ArloNet News and Announcements

I haven't been home very much - yet. But that will change now that we're getting into the heart of summertime. I've been getting quite a few responses to the posts here at arlo.net concerning various subjects. I've been thinking it would be a good idea to further the conversation. There's controversy surrounding just about everything going on these days. And although I think discussing difficult subjects is good for the soul, I constantly have to remind myself that it ain't all there is.

For example, about 5 or 6 years ago I left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party. I did so because I believed that my voice (and others like mine) needed to be heard where it would be most useful. Frankly, I still don't believe there's a whole lot of difference between the two. But, a healthy democracy needs a loyal and healthy opposition. Without it we run the risk of a march toward totalitarianism that would be difficult to halt.

At the time the Republicans were in power everywhere and they were seemingly taken over by ideas that ran counter to traditional Republican positions. They used to be for less big government intrusion into our lives. To me that's usually always a good idea.

So what was up with interfering in matters of who can marry who? That's a big invasion into personal freedoms and liberties. Those who try to control our personal lives are not only not for traditional Republican values, they're not even really for American values. The way I view it, the state has no business in the house let alone the bedroom. The way I would resolve the current controversy would be to insure that secular marriage be open to anyone. And that religious marriage not be infringed upon by the state - to marry or not as their traditions permit. Both religious and secular marriages would be acknowledged as it is now. That, to me, should be the Republican position.

What's up with the bail outs etc? I hate to say it but the arguments in Congress and on TV miss the more important points. Talking heads and political animals arguing about how much to spend and where are not talking about the basic truth - that when more dollars get printed, the less each dollar is worth. With trillions of dollars being manufactured to pay for bail outs and other tasks, each dollar buys less stuff. Not only have we given gazillionaires our tax dollars, we've made each dollar we still posses just about worthless. Saving and creating jobs may be an appropriate government intrusion in extraordinary times, but to do so in a way that makes our money worthless benefits no one in the long and endangers the nation. A return to real money - where the value is not up for discussion is the only protection a wage earner really has. That, to me, should be the Republican position.

What's up with rebuilding infrastructure? The best way to insure we'll have a 20th century transportation system in the 21st century is to rebuild the existing infrastructure. I thought by now we'd be flying around in personal (automobile-size) vehicles. There's no reason we can't be building vehicles that use magnetic fields for flight and navigation... okay maybe I'm getting ahead of things. The point is that it seems easier to get to the freaking moon than it does to get from coast to coast. Who's thinking about that stuff? Constantly widening roads and bridges that devour the land with all the intersecting attributes of the same chains of crappola shops and fast (nutritionally worthless genetically modified and just plain bad) food restaurants can't be the next best hope for our nation's infrastructure. That, to me, should be a Republican concern.

What's up with health care? In a world where even the good guys (National Public Radio, Farm Aid etc.) are sponsored and funded by organizations more powerful than any nation, it's hard to imagine that the bottom line will not be what's profitable, instead of what is beneficial. Can the two co-exist? Sure. Do they? No. The sad truth looks to be that it's more profitable to have a nation filled with people who are in bad health, than a nation of healthy people. The current administration and the Congress has been talking about how to make health care accessible to everyone, because they all know that these multinational organizations will be more than happy to provide long term drugs and services to a nation that permits and even encourages bad health whether or not a new health care plan comes into being. It's a win - win for government, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors, lawyers and agriculture. Only you lose.

The march has already begun around the world to outlaw the use of natural medicines - vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other plants so that you will become a criminal and a law breaker when you try to care for your own family in your own way. You are no longer responsible for yourself or your family, as the state has in no uncertain terms made it clear that you belong to the nation, and the nation has every right to protect you and your family from yourselves. The child in the midwest with cancer forced to undergo chemo and radiation being only the latest example. Is this not a cause for some loyal opposition? Where the hell are these guys when you need them? It's not a matter of being right or wrong. I've been both many times. It's a matter of having a real contest of ideas between different opinions. Sadly the Republican voice has drifted off to Neverland while the larger issues of what health care actually is gets run over by arguments of how and who will pay for it.

