|
|
 7 Oct 2004 @ 15:54, by ming. Politics
George Soros now has a blog. He's done many good things like the Open Society Institute. And, now, it is quite useful when a billionaire can put some significant resources behind opposing George Bush's regime.
Yesterday Soros got a good deal more traffic than he had expected. During the U.S. vice presidential debate, Dick Cheney suggested for the viewers to go to factcheck.com to get the truth about accusations made about his former company Haliburton. And after the debate, an average of a hundred people a second went to that site. It is just that Cheney unfortunately had given the wrong URL. He had meant to say factcheck.org. Factcheck.com happened to be some random commercial site hosted by some people in the Cayman Islands. When they realized what had happened, they decided it would be a better idea if they redirected all that traffic to Soros' site, even though he has no relation to them. A good political statement, and Soros' server could probably handle the traffic load. Which factcheck.org is having a bit of trouble with. Seems like a fine and objective site, though. I think Cheney regrets that he tried to mention it, as they found quite a few more flaws in what he said than in what Edwards said.Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.
Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs. Hard work to keep those guys honest, I'm sure. While watching their debate, I thought they came out about even, but now reading the fact check analysis, it is obvious that they didn't do equally well in the truth department. More >
|
|
|
|
7 Oct 2004 @ 11:06, by jwwells. Counseling, Psychology
This is an extract of the notes for my partially finished book on the search for spiritual healing among men. It is offered as the result of a conversation over on the Visual Arts board.
-------------------------------
We've done a fantastic job of fixing women's problems. While not all such problems have been repaired, the system is in place to ensure that the remainder will be fixed. That said, we have taken no steps towards fixing men's problems and have made many things much worse for men by the actions we've taken to fix women's problems. This is no one's fault. We didn't know what we were doing: We guessed and often guessed wrong.
One of the primary reasons for guessing wrong is we did not know of two gender-weaknesses which can control human interactions:
a) For males, the more power a man has the greater the odds he will ignore male issues. This is why a male Minister of Health will usually vote against more funding for Prostate Cancer, even if he himself has Prostate Cancer.
b) For females, the more damaged the woman, the greater the odds she will see herself as at the bottom of society, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This gives rise to women demanding that Prostate Cancer "obviously" receives more funding than Breast Cancer in the face of accountants saying that Breast Cancer receives 3 to 7 times more funding.
The result is we have growing groups of men who are quite unhealthy, they are damaged in real and predictable ways. To fix these problems we must see the groups as they are: We must look through no filter and see what is. We must learn not see what we want to see.
Damaged Men I have known
First, let me explain exactly what I mean by a damaged man. The damaged man shows up when a man is hurt and then denied help and told he is at fault for being hurt in the first place. He enters what a computer programmer would call a feedback loop. One good (and sadly all too real and common) example is as follows:
Bert's wife Shelly, a difficult woman who yelled and threw things, ran off with a man from down the street. Bert was left with three daughters, ages 5, 7 & 10. A few months after leaving Shelly decided she wanted the girls. She charged Bert with molesting them, which she thought would be a good tool to separate the girls and Bert. After two years of fighting, Bert with the aid of six neighbours and several relatives proved that not only had no molestation taken place, but there had been physical child abuse from Shelly. The girls were in a bad state by the time Bert got them back from Children's Aid. That is the first step, the violence.
Bert was told that since no crime had happened there could be no government provided therapy for himself or the girls, (such help is woman only): That creates the second step towards a damaged man, the refusal.
Shelly's next move was to sue for spousal support and for child support when the girls where visiting her: Shelly had never paid any child support; (paying is rare in non-custodial mothers). By the time this issue was thrown out of court Bert was bankrupt. He and the girls had lost their home and Bert had lost the store his grand-father had started. That's more of the violence part of creating a damaged man.
The final damage comes from Bert being told in the media and in signs and in posters and on TV and on Radio and on the internet, almost every day, that women are not violent and never lie about violence: Men, the ads go, always lie and are often violent. It takes that third part to create the damage we see in what I call a damaged man.
A damaged man is created in three parts:
a) the violence
b) the refusal of help
c) the violent lies about all males
These three archetypes of the damaged man show up repeatedly. Obviously, no one archetype is shown completely in any one man. Yet, one archetype rules so clearly that they are worth discussing. These three forms of men are all men harmed by some form of violence, refused help and then re-harmed by society's effort to aid women.
