
it just baffles me. But then when I see you in action here at FFL I
realize that this entire fantasy life has got the better of you; that
you cannot help yourself; that you are powerless to get control of this
behaviour. And therefore I am going to look upon you, Vaj, with mercy
and compassion. You cannot help following out this dream world to the
very end.
>
> That is, assuming the alternate interpretation is invalid: that you
are not gathering intelligence for some secret agency who is paying you
a fortune to have your reputation and honour
besmirched—deliberately—by making sure you say things that you
are certain others will know cannot be true.
>
> I would, though—and I realize this is ironic in the
extreme—like to share one confidential fact about me: I am married
to Lady Gaga—Now of course she will deny this if you confront her
with this fact; but the truth is, she has to do this; indeed she is even
supposed not to  remember even that we are married. But know, Vaj that
we *are* married. Just ask her to e-mail you offline and *I* will be
happy to refresh her memory.
>
> Robin
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:41 AM, maskedzebra wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know you at all, Vaj. And you don't know me. That first
sentence of yours, it's your signature move. You are a fantasist. If you
can provide the name of one person f

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

The Andante Of Snakes

They weave a slow andante as in sleep,
Scaled yellow, swampy black, plague-spotted white;
With blue and lidless eyes at watch they keep
A treachery of silence; infinite

Ancestral angers brood in these dull eyes
Where the long-lineaged venom of the snake
Meditates evil; woven intricacies
Of Oriental arabesque awake,

Unfold, expand, contract, and raise and sway
Swoln heart-shaped heads, flattened as by a heel,
Erect to suck the sunlight from the day,
And stealthily and gradually reveal

Dim cabalistic signs of spots and rings
Among their folds of faded tapestry;
Then these fat, foul, unbreathing, moving things
Droop back to stagnant immobility.

Arthur Symons

 
[http://images.clipartof.com/small/1048180-Royalty-Free-RF-Clip-Art-Illu\
stration-Of-A-Cartoon-Evil-Snake.jpg]


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> Dear Vaj,
>
> Look, Vaj: if you can furnish *any* proof that you know me beyond
having (perhaps) been a  witness to an hour's conversation in
Washington, DC 25 years ago where I resisted hearing my astrology chart
read aloud to me (being at that time a serious convert to Catholicism,
and having understood the Church's Teaching about the harm of accepting
some mystical determinism as the explanation for the person that I was),
I will promise to support and champion you here at FFL. And why am I
willing to become a Vaj apologist (if you provide the slightest evidence
to back up your claim: "I'd be happy to refresh your memory!")? Because
clearly, if there is any truth whatsoever in this assertion of
yours—not to mention that indeed you were in fact a TM
initiator—it means that you have decided, even knowing that you are
telling the truth about these things, that you deliberately wish to
arouse suspicion about the veracity of those same claims. And
this—the motive you have in wanting people to doubt the truth of
what you say—intrigues me, as suggesting you are following some
enigmatic and impenetrable mission, a mission whose success evidently
depends upon your acquiring a reputation as a liar and a mountebank.
>
> What this amounts to, then, is some kind of manipulated martyrdom: you
are in fact a TM initiator; you did in fact have personal contact with
Maharishi; you did practice the Sidhis; and you really did have a
face-to-face conversation with me (even hearing me speak about Michael
Jackson—although once I became a Catholic I certainly altered my
idea of everything, including what I took to be something—at that
time 1984-85—angelic about Jackson)—but you choose to shroud all
this in doubt and skepticism. What a fascinating strategy—but I ask:
to what end?
>
> On the other hand, I have decided if this aforementioned
interpretation is in defiance of the actual facts of the matter, then I,
in all sincerity, Vaj, ask that you seek professional help; or, if that
is considered too infra dig, that you seriously attempt to get control
of your compulsions, your Pinocchio-Walter Mitty Syndrome, through some
act of will.
>
> [The American Heritage Dictionary defines a Walter Mitty as "an
ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams
of personal triumphs.]
>
> Now I don't of course dismiss your intelligence, nor your knowledge of
various Eastern spiritual practices. And perhaps you are even an
accomplished person in the world. But this hunger to have a purely
imaginary life—associating yourself with TM, with Maharishi, with
being a TM initiator, with knowing (and even having confronted)
myself—when, as you know in your conscience all this is a lie, well,
it just baffles me. But then when I see you in action here at FFL I
realize that this entire fantasy life has got the better of you; that
you cannot help yourself; that you are powerless to get control of this
behaviour. And therefore I am going to look upon you, Vaj, with mercy
and compassion. You cannot help following out this dream world to the
very end.
>
> That is, assuming the alternate interpretation is invalid: that you
are not gathering intelligence for some secret agency who is paying you
a fortune to have your reputation and honour
besmirched—deliberately—by making sure you say things that you
are certain others will know cannot be true.
>
> I would, though—and I realize this is ironic in the
extreme—like to share one confidential fact about me: I am married
to Lady Gaga—Now of course she will deny this if you confront her
with this fact; but the truth is, she has to do this; indeed she is even
supposed not to  remember even that we are married. But know, Vaj that
we *are* married. Just ask her to e-mail you offline and *I* will be
happy to refresh her memory.
>
> Robin
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:41 AM, maskedzebra wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know you at all, Vaj. And you don't know me. That first
sentence of yours, it's your signature move. You are a fantasist. If you
can provide the name of one person from