I want government and big business out of my garden. I want insurance companies out of my way when I go visit my doc. I want to pilot my cool 21st century flying electro-magnetic car. I want real money. And I want to get out of the business of being in politics in either party. But, someone has to say something. And these are just a few of the things I think need to be said. There's more... Wars, interventions, useless government agencies, education policies, privacy issues, an end to criminalization of personal choice things... all kinds of stuff.

Granted I've had two cups of coffee this morning, so I've gone on longer than I should have. And like i noted above, I don't expect to be right on anything. I'm perfectly capable of listening to a good argument and changing my mind. I'm not a piece of stone. Please feel free to take issue with me on anything - I enjoy changing my mind. I just wouldn't expect anything beyond a good friendly listen. There's more to this world than getting involved but there's times you just feel like you have to do something, say something or be somebody - however uncalled for. There is, in my view a larger bigger picture where we are all stuck on some little tiny world in a very big universe of unimaginable largeness. Like ants figuring out which way back to the ant hill, our journeys however big they may seem to us, are small in the big picture of things.

That's no excuse not to get back to the hill... An ant's gotta do what an ant's gotta do. Keeping the big picture in mind, knowing there's more to life than arguing about everything, but maintaining the basic nature of a free and democratic nation, taking care of each other in ways that encourage security, prosperity and tranquility - Freedom, Liberty, Justice - You know, all the good stuff, these are worth talking about. I'll go on talking and thinking about these things wherever I think they need to be heard, even though I know full well, they won't be inviting me to any clambakes or anything. Good thing I got my own clams... adg

I know I'm supposed to be working but what the heck. Arlo well said and couldn't agree with you more about most of what you have said. Interesting though, I jumped ship from the Republican party a few years ago when an 80 year old lady in my town was told that she couldn't stand on the curb protesting the Iraq war as the presidents motorcade came through my town. I thought that this was totally unamerican and an infringment on freedom of speech. Of course there were other issues that influenced my decision to change parties but that was the final straw for me. But, either way both parties are pretty much the same. I think i'll register as an Independent and vote for the person, man or woman, instead of for the party.

Wow, ADG a card-carrying Republican! It's the world turned upside-down, and your Dad is doing cartwheels in his grave.

Seriously, all of your points are valid. I agree that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two parties in this country, but there IS some difference. The Republican party's last great impact on social change was nearly 150 years ago with the abolition of slavery, and even that came about more to preserve the union than anything.

Advances in civil rights, voting rights, environmental protection laws, occupational safety laws, anti-trust laws, and laws to provide an economic "safety-net" for the poor are all agendas that would never have seen the light of day if we had to wait for Republicans to advance them. Just my opinion.

mikey (D)

I should be surprised but I'm not. Perhaps it's because I live where the people who are Democrats would be Republicans anywhere else. The Republicans would be... meaner Republicans. So if Arlo is a card carrying Republican, he fits right into the local environment. Hell, with a balding pate and a Ford Taurus, I'm left of Arlo. Whoda thunk it.

Again, I'm for tactics that evolve us. So I can't see trouncing Palin's private life even where I disagree with her. It doesn't seem to me we improve anything by slapping them around for their lifestyle choices anymore than they improved our lives. How do we contest the issues with ogres without becoming trolls?

I'm minimally a Democrat and I'm upset with their rants too. It's too bad the game in DC is 'if I'm up, you're down; and don't dispute anyone who is up'. Our parties claim moral high ground, but in my experience, we are as moral as we are willing to give up something we ain't wanting to give up to get something for someone else. Then T-Bone Burnett says, "I understand it when Len goes all hippie on me..." but if others do "I'm losing all hope."

I hadn't realized just how anachronistic I've become. This isn't a topic about that, but just saying.