The Junk Yard Dog: So badly damaged is this man that in his mind no difference exists between friend, foe and bystander: All are enemies. He is in hell on earth lashing out forever in all directions. In many ways these men are insane: They have lost all connection with a world which includes joy, peace and happiness. The Junk Yard Dog infests the men's movement: The prevalence of Junk Yard Dogs forever holds the men's movement in a state of not-together. The Junk Yard Dog is by far the fastest growing form of damaged man: Our efforts to aid women and children create ever more Junk Yard Dogs, soon they will be the most common form of damaged man and maybe the most common form of man period. Bert from above, is a Junk Yard Dog. Our help system seeks to cure these men through anger-management programs, which is the worst thing which can be done to them, for it feeds their definition of the world as enemy. The Junk Yard Dog must be reached where he is; by hearing the pain, completely, totally and without the bigotry we have all been force fed. Then, and only then, can he be led through the spirt to the beginnings of healing. In many ways these are the easiest to reach of the damaged men.
The Denier: This man denies all externally caused personal pain and problems: To him they do not exist and therefore cannot hurt him. This is the man whose wife tried to kill him who calls into a talk-radio shows on Family Violence and loudly demands that battered men do not need service: To him if there were services for battered men, then he would have a problem that the service could handle, but he in his own mind cannot have a problem, so he must stop, at all costs, any effort to create service for men. Likewise, he will interrupt a conversation on male bashing with "Men are pigs! Sexism against men is impossible." He must, always and in all ways, deny that pain could exist, for if he stops, he might feel his pain. The Denier is found scattered throughout all conservative, leftist and feminist areas of society: At about one in fourteen men this is still the most common form of damaged man. The Denier, is the most dangerous form of damaged man, for he feeds the urge to see all males as biological cash machines. No part of our help system touches these men, for they will allow no help. However, a woman who has worked through her own pain can reach him as can sidestepping the pain to come at him through the spiritual approach. These men are deadly poison to men searching for healing.
The Patient: This man is a version of the "Poor Me" woman. He can only see his life as pain. For him, there is no life but pain. Therefore, for him, any effort to stop the pain, is a threat to his life. The Patient is quite hard to find, but he is there for anyone to find who makes the effort to look; they are a case of hiding in plain sight. I was once a Patient. The Patient is found quietly supporting the Denier: He too, in his mind, loses if they treat his pain, for he forever feeds on his pain. A careful and considerate listener can help these men to see their own pain for what it is and through that, a path to healing. The worst thing a person can do with a Patient is give him examples of other men who have been similarly harmed: He will see that as mocking him.
Psychologists and therapists, too many of which are themselves Deniers, cannot, will not or do not reach these men: All too often it is "will not" for reasons which are too complex for this short article. However, the path to reaching this damaged man went through spirituality and so, that is where I start my hunt for a way to touch his fractured soul, from which I hope to reach his mind.
----------------------------------------- More >
|
|
|
|
6 Oct 2004 @ 17:10, by swanny. Spirituality
A CRUCIAL ACT AND MEDITATION
As we gather here in togetherness, united upon this Harmonious Global Concinnity, it remains for us to do a crucial and fundamental Act. In that we were born and are of the old world, yet now we form the basis of the new. Still much of what was old lingers in many shapes and forms. If we are to proceed unto the New Earth then we must remember and respect some of the ways of old. But also we must rise above the limitations imposed by the past and act with a new Love, Joy and Grace. It is thus therefore that it is proposed to perform this act of Healing and Forgiveness and Purification.
Healing and Forgiveness
What is to be healed and forgiven?
Money!
We must heal and forgive the money, a lifeblood of the old ways. A blood that perhaps carries with it much sins, greed and grievances. A blood that begat perhaps many a crime, violence and hatred..... in order for us to move on into new and better exchanges and ways we must meditate to heal, forgive and purify these. the currencies of Life.
The Meditation
So in our ensuing meditations..... let us together..... contemplate these currencies
and heal, forgive and purify them to be worthy of this the New Earth. Upon them let
us shower our time and love and make them clean.