[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't let your Senator pass S 1867!

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"  
wrote:
>
> So, do you want to have a trial for captured 
> terrorists in downtown New York City or at a military 
> trial at Gitmo? Ypu're not making any sense - I voted
> for McCain who helped write the S 1867. Why would I
> want to vote against McCain and Levin?
> 

So, do you want to be captured in your own backyard and detained indefinitely 
in an undisclosed location without access to a lawyer, or a trial? You're not 
making any sense.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Senate Rejects Udall Amendment

[raunchydog]

Corrected link for Democracy Now: "Battlefield America: U.S. Citizens Face 
Indefinite Military Detention in Defense Bill Before Senate"

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/battlefield_america_us_citizens_face_indefinite

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
>   [http://www.aclu.org/indefinitedetention/images/ChristopherKing_sm.jpg]
> 
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amend\
> ment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amen\
> dment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language>
> 
> http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/battlefield_america_us_citizens_f\
> ace_indefinite
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amen\
> dment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language>
>   
> <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1121/vote_112\
> _1_00210.xml>
> http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm\
> .cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210
> <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cf\
> m.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210>
> 
> U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Sessionas
> compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction
> of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary  Question:
> On the Amendment (Udall (CO) Amdt. No. 1107 )  Vote
> Number: 210 Vote Date: November 29, 2011,  02:35 PM   
> Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Udall Amendment Rejected
> Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1107
> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP1107:>
> to S. 1867 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN1867:>
> (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012)
> Statement of Purpose: To revise the provisions relating to detainee
> matters.Vote Counts:YEAs38
> NAYs60
> Not Voting2
> 
> Grouped By Vote Position  YEAs ---38   Akaka
> (D-HI)
> Baucus (D-MT)
> Bennet (D-CO)
> Bingaman (D-NM)
> Blumenthal (D-CT)
> Boxer (D-CA)
> Brown (D-OH)
> Cantwell (D-WA)
> Cardin (D-MD)
> Carper (D-DE)
> Coons (D-DE)
> Durbin (D-IL)
> Feinstein (D-CA)
> Franken (D-MN)
> Gillibrand (D-NY)
> Harkin (D-IA)
> Johnson (D-SD)
> Kerry (D-MA)
> Kirk (R-IL)
> Klobuchar (D-MN)
> Lautenberg (D-NJ)
> Leahy (D-VT)
> Menendez (D-NJ)
> Merkley (D-OR)
> Mikulski (D-MD)
> Murray (D-WA)
> Nelson (D-FL)
> Paul (R-KY)
> Reid (D-NV)
> Rockefeller (D-WV)
> Sanders (I-VT)
> Schumer (D-NY)
> Tester (D-MT)
> Udall (D-CO)
> Udall (D-NM)
> Warner (D-VA)
> Webb (D-VA)
> Wyden (D-OR)
> NAYs ---60   Alexander (R-TN)
> Ayotte (R-NH)
> Barrasso (R-WY)
