If you are an american citizen, and you still have the right
to vote, and there are possible outcomes of today's election
that would seriously upset you ... then get your buttocks out
of your chair and down to your local polling place and vote.
At least if you vote against it, if it happens it won't be your
fault.
Bear
Ray Dillinger wrote:
> If you are an american citizen, and you still have the right
> to vote, and there are possible outcomes of today's election
> that would seriously upset you ... then get your buttocks out
> of your chair and down to your local polling place and vote.
>
> At least if you vote against it, if it happens it won't be your
> fault.
And if you think the two main candidates are just too plain dumb to
bother with (a perceptive observation), there are intelligent new
parties, in local and state elections.
Like the "Natural Law" party:
http://www.natural-law.org/introduction/index.html
At first the name sounded like another group of wackos, but I think
they have an interesting viewpoint.
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> And if you think the two main candidates are just too plain dumb to
> bother with (a perceptive observation), there are intelligent new
> parties, in local and state elections.
>
> Like the "Natural Law" party:
> http://www.natural-law.org/introduction/index.html
>
> At first the name sounded like another group of wackos, but I think
> they have an interesting viewpoint.
It's run by the "Transcendental Meditation" people: the
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, et al. The Natural Law Party had
some visibility in the UK elections some years back; I
saw some of their election literature, and it was fully
consistent with the "group of wackos" hypothesis.
The US party's website is much less up-front about their
affiliation than the UK one used to be, but note e.g.
note 2 on http://www.natural-law.org/platform/naturallawgov.html .
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:46:49 GMT, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>> And if you think the two main candidates are just too plain dumb to
>> bother with (a perceptive observation), there are intelligent new
>> parties, in local and state elections.
>>
>> Like the "Natural Law" party:
>> http://www.natural-law.org/introduction/index.html
>>
>> At first the name sounded like another group of wackos, but I think
>> they have an interesting viewpoint.
> It's run by the "Transcendental Meditation" people: the
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, et al. The Natural Law Party had
> some visibility in the UK elections some years back; I
> saw some of their election literature, and it was fully
> consistent with the "group of wackos" hypothesis.
Oh, yeah, those people. They ran in the NZ election-before-last (or
possibly it was the one before that); ran some TV ads claiming they
were going to solve all the world's problems by flying around --
including demonstrations of how they could fly, which consisted of
sitting on a mattress in a half-lotus position flapping their knees up
and down and bouncing about a foot in the air (I think the claim was
that once everyone was doing it, the "flying energy" they were
generating was going to let them stay airborne.) Hilarious.
--
"If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular
error." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:46:49 GMT, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> > Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> >> And if you think the two main candidates are just too plain dumb
to
> >> bother with (a perceptive observation), there are intelligent new
> >> parties, in local and state elections.
> >>
> >> Like the "Natural Law" party:
> >> http://www.natural-law.org/introduction/index.html
> >>
> >> At first the name sounded like another group of wackos, but I
think
> >> they have an interesting viewpoint.
>
> > It's run by the "Transcendental Meditation" people: the
> > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, et al. The Natural Law Party had
> > some visibility in the UK elections some years back; I
> > saw some of their election literature, and it was fully
> > consistent with the "group of wackos" hypothesis.
>
> Oh, yeah, those people. They ran in the NZ election-before-last (or
> possibly it was the one before that); ran some TV ads claiming they
> were going to solve all the world's problems by flying around --
> including demonstrations of how they could fly, which consisted of
> sitting on a mattress in a half-lotus position flapping their knees
up
> and down and bouncing about a foot in the air (I think the claim was
> that once everyone was doing it, the "flying energy" they were
> generating was going to let them stay airborne.) Hilarious.
Sure, but if you look at it, a lot of US policy is decided with an
extreme religious interpretation which is probably as different from
mine as those who believe in flying mattresses.
My only issue is when the religion's power comes top-down. When
Catholic churches and Jesuit priests help protect people in Latin
America against atrocities, I think highly of their bottom-up
organizations. When a US political organization which is relatively
secular wins the evangelical bloc by occasionally throwing them red
meat, along with a Democratic party who won't engage those same voters
on labor issues (which they'd much prefer), then we see top-down in
action. Or rather, top-down inaction.
If you look at the policies the Natural Law folks outline on their
website, they're generally more intelligent than the nutcases running
around in the two main parties. I'm sure there has to be something I
might find a little unreasonable about them, but I haven't seen it yet.
http://www.natural-law.org/platform/index.html
Who knows; in the US I'm used to serious pagans... people who have the
old European, Asian and African religions. And on average they tend to
be good, friendlier people because they're not arrogant. I'm not one of
them, but they haven't ever tried pushing their beliefs on me.
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> If you look at the policies the Natural Law folks outline on their
> website, they're generally more intelligent than the nutcases running
> around in the two main parties.