The Vibration
Money carries a vibration..... it is this semi-natural vibration that we must purify of
all its old and sinful dealings...... Let us wash then, its vibration clean and well.....
that it make serve in a greater capacity and utility for all of mammality.
|
|
|
|
 5 Oct 2004 @ 13:53, by ming. Politics
After watching the U.S. presidential debate the other day, I'm puzzled at what it possibly might be that Bush is doing right. You know, I see a guy who's dazed and confused, seeming to be under the influence of some kind of psychiatric drugs, unable to discuss the issues at hand, but simply able to wake up once in a while and repeat the same two or three points, with some conviction, but without much relevance to the particular questions at hand. And, ok, Kerry isn't particularly charming, but he was prepared for defending his position and the rationale behind it and for presenting some kind of plan. So why is it that a considerable percentage of the U.S. population actually considers Bush a leader who delivers a message they like?
Well, I noticed a particular difference, which also might be a typical difference between what's called conservatives (=republicans) and what is called liberals or progressives (=democrats) in the U.S. You know, Kerry was talking about whether the war in Iraq was justified or not, which based on the evidence, it wasn't. But he thinks that it would be a bigger mess not to "finish" it at this point. No matter how clearly he lays that out, it opens him up to being accused on flip-flopping and not being sure what he thinks. And then there's the key point: What message are we sending? Most of Bush's position added up to "sending a clear message". A message to the world, a message to the U.S. allies, a message to the Iraqi people, a message to the troops in Iraq, a message to the "terrists". It apparently has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that war is backed up with sufficiently good reasons or whether anybody is better off for it or whether sufficient dialogue has taken place. No, the main thing is sending a message. Showing how strong and single-minded we (the U.S.) are.
That is clearly contrasted to the other approach, which is to look at the facts, talk about things, and try to take the best possible action. And if the situation or the information changes, then to talk about that, and see what to do next.
Now, I'd definitely be leaning towards considering the second approach the "proper" way. Not based on any political opinion, but based on the need for examining what is at stake before taking important decisions. Seems self-evident to me. You need to check with reality first, and hear what everybody involved have to say. Dialogue. Cooperation. Seeking the truth. "Democracy" it is called, as well. Going through some kind of process where everybody involved will have some kind of input into making the best possible decision.
So it is with some incredulity that I realize that a whole lot of people don't work like that at all. Rather, they start with the outcome they'd like to see happen, and then they use the means at hand for getting it to happen. Which includes talking about it, repeating it, giving reasons for it, lining up other people who think so, or just going ahead and doing it. And in that camp you score points for not ever wavering from the view you started off with. Staying firm on your conviction is more important than facts, or whether lots of other important stake holders disagree.
You'll recognize it with religious convictions, of course. They don't come out of a dialogue that is intended to unearth the facts and the most desirable outcome. On the contrary, it usually starts with some arbitrary statement interpreted from an old book by a revered prophet, and it is believed necessary to get its intention carried out, without being distracted by facts or feelings or different views.
I'm not aware of any previous U.S. administration before Bush's that worked predominantly in that way. I.e. they work out in some think tank what their position is and what is supposed to happen, and then they go and do it, and facts and differing opinions make very little difference.
But apparently it works because it resonates with something in many people. And I do recognize it always having been there in the "conservative" mindset. Just never before has it been exploited so blatantly and openly.
An example would be the issue of abortion. The conservative view would tend to be that it is wrong, for religious or moral reasons. Thus the task becomes to send a strong message that we don't want that, and laws are merely a tool for sending that message. But even most of the conservative politicians who campaign against abortion rights would privately admit that if their own daughter needed an abortion, they would of course help her with that. Bush Sr was caught admitting that once, for example. The point is that in that mindset, such an apparent conflict doesn't change the position. The position is a certain point which one needs to send a message about. It is only a minor issue whether it really would work for everybody, or whether there's agreement about it, or whether one even oneself would want to adhere to it.
The difference is clear in the typical liberal vs conservative ways of talking about things. Well, I don't know if it is really just a liberal vs conservative thing. I don't really like or agree with the illusion of a political spectrum. But let's stick with those words for the moment.
So, liberal people would tend to want to dig up the facts and talk about them and they tend to want to look for some solution that works for most everybody. Some kind of consensus based on what is on the table. So, obviously one can't preach the outcome in advance, because one doesn't know what it is yet. The answer is "it depends".