> Blunt (R-MO)
> Boozman (R-AR)
> Brown (R-MA)
> Burr (R-NC)
> Casey (D-PA)
> Chambliss (R-GA)
> Coats (R-IN)
> Coburn (R-OK)
> Cochran (R-MS)
> Collins (R-ME)
> Conrad (D-ND)
> Corker (R-TN)
> Cornyn (R-TX)
> Crapo (R-ID)
> DeMint (R-SC)
> Enzi (R-WY)
> Graham (R-SC)
> Grassley (R-IA)
> Hagan (D-NC)
> Hatch (R-UT)
> Heller (R-NV)
> Hoeven (R-ND)
> Hutchison (R-TX)
> Inhofe (R-OK)
> Inouye (D-HI)
> Isakson (R-GA)
> Johanns (R-NE)
> Johnson (R-WI)
> Kohl (D-WI)
> Kyl (R-AZ)
> Landrieu (D-LA)
> Lee (R-UT)
> Levin (D-MI)
> Lieberman (ID-CT)
> Lugar (R-IN)
> Manchin (D-WV)
> McCain (R-AZ)
> McCaskill (D-MO)
> McConnell (R-KY)
> Moran (R-KS)
> Nelson (D-NE)
> Portman (R-OH)
> Pryor (D-AR)
> Reed (D-RI)
> Risch (R-ID)
> Roberts  (R-KS)
> Rubio (R-FL)
> Sessions (R-AL)
> Shaheen (D-NH)
> Shelby (R-AL)
> Snowe (R-ME)
> Stabenow (D-MI)
> Thune (R-SD)
> Toomey (R-PA)
> Vitter (R-LA)
> Whitehouse (D-RI)
> Wicker (R-MS)
> Not Voting - 2   Begich (D-AK)
> Murkowski (R-AK)
>

[FairfieldLife] Senate Rejects Udall Amendment

[raunchydog]

  [http://www.aclu.org/indefinitedetention/images/ChristopherKing_sm.jpg]


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amend\
ment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language


http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/battlefield_america_us_citizens_f\
ace_indefinite

  

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm\
.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Sessionas
compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction
of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary  Question:
On the Amendment (Udall (CO) Amdt. No. 1107 )  Vote
Number: 210 Vote Date: November 29, 2011,  02:35 PM   
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Udall Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1107

to S. 1867 
(National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012)
Statement of Purpose: To revise the provisions relating to detainee
matters.Vote Counts:YEAs38
NAYs60
Not Voting2

Grouped By Vote Position  YEAs ---38   Akaka
(D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---60   Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts  (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 2   Begich (D-AK)
Murkowski (R-AK)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Senate Rejects Udall Amendment

[raunchydog]

I don't understand why this bill ever made it to the floor of the Senate under 
Democratic leadership. It passed in secrete committee and it's still a secret 
to the public. If you Google "National Defense Authorization Act S. 1867" or 
Udall Amendment the only people talking about it are a few bloggers, the ACLU, 
The Hill, and Amy Goodman. There's a word about it in mainstream media. 
Meanwhile battle ready stormtroopers, formerly known as police, are coming down 
like a ton of bricks on OWS protesters around the country. 
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/11/29/live-blog-for-occupy-movement-occupyphilly-occupyla-being-evicted-now/
  There's practically a media blackout on these events.

I don't think it's any coincidence that Senators who have become nothing more 
than Wall Street flunkies, hurried this fascist bill to a vote just as OWS 
started to gain some momentum exposing Wall Street's theft of the American 
dream.  