I guess, Arlo, one reason I came here is because I trust your judgement on life things. You've hoed the center row to the end since the beginning, so I'm a little surprised you went Republican in the middle of the Bush years. Yet what you say makes sense. I read where you told a reporter that today is not the 60s coming back; it is the same human reaction to the same kinds of things. Do the values of forty years ago make sense today, or are we realizing those values aren't of a time or space but something more, something that reawakens anytime it's needed like some mythical hero? Do we rebuild the Patriot's Dream by fusing what we've learned since then into a philosophy or vision that includes our pride in our heritage with our understanding that diversity in culture is like marrying across the aisle with the certainty once outside the chapel fights will break out and that's ok as long as the cops don't come?

I'm remembering your testimony at the Chicago 7 trial. You said you would not go because you couldn't be assured people wouldn't be hurt (paraphrasing). That impressed me. So I gotta ask, is that still where you come down on things?

Wow. Musta been 2 Large Esspressos!
I've also been saying for some time that the republican party has changed and been taken over by social conservatives as opposed to fiscal conservatives.
As much as I would not identify with the current republican party, I do share some of their historical fiscal conservative and smaller government views.
However, too much or too little of many things can be equally bad.
I, much like you adg, run a small family business and enjoy the free enterprise system(not so much these days......business sucks).
Free enterprise needs certain controls that were lacking with the BIG money changers, who in large measure led us into the financial mess we are in right now. There can be reasonable controls without unreasonable intrusion. The trick I suppose is deciding where the lines are drawn.If the "deciders" like our old buddy "dubya" rely simply on some form of ideaolgy, without seasoning it with intellect, fairness and pragmatism, they will most often make the wrong decisions. It's clear to me that dubya was the poster child for that type of thinking.
I tend to agree with you regarding there not being a GREAT deal of difference between the two major parties. And joining one to help change it from within may be noble, however futile it may turn out to be.However, I can't see myself joining them any time soon, so you must have a bit more nobility or a bigger set of balls than I do......or both!
Having said that, I don't wish to see the Dems go to the extreme left either!(regarding monetary stuff).
Everyone who has ever lived could say "In Time Like These", and then articulate a list of problems to face and be solved. Those of us here now are no different. Tough medicine and decisions can get us through this, but on the other side some things need to change to avoid it again. That's the road I see us on now, it ain't perfect, there is no GPS system that will get us there without making a wrong turn, but I need to put my faith in the guy I help vote into the Whitehouse, becaue he is both younger and smarter than me, and I could say neither about the last guy!
Oh well......back to work.....like I said...business sucks!

by the way adg, after that speech, should we reactivate the "Arlo for President" thread and form and exploratory committee?

If the "Arlo for President" movement picks up steam, I will cross party lines to vote for him (but only if he creates a new cabinet post called Secretary of Blundering and appoints me)!


mikey

Oh shit mikey....I think we just scared Arlo away.

Anyway, personal flummoxing aside, some discussion as requested.



It is. The problem is a consensus on what is intrusion and what is necessary services.



It’s a fear thing in my opinion. It is also natural. There is a long long history of liberalizing sexual-based behaviors only to deliberalize a generation later. It may not be right but it’s awfully human.



Right. The problem is only the State can actually marry. “By the power vested in me by the State of Moi”. There is no way out of changing the Federal laws to ensure they don’t infringe on the State laws, and then campaign in each state. I’m afraid this is like pot laws in that regard. But yes, secular marriage should be available without regard to sexual preference; otherwise, keep church and state separate. Eroding that separation is another sure trip to devolution hell.



People who went to the same schools tend to take care of each other is one point of view. The other is the alternative was to let the system come off the rails and sort it out afterwards. My problem with this is that the door cracked open for a second and we got a glimpse of just how bad things are with the Pharoahs of Wall Street. “It’s bad.” And then we moved onto Michael Jackson’s funeral without skipping a beat.