It is not clear to me that the Natural Law Party, if elected,
*wouldn't* try to push its beliefs on you. Their aim, after
all, is to make the world better by getting everyone doing TM.
Actually, it looks as if their preferred way to do this is
through the education system, so it would be your children
(if any) rather than you personally.
(I hold no brief for the nutcases of the two main parties,
by the way.)
> I'm sure there has to be something I
> might find a little unreasonable about them, but I haven't seen it yet.
> http://www.natural-law.org/platform/index.html
Have you seen their proposals for cutting taxes? They're
predicated on the assumption that they can make massive
reductions in crime, sickness and economic instability
by having people do Transcendental Meditation.
| For example, research has found that even a single group of 7,000
| to 10,000 practitioners of Transcendental Meditation and its
| advanced programs can produce a significant decrease in inflation
| and unemployment rates, as well as improvements in other economic
| indicators.
Now, if you are inclined to believe their research then
this may seem to you like a credible way of bring about
huge tax cuts. It doesn't to me.
> Who knows; in the US I'm used to serious pagans... people who have the
> old European, Asian and African religions. And on average they tend to
> be good, friendlier people because they're not arrogant. I'm not one of
> them, but they haven't ever tried pushing their beliefs on me.
It turns out that neopaganism isn't as firmly rooted in
ancient religious practices as is often claimed :-). But
the pagans I know, too, are mostly very agreeable people
and not much given to proselytizing.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Incidentally, thanks to you and Paul for pointing out the religious
issues with the Natural Law party. I voted on issues and researched
politician backgrounds, but it was remiss of me to not do more probing
research into the party backgrounds.
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>
> > If you look at the policies the Natural Law folks outline on their
> > website, they're generally more intelligent than the nutcases
running
> > around in the two main parties.
>
> It is not clear to me that the Natural Law Party, if elected,
> *wouldn't* try to push its beliefs on you. Their aim, after
> all, is to make the world better by getting everyone doing TM.
> Actually, it looks as if their preferred way to do this is
> through the education system, so it would be your children
> (if any) rather than you personally.
If I ever one day become a parent, I'll have to face many such
ideologies competing for student attention. Like the sick corporate
pressure to teach Java. ;) Or drugging them with Ritalin because
they've quit pretending that they're anything but creepy babysitters.
I think Understanding Power had an articulate view of how ideology can
damage schools:
http://www.pentaside.org/article/understanding-power-on-education.html
Interestingly, I haven't personally encountered the
invisible-guy-in-the-sky religious ideologies, since I had an "urban"
education. But I did see the other ones.
> | For example, research has found that even a single group of 7,000
> | to 10,000 practitioners of Transcendental Meditation and its
> | advanced programs can produce a significant decrease in inflation
> | and unemployment rates, as well as improvements in other economic
> | indicators.
>
> Now, if you are inclined to believe their research then
> this may seem to you like a credible way of bring about
> huge tax cuts. It doesn't to me.
Fortunately, their US arm focusses on the rhetoric of preventative
care, which I certainly think is something worthwhile:
http://www.natural-law.org/platform/health.html
But I did see those footnotes and think, "Weird." They were my main
backup party in local elections, beating out openly discriminatory or
GOP/Dem parties when I had votes left over from my first choice.
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: public service announcement: US election day
Date:
Message-ID: <87654mxg8b.fsf@p4.internal>
>>>>> "TJG" == Tayssir John Gabbour <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
TJG> Fortunately, their US arm focusses on the rhetoric of
TJG> preventative care, which I certainly think is something
TJG> worthwhile: http://www.natural-law.org/platform/health.html [...]
I assume you want comments from any lisper regardless of where they vote
so here's what I think after a brief look:
1- They seem to have co-opted the term "natural law" which, AFAIR,
had another and widely-understood connotation in the US that
did not involve TM. When I heard the term I thought they had a
conservative, or classical liberal bent. Am I wrong on this? It
didn't occur to me they'd have anything to with Transcendental
Meditation.
2- The healthcare link you provided, _seems_ sane because the
political discourse has degenerated into people babbling nonsense (not
just in the US), but:
"By neutralizing individual and social stress, the Natural Law Party
can improve the effectiveness of such behavioral-modification programs
by significantly enhancing compliance. In this way we can achieve a
lasting social transformation toward more life-supporting,
health-promoting behavior among our citizens."
So the Party will neutralize individual and social stress? Have we
come to the point where policial parties go beyond promising fixes for
poverty ignorance etc. and now will promise 'stress neutralization'?
What is scarier is this going unnoticed until someone tips the reader.
(I would have missed it too, we expect such BS). So apparently we are
_past_ that point now. I think you could take paragraphs out of that
page, have a 'legit' politician read them and get people to cheer in
any major party convention in any reasonably democratic welfare state.
If this is so, then why is healthcare the worry? There seems to be far
important brokenness than that.
cheers,
BM