BTW Fuck You, Carl Levin. I used to be proud that you were my Senator. Now your 
just a turncoat rat like the rest of the bought and paid for politicians. 

I don't believe the brinksmanship of running an fascist bill through the Senate 
just so the president can pose as a hero to his base is a good idea. Even if he 
vetoes the bill, it will go back to the Senate, and they'll make some changes 
that could possibly make it even more obtuse and deadly to freedom than it 
already is. IMO we are now, officially a fascist state.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Obama signs this, he loses in 2012.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> >   [http://www.aclu.org/indefinitedetention/images/ChristopherKing_sm.jpg]
> > 
> > 
> > http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amend\
> > ment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language
> > <http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amen\
> > dment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language>
> > 
> > http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/battlefield_america_us_citizens_f\
> > ace_indefinite
> > <http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amen\
> > dment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language>
> >   
> > <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1121/vote_112\
> > _1_00210.xml>
> > http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm\
> > .cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210
> > <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cf\
> > m.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210>
> > 
> > U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Sessionas
> > compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction
> > of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary  Question:
> > On the Amendment (Udall (CO) Amdt. No. 1107 )  Vote
> > Number: 210 Vote Date: November 29, 2011,  02:35 PM   
> > Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Udall Amendment Rejected
> > Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1107
> > <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP1107:>
> > to S. 1867 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN1867:>
> > (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012)
> > Statement of Purpose: To revise the provisions relating to detainee
> > matters.Vote Counts:YEAs38
> > NAYs60
> > Not Voting2
> > 
> > Grouped By Vote Position  YEAs ---38   Akaka
> > (D-HI)
> > Baucus (D-MT)
> > Bennet (D-CO)
> > Bingaman (D-NM)
> > Blumenthal (D-CT)
> > Boxer (D-CA)
> > Brown (D-OH)
> > Cantwell (D-WA)
> > Cardin (D-MD)
> > Carper (D-DE)
> > Coons (D-DE)
> > Durbin (D-IL)
> > Feinstein (D-CA)
> > Franken (D-MN)
> > Gillibrand (D-NY)
> > Harkin (D-IA)
> > Johnson (D-SD)
> > Kerry (D-MA)
> > Kirk (R-IL)
> > Klobuchar (D-MN)
> > Lautenberg (D-NJ)
> > Leahy (D-VT)
> > Menendez (D-NJ)
> > Merkley (D-OR)
> > Mikulski (D-MD)
> > Murray (D-WA)
> > Nelson (D-FL)
> > Paul (R-KY)
> > Reid (D-NV)
> > Rockefeller (D-WV)
> > Sanders (I-VT)
> > Schumer (D-NY)
> > Tester (D-MT)
> > Udall (D-CO)
> > Udall (D-NM)
> > Warner (D-VA)
> > Webb (D-VA)
> > Wyden (D-OR)
> > NAYs ---60   Alexander (R-TN)
> > Ayotte (R-NH)
> > Barrasso (R-WY)
> > Blunt (R-MO)
> > Boozman (R-AR)
> > Brown (R-MA)
> > Burr (R-NC)
> > Casey (D-PA)
> > Chambliss (R

[FairfieldLife] Re: Senate Rejects Udall Amendment

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> raunchydog:
> > I don't understand why this bill ever made it 
> > to the floor of the Senate under Democratic 
> > leadership...
> >
> So, why do you suppose the majority of the U.S. 
> Senate opposed the Udall amendment? 
> 

Wall Street bankers buy politicians to make laws favoring their enrichment and 
continued theft our pension funds, homes, jobs, infrastructure, industry, 
schools and anything made in America. The oligarchs have nearly accomplished 
their long sought goal of establishing a feudal system. All they need now is 
Senate 1867 to control the surfs, the 99%, if the economy gets so bad people 
riot in streets for food.