IOW, there are no consequences for crimes that big and if there are no consequences, we can’t stay focused on it. We need financial reforms because we can't get the money back. We need policy reforms. We’d rather eviscerate Palin than face up to the fact that there are international groups who control our money and our lives, that they operate beyond the law, and that we appear to be powerless to stop it. I’ll leave that there, but yes, devaluing money to keep them in their lifestyles is precisely what put the Weimar Republic into the hands of the Brownshirts. Caveat emptor.



Good question. The stimulus money sure is having a hard time getting turned into pavement.



It’s a highway with no off ramps but one and so far, only one car at a time. Despite what the car cost, its a subcompact with a 440 under the hood, but the highway system was built and maintained by God. God does cheap work.



Our concern for personal choices, for one. We want a reformed health system at the same time we want the same health care for anyone who visits a doctor. Would you be happier if the national health care system were analogous to the VA?



I want medical marijuana because I know it works. In 13 states, I can get it. Mine isn’t one. My options? A plastic jesus or a bottle of expensive steroid derivatives that don’t work as well. I’d love to see Republicans rolling joints for cancer patients.



Do you want national health care? Do you want improved infrastructure? Do you want improvements in civil rights for personal choices? We have to be careful to delineate what we think the government should be doing and not doing.



I want them to pay up and not screw up the records so I pay the same co-pay twice only to be reimbursed in the next cycle. I want secure portable medical records so I don’t have to take the same tests twice and any test I take can instantly be seen by the next doctor in the co-pay food chain. I want Mexico to buy CDC-standard health alert networks so the next time there is a flu outbreak, we react according to the instance instead of having to rely on protocols designed for bio-chemical terrorism scenarios. I want them to be Johnny on the spot on the coast when a hurricane roars in instead of having to rely on Wal-Mart and the US Navy.



That’s more than some get from some folks. On the other hand, you gotta be Arlo Guthrie and I don’t. Wear it well.



I’m not sure there is. Everything good in my life came of saying “Yes” out loud to something my heart said yes to first, but then, I’m a short haired hippie poet. We’re weird people out here. What’s so good about that peace and love stuff?

Everything.



The good fight. Instead, we are always sucking up to power and money. T-Bone Burnett commenting on the way the web has affected music sales said the one thing the labels can do that artists seldom can do on their own is access capital. I use you as the example of the artist who figured the web out early and worked it, but then, you also tour more the French cyclists. The oxygen masks have to go on the adults first and they have to be trained to fight their instincts and do that.



Good thing you’re taking them to Erie PA, Kid.

You can carry that card, but everything you do tells me you don’t know how to quit giving a damm.

i try to be moderate as far as politics.i lean left on some things,right on the others.my main objective is to try and get along with everyone, respect their opinions,and be open minded, even tho it dont work out that way all the time.

my concern is what was mentioned about holistic meds!i had a friend tell me this a while back i was like"p'shaw" -
but she was right!last year i did some research on that issue and i was totally shocked.i mean i go to the doc and all,but i also use alot of vitimans and herbs as well to tend to non emergency situations at home.(i.e.CATS CLAW,is supposed to slow the aging process,and GARLIC is supposed to naturally lower yout bad chloestrol,etc i use many)
if they can tell us what NATURAL medications we can/cant use(they already do with the grass)whats next? im afraid of the answer.i look at my 3 mo.old granddaughter and kinda tremble inside for her future!

I never could get real into politics because I just don't feel like I fit in anywhere. I had to sign up to be republican last year so to vote for Ron Paul. I suppose I'll switch out again at some point. I don't give them any money so it doesn't matter too much to me what word is on the paper.
It does bother me, and both parties are at fault at the government getting bigger and bigger into everything. And how it just doesn't seem to bother most people. I have two teenage sons who are both on a 6 o'clock curfew right now for coming home drunk and I sit up worrying when I can't find them late at night but I still don't think it's a good idea for the state to put black boxes in cars and why doesn't it even phase most people? They really don't mind the big brother thing coming home?

Did they name it the Patriot Act on purpose so that if you disagree with handing over all your personal rights you're Un-Patriotic?