For conservative people, that seems terribly wishy-washy and ineffective. The thing to do is to have a strong position, based on moral principles and the protection of your own kind, and then you carry your intention through, no matter what. So, you score points for a noble and moral aim, presented clearly and concisively. And for going through whatever it takes to get there.
So, the way liberals would want to discuss big issues would be to bring forward various kinds of facts and the concerns of various kinds of stake holders. Say the issue is the war in Iraq, or global warming. Instinctively, this kind of person would believe that if we just bring this all out in the open, sane people would realize the truth and act accordingly. And these folks are really surprised if even the most obvious and horrifying facts don't change public opinion.
The conservatives use information very differently. It is not used as input to help people decide what is what. It is used to back up the moral and noble aim that is being carried through, and as part of the message. So, the information that is being provided is to support and strengthen and promote the position we started with. If things aren't going well, the answer is to speak more clearly about the initial position, to create a more clear and focused message, backed up by whatever is available to back it up with.
There's a considerable number of right-wing weblogs which seem remarkably well coordinated and synchronized. Common for a lot of them is that their opponents, the left-wing liberals, loudly are regarded simply as "idiots", "morons", or similar words. You see a surprising number of blogs where that's even stated as the head-line or in the blog's name. You know "anti-idiotarian ..." And they go to some length to create "Laugh at Liberals" websites, and that kind of thing. No, I'm not going to link to them. But my point is the different way of having dialogue. The liberal approach of showing concern for different sides is just very funny and ridiculous for people on the other side. Obviously moronic and naive to think one could actually talk with North Korea, or reason with terrorists, hahah. The right-wing blogs also post loads of information about the bad deeds of the bad guys, but again, information selected to back up a position, not information selected to provide the whole picture.
I don't see very many left-wing weblogs that spend most of their energy on ridiculing right-wing people. Oh, not that anybody would mind, but it doesn't seem to be the same focus. Which is again that difference. From the conservative perspective, it is of crucial importance to take down the opponent. From the liberal perspective it is of crucial importance to bring everything on the table, to be decided. The first approach often wins, because it is much easier and clear.
There are other aspects to the stereotypes of conservative and liberal people, of course. For conservatives, the ideal is a strong father figure who imposes discipline, and discipline and hard work are rewarded. For liberals, the ideal is a nurturing mother figure who listens to everybody's concerns and makes sure there's a warm meal for everybody. For conservatives, the world is a dangerous place and one better protect oneself and one's property against the bad people out there. For liberals, the world is basically a nice place and there needs to be room for all of us in it.
Anyway, I still don't believe in the political categories or spectrum. I think it is a fake scheme to cover up the real choices. Anyway, the political groups often end up doing the opposite of what they're supposed to. Like, in the U.S. it is supposed to be the conservatives that are for small government and private freedom, but yet they create the most humongous central government and spend more money than anybody else, and they put way more curbs on personal freedoms, many only for abstract religous reasons. And the supposedly big government liberals end up balancing the budget and to a much higher degree let people do what they feel is right. Anyway, that's all the U.S. picture. Looks different in other parts of the world.
Anyway, I didn't actually mean to talk just about politics. My point was the difference between worldviews of those who prefer clear, strong messages and those who prefer to have a dialogue about the facts. I'm afraid there's unfortunately still more of the first kind of people. More >
|
|
|
|
5 Oct 2004 @ 11:56, by swanny. Music
THE POSSIBLE DREAM
WE SEE....... a world..... full of lovers.....
we see a world full of trees.....
we see a world thats at ease ....
with the birds and the bees.....
CHORUS: WE SEE A WORLD WITH A GOOD SUN....
THATS SHINING ABOVE.....
WE SEE A WORLD ....
FULL OF WONDER AND LOVE!
We see a world full of oceans....
we see a world full of joy...
we see a world....... with a family....
for each girl and each boy....
CHORUS: WE SEE A WORLD WITH A GOOD SUN....
THATS SHINING ABOVE.....
WE SEE A WORLD ....
FULL OF WONDER AND LOVE!
BRIDGE: We dream...... the possible dream......
We taste...... the peaches and creme.....
We dream ..... the possible world....
For every boy and each girl.....
We see a world where there's sharing.....
We see a world where there's grace....
We see a world where the meaning...
Shines clear on every face.....
CHORUS: WE SEE A WORLD WITH A GOOD SUN....
THATS SHINING ABOVE.....
WE SEE A WORLD ....