> Can you give me one good reason to have a public 
> trial for someone like Osama bin Laden in downtown 
> New York City? 
> 

Terrorists are criminals. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. We gave him a trial 
and the death penalty in Oklahoma. Before Gitmo we put people on trial. New 
York City has nothing to do with where we have a trial.

> If the U.S. is in a war, why shouldn't Obama just 
> kill the al Qaeda terrorists over in Pakistan or 
> send a drone after Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen?
> 

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen. Killing him signaled that the U.S. 
intended to wage its "War on Terror" anywhere in the world, even in America. 
The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act removed the military from domestic law 
enforcement. Senate 1867 will remove the last remnants of it, and allow the 
military, police and private contractors to join forces to arrest citizens at 
will. The Desaparecidos of Argentina could happen here. 
http://www.yendor.com/vanished/
 
> "Defying a veto threat by President Obama, the 
> Senate voted Tuesday to give the U.S. military 
> first crack at holding al Qaeda operatives, even 
> if they are captured in the U.S. and are American 
> citizens, and also reaffirmed the policy of 
> indefinite detention..."
> 

A writ of habeas corpus protects you from indefinite detention.

"The Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed 
to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be 
taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, 
allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to 
detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the 
prisoner, then he must be released from custody."

If Senate 1867 passes, it will completely abandon any pretense of habeas corpus 
for ANYONE SUSPECTED of terrorism. 

Suppose for a moment you go through a body scanner at the airport and you 
forgot that you had a small knife in your pocket you use to peel apples. So you 
set off alarms and before you know it, you're getting a body cavity search with 
some guy's gloved hand up your ass. If you object, they pepper spray you, slam 
you to the cement floor, and cuff you with plastic straps so tight you lose 
circulation in your arms. The next thing you know you're in jail. Will they let 
you call your lawyer? No. Will they tell you why you're being detained? No. 
Will you get a trial? No. Meanwhile, without a warrant they've broken the door 
to your home, confiscated your computer and discovered code embedded in a porn 
site that links you to Anwar al-Awlaki. Sayonara sucker, it's water boarding 
and sexy butt time for you, Buster. 

Habaeas Corpus? Forget about it. There's no such thing if you're in indefinite 
detention.

> 'Senate defies Obama veto threat in terrorist custody vote'
> By Stephen Dinan
> The Washington Times, Tuesday, November 29, 2011 
> http://tinyurl.com/cnjkstd
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Email going around FF

[raunchydog]

http://youtu.be/KBMmroSvcpM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
>
> I think Sal meant only that champagne and wine are usually the beverage of 
> choice at art shows, not cookies and milk.  Hope Jennifer can seel some of 
> her work.  ARtists rarely have it easy.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:
> > 
> > >>> Hello everyone:
> > >>> 
> > >>> We wanted to let you know that you have another chance to see
> > >>> Jennifer's ceramics and paintings at our house this Thursday
> > >>> night, 1 December, at 7pm. See map attached.
> > >>> 
> > >>> We will provide cookies and milk. 
> > >> 
> > >> Presumably along with lollipops, balloons,
> > >> and a game of duck-duck-goose as well.
> > >> Unbelievable.
> > >> 
> > >> Sal
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > That's Jennifer Blair, whose studio was in the Depot Building that just 
> > > burned to the ground. What is so unbelievable about trying to raise some 
> > > money after experiencing a loss like that?
> > 
> > Nothing at all, Alex, and it should be obvious that's 
> > not what I meant.  Jesus!  Clearly I didn't know that~~
> > it wasn't obvious from the email, you know. I just meant the cookies and 
> > milk bit.  Well, I hope she raises some.
> > 
> > Sal
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: For Fanboy Robin