A few random thoughts from one who isn't a coffee drinker (but respects everyone's right to choose their own beverage)...

I also left the Democratic Party a few years back (2001 or 2002, I think), but it was for "no party" and the catalyst was the grandstanding over the pledge of allegiance "under god" case that had come down in California. Reasonable people can disagree about the legal issues involved; it was the cheap political theater -- at a time when the man who brought the case and the judges who decided it were being threatened with physical harm -- which pushed me over the edge.

I went back to the Dems last year, just to vote in the primary, but it was more of a symbolic gesture than anything and one of these days I will find the time to fill out the change of registration again. Don't think I'll go over to Republicans, though...although Washington (DC) is a good place to be the good kind of Republican; we generally don't have the nutjobs other places have, at least not in power. I've voted Democrat, Republican, libertarian (mostly gave up on them, though, when the DC libertarian party proposed using my tax dollars to build parking garages, the bastards), green, socialist, Statehood, no party; voting is an existential experience here because the only person my vote can possibly matter to is me (Dems always win nationally here by at least 80-20 (Obama with 92.5%), and mostly win local elections 60-40, except that 1-2 seats on the City Council are reserved for non-Democrats. Actually, one of the problems the Republicans have is that occasionally one does get elected here and then s/he gets so annoyed at the national Republicans that s/he leaves the party. On their local website page, "Why be a Republican?" they end the discussion in 1917 with Jeannette Rankin.

I'm not sure if I agree on the marriage issue -- that is to say, I agree that anyone should be able to get married; I'm just not sure the government should be involved at all in marriage. If people want to say they're married and have weddings and stuff, that's fine, but maybe the government should just get out of the whole business and treat everyone alike, whether married or not, whether gay or straight. Adults, that is.

I find this idea of flying personal vehicles intriguing. Clearly, it would have the advantage of getting the ugly metal things which ruin our landscape out of my sight as I go walking (maybe even walking that ribbon of highway, as Granny D did), but I don't want to pay taxes to support it and it could make for a really ugly skyscape, so I don't know. Beam me to California, Scotty, is more appealing.

I have mixed feelings about government "intrusion," too. People say that, but what they're really talking about is usually the executive and legislative sides of government -- everybody always still wants to be able to go to court if they're harmed, and the philosophical question to me is do you regulate before the harm, or after? Do you assemble all the law into a "code" which the average person at least has a chance of finding, or leave it in court decisions ("common law") where people have to search volumes (and volumes) and corporations make big $$ off "helping" people find the nuggets of "law" amidst what can be endless discussions. I also think that government intrusion is warranted when the government has already intruded...for example, corporations are created by the government and the law provides certain protections (limitations on liability) for the human beings behind the corporation. Well, I think if the government does that, it then has some duty to right the balance by regulating the corporation. Or get out of the business of chartering corporations entirely...

But back to the political parties. I think there are good people in both, but they all too easily get caught up in the political theater. It's not just them, it's us; we reward this crap, at least some of us do. I ran across a quote tonight from one of my (other) favorite authors, Terry Pratcett, which captures this nicely:

"And so the rule of kings gave way to the rule of Patricians. In a kind of mirror image of democracy, they have tended to get into power by lies, trickery and deceit, but remain in power only by a very crude democratic process; if they make too many enemies, they'll be out of office, power, and probably their corporeal form. It seems to have worked, possibly for the reason advanced by the current Patrician in his treatise on the art of government, The Servant: 'If it continues for long enough, even a reign of terror may become a fondly remembered period. People believe they want justice and wise government but, in fact, what they really want is an assurance that tomorrow will be very much like today.' " (The Discworld Companion)

So...no gay marriage because that would be different, it's OK if the infrastructure falls apart because it'll happen slowly (till it doesn't)...it's as if the entire country were possessed by its id.

"The end"; except -- environmental protection, occupational safety...much as it pains me to say...1970, Nixon was the one. Even the darkest darkness has some light.