FULL OF WONDER AND LOVE!
October 4, 2004
Earth
Humanity (c) More >
|
|
|
|
 5 Oct 2004 @ 05:51, by kay. Spirituality
I have always had a love for birds and communicate well with them having learned to call the birds to come to me many years ago. I particularly love the majestic Raven with its nearly three foot wingspan. More >
|
|
|
|
 4 Oct 2004 @ 12:39, by kay. Environment, Ecology
"Near the day of the Great Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
~~pre-Columbian Hopi prophecy
The inside military codeword for the pilots who man the planes that spray the chemtrails is
"Sky Spiders"
Many of the chemtrails have been found to contain polymers that act like spider webs.
Wayne has compiled a lot of info about Chemtrails. what they are and how they are used.
[link] More >
|
|
|
|
4 Oct 2004 @ 05:43, by skookum. Ideas, Creativity
Earth Mother
Earth Mother I feel you in my soul
Pulsing
Swaying
Your energy swings me to far places
I ride your waves of joy and sorrow
I rest in your warm soft embrace at night More >
|
|
|
|
 3 Oct 2004 @ 21:04, by magical_melody. Preparedness, Self-Reliance
While it may be that Mt. St. Helen's is just clearing her throat now, believe me there is deeper rumbling occuring and she has plenty to say! Back in 1980, Mount St. Helens blew her top and let go of some fierce tensions she'd been holding! Mother Earth has been increasingly becoming more active as can be seen within recurring weather patterns. She again is letting off steam as she has had enough of human's messing with her and our bodies! With all manner of negative thoughts, right down to destructive technologies: electromagnetic pulse weapons - EMP Earth Pulse Site and [link]
ELF technologies which are being used within the military causing negative consequences and death to a number of species. The astronomical and astrological influences for this month have also indicated major shifts and energetic eruptions within human nature as well as throughout the natural environments across the Earth. My feeling is that this activity is a significant prelude to what has been a sequential series of events taking place.
Seismic Activity Updates More >
|
|
|
|
3 Oct 2004 @ 05:49, by skookum. Philosophy
The Great Stone
How great is a stone that sits by flowing water? It in its massiveness seems impervious, omnipotent. If there is one crack upon its great face, there comes opportunity for new things to happen. More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 ... 174 175 176 177 178 ... 279 Older entries >> |
|
These are news items gathered or contributed by NCN members
|
Categories
Activism (97)
Altered States (32)
Alternative Money Systems (17)
Broadcasting, Media (20)
Business (19)
Children, Parenting (28)
Communication (63)
Communities (71)
Conspiracy (34)
Counseling, Psychology (23)
Crime, Policing (7)
Death & Dying (14)
Developing World (19)
Economics, Financing, Banking (51)
Education (34)
Energy Sources (19)
Engineering (1)
Entrepreneurs, Money Making (19)
Environment, Ecology (123)
Exercise, Fitness (1)
Extraterrestrials (27)
Farming (14)
Futurism (13)
Globalization (29)
Government, Public Sector (46)
History, Ancient World (38)
Housing, Building, Architecture (10)
Ideas, Creativity (318)
Internet (49)
Inventions (6)
Investigation, Intelligence (23)
Knowledge Management (21)
Legal, Justice (24)
Liberty, Sovereignty (14)
Medicine, Healthcare (46)
Music (30)
Natural Health & Healing (27)
Neighborhood (12)
Networking (19)
Nutrition, Cooking (7)
Old Age, Retirement (4)
Organizational Development (12)
Paranormal (12)
Peace (35)
Performing Arts (9)
Personal Development (80)
Philosophy (94)
Politics (120)
Poverty (4)
Preparedness, Self-Reliance (12)
Privacy, Security (1)
Publishing (3)
Recreation, Fun (59)
Relationships (19)
Religion (40)
Science (48)
Sexuality (16)
Shared Purpose (30)
Social System Design (47)
Space Exploration (23)
Spirituality (391)
Systems Thinking (31)
Technology (37)
Transportation (9)
Travel (22)
Violence, War (103)
Visual Arts, Graphics (63)
|
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
| 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
| 18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
| 25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
Members can post news items and comments in the member area.
Information and opinions are the responsibility of the posters and do not represent any official position of NCN. Please do your own verification and make up your own mind.
Syndication
|
|