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > The Andante Of Snakes
> > 
> > They weave a slow andante as in sleep,
> > Scaled yellow, swampy black, plague-spotted white;
> > With blue and lidless eyes at watch they keep
> > A treachery of silence; infinite
> > 
> > Ancestral angers brood in these dull eyes
> > Where the long-lineaged venom of the snake
> > Meditates evil; woven intricacies
> > Of Oriental arabesque awake,
> > 
> > Unfold, expand, contract, and raise and sway
> > Swoln heart-shaped heads, flattened as by a heel,
> > Erect to suck the sunlight from the day,
> > And stealthily and gradually reveal
> > 
> > Dim cabalistic signs of spots and rings
> > Among their folds of faded tapestry;
> > Then these fat, foul, unbreathing, moving things
> > Droop back to stagnant immobility.
> > 
> > Arthur Symons
> > 
> >  
> > http://images.clipartof.com/small/1048180-Royalty-Free-RF-Clip-Art-Illu\stration-Of-A-Cartoon-Evil-Snake.jpg
> > 
> > 
> 
> RESPONSE: Found it, raunchydog. I hope that Vaj is not the Andante of Snakes. 
> But I'm afraid "a treachery of silence" does prevail. Vaj—however wonderful a 
> person he may be—has decided to enjoy participating on a forum where the vast 
> majority of members are either TM meditators or former TM meditators. And 
> there are among us many initiators (teachers of TM). Most of us have had some 
> contact with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Vaj has attempted to pass himself off as 
> a TM initiator—but the very attempt to do so incriminates him, because all of 
> us have been branded in some way by our TM experiences. Having done TM 
> cannot, just in the nature of the case, be faked or contrived. Vaj assumes 
> something that just isn't true: that TM and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is just 
> another New Age story. He feels he can move in among us acting like any other 
> ex-TMer. But it is obvious in *everything* he says he does not bring along 
> the context of the TM experience. Because no matter if we are hostile and 
> contemptuous as Barry is, or Sal—vis-a-vis TM and Maharishi—all of us bear 
> the impressions of having transcended and having pointed ourselves towards 
> Maharishi as if he were a genuine Master. It is one thing to walk away from 
> all this—even to be bitter and cynical about it all; but this is very 
> different from posing as an ex-initiator—pretending to have known Maharishi. 
> In the latter case (consisting of set of one) there is no evidence of the 
> real contact with what Transcendental Meditation is, nor who Maharishi Mahesh 
> Yogi was.
> 

Vaj has a reputation as a liar and a poser because he has frequently gotten 
lost in the weeds with the snakes by attempting to explain the finer points of 
TM compared to other techniques (superior in his opinion) then getting it 
wrong. I called him out as liar and a fake quite forcefully soon after I 
started posting here in 2008. He retreats into the weeds whenever asked about 
specific TM bonafides. I have since given up trying to get him to come clean. 
He can stay slimy and under his rock as far as I'm concerned. Judy has a longer 
history with him and could probably cite several specific instances where he 
has proven himself a fake. I agree that he obviously has not, as you say, "been 
branded in some way by [his] TM experiences."

Yeah. And what about those photos of himself he was going to post? Nada.
Yeah. And what about the upshot of the conversation he was going have with some 
guy who knew you? Nada.

Poetry is so much more elevating.

> "Woven intricacies/Of Oriental arabesque awake"—Vaj evidently has studied 
> comprehensively the sacred texts of all Eastern spiritual teachings which 
> interest him—and he has extended his—intellectual, not empirical—research to 
> TM and Maharishi and the Guru Dev. BUT HE HAS NO WOUNDS UPON HIM. He 
> therefore—who knows why?—has decided to become a liar, a charlatan, so that 
> he can—from his detached vantage point—ridicule and mock the whole 
> TM-Maharishi enterprise. I wonder if he even knows why he does this. It is 
> one thing if someone who has taught TM attacks Maharishi and TM [as I have 
> done repeatedly]; it is another thing to falsify oneself and the reality of 
> TM and Maharishi by pretending to be speaking from the perspective of real 
> experience and personal history. Whereas in fact the only person on FFL who 
> could argue for the legitimacy of Vaj's claims would be someone—I know of 
> such a person—who thought it served his or her purpose to perpetuate this lie 
> (as if it somehow could be true