You're a Republican. Cool! You get my vote next election if you run! With you running, the Dems wouldn't have a chance. It's interesting reading your take on things. Keep on drinking that coffee. In the am I am usually beyond coffee lol even when I drink it lol...

That's my bone of contention is as well.

I just know someone out there has killed the thing that is killing us all...the big C....naturally. The moment this person decided to tell us all, Big Pharma said "Oh NO you don't!! If you do that, no one will buy our million dollar meds and I won't be able to buy my kid the G.I. Joe with the kung fu grip for Christmas." So a million more of us are going to die or die trying to get better, but hey...as long as THEIR kids are cared for....no biggie.

Me? I can't afford health insurance and no I'm not on medicade and yes..I might be pregnant and yes I could have to put my house on the market to afford prenatal care. Nice!

I have always felt that we were given everything we needed to survive here. Now that there is only a quarter of it left...people have been forced to try to "recreate" it all in a petri dish out of who knows what...something someone else created in a petri dish.

Okay...the blunderthoughts are taking over here......So Scientist Johnny Fever discovered the seed of an extinct plant in some perfectly preserved remains and shouts "We don't have to use that "recreated" stuff anymore...we have the real thing now! Sure it will take some time to repopulate it, but there will be enough for all of us."

How do we keep that out of Monsanto's hands?

I admit to not being the sharpest tool in the shed and that I don't really understand politics very well, but some things do stick. I want to be allowed to do things as naturally as I like. Natural would cost the .gov less, but yet when they take the corn syrup out and put sugar in, they charge you more to do that. Want it totally sugar-free? Sure but we have to charge you TWICE as much to not put it in in the first place? What the heck??

Why is the amount of ill people quadrupling ?? Will my child have autism or ADD or ADHD because I ate twinkies growing up instead of apples? Is anyone looking?

Alright...I'm sorry... all this has nothing to do with the price of tea in china or what you all are discussing, but the mention of Holistics really sent me into a coffee induced blathering blunderite babble.

Thank you for allowing me the place to say it. Wishing everyone a peacful sunrise this morning.

The social issues are the hard ones. America is testy but ok at solving it's problems that can be solved with money. Gay marriage isn't one of those. It's a question of moral behavior.

Is it immoral to deny benefits to gay couples that straight couples have by contract law? Is morality a matter of personal conscience or authoritative prescription?

Religious benefits are obtained in heaven. Worldly benefits are obtained on Earth. Religious marriage is recognized in heaven. Worldly marriage is recognized on Earth.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

great read to greet the day with...
Republican, Democrat makes no difference to me... if I had to pick one person to go talk with Repubs (or Dems) it would likely be you....

mostly 'cause you say so clearly what I'm thinkin'...

so as fun as it might be to start an argument.... don't know that I can on the points you brought up.... there may be others, though... who knows??....

I'm interested in more discussion on health care though.... just got a scare tactic email from a friend about Obama's plan hurtin everyone and to lobby against it.... seemed that was a sign some wealthy profiteer was getting a little scared.... not that I think it's so great, but maybe little better....
any ideas on a good approach to health care for this country??...

most progressives are pushing single payer, which is certainly more government intrusion than I would want.. but already have as I've been on Medicare and Medicaid for quite a few years and have to say that it is pretty user friendly....
there are a lot of drawbacks... like if you need equipment the rules for say a power scooter (Medicare) is that they won't pay for it unless you need it to ride around inside your home.... if you need it for the community....well
that's not their problem.... the effect being you have to stay home...theoretically.... it doesn't affect some folks (like me) low income, as Medicaid is still picking up the Medicare drop out stuff.... so I get my scooter... and at the higher end of the income scale, you probably can afford at least a used one.... that's a small example... no one wants to read the confusion of the prescription program.... yet it helps some people.....do people know that the premium for outpatient care is $96.00 a month??...

and they get to know so much about you... any notion of privacy becomes a dim memory.... i'm stunned by the questions they ask and you have to answer.... but you gotta....

with all that being said... I'm damn grateful, and would most likely have died or gone crazy without medicare and medicaid...
it's not perfect, but it gets you there....

and I don't know what else would.... certainly wouldn't want AIG running my health care program.... Who Do You Trust???... literally....

so it's not an argument, but a question ...

Killing your children by denying them treatment for cancer isn't freedom. That kid has his own right to be protected by the state if his parents are unable or unwilling to do so. And no, he's not old enough to decide for himself.

Make it more interesting. Say I can show you studies that are beginning to persuade doctors that certain kinds of cancer, specifically, lymphomas, are actually caused by sugar triggers and that diabetics are statistically and causally more likely to develop Non-hodgkins as a result of having out of control sugars in their blood?

Is it better to control costs by denying them treatments based on their own risky behavior of not denying themselves peanut-butter fudge cookies, or to spend more money on free blood test kits?

I'm not even talking about the payer system, just the kinds of rules one has to look at for preventive measures so well-liked in some circles.

This thread does have multiple topics all under one roof, don't it?

Sometimes to grasp an understanding of things, and to understand(maybe) what can be done to change(improve) things, it may be best to do what nature always does over time. That is to reduce things down to their basic elements.

Democratic Government:( Or in the case of the USA, a Republic)
This form(s) of goverment is really all the people getting together to decide how to run stuff, or the case of a republic, electing people to do that for us. Ideally, as it pertains to things that should require common effort, contributions and agreement.(E.G. Infrastructure, defense, a monetary system and laws to protect, not control, it's citizens. The government is US.

Money: Money does not exist in the natural world. It's a manmade concept. Resources exist in the natural world. A monetary system helps to decide how to distribute those resources.The goverment prints and issues the money, but the people should be able to have certain controls regarding monetary policy. There is a middle ground between pure capitalism and pure communism.

Personal liberty: The government didn't put us here, some higher power or cosmic accident did.Let's treat it that way.
In the case of the 13 year old cancer patient, that's a tough one.
Personal liberty in the case of an adult making treatment choices is one thing, a parent making choices for a 13 year old may be more of a projection of personal liberty onto another being.There are times when perhaps it's better that the village steps in on that one. I don't really know.

So, I didn't say much, but sometimes people(myself included) take some of these concepts and institutions for granted and breath life into them. We made them, we can change them, tweak them.....whatever.
My point was mostly to remember to break some things down to the aforementioned basic elements, and see if they may not look or seem different.Being a part time ponderer, that's what I do.(When I grow up, I hope to be a part time thinker, or at least I've been pondering it for some time now....)

Peanut butter fudge cookies. It's been so long since I had one that I've forgotten when the last time I had one was...

Well put, Larry. I think part of our problem (to maybe not be so longwinded as I was last night) is that we've allowed politics to take over government. If we could just exclude politicians from office, we might get somewhere.

I agree, Cheryl H, cookies are good. Peanut butter fudge, oatmeal fudge, fudge fudge...anyone who disagrees is unAmerican and should be set adrift on a boat to nowhere. I wouldn't make anyone eat something they didn't like or can't have, but they should admit in principle to not oppose fudge cookies. Sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" cookie policy.

I don't know if I agree with Len, though, about religious marriage in heaven. Maybe the government of heaven should stay out of the marriage business, too.

I just want to say love this string!

Sorry, I love this THREAD.

Peanut butter fudge cookies in your eye if you do not!

There IS something fundamentally wrong with anyone who doesn't LOVE peanutbutter-fudge cookies......even if I was so severely allergic to peanutbutter that contact with one precious crumb would mean certain death, I would still love them for their simple beauty and grace!

A Couple of things:

First to GregOhio - The issue I addressed had to do with whether or not you as an individual belong to the state, not whether treatment works or does not work. There are two separate issues here. Personally, I would not become a slave in order to extend my life with medical care, nor would I do so for the health of my kids or grandkids. As a nation, we've been through this before, the result was the revolution in 1776.

Second - These are serious issues that may sound like I am some conspiracy nut case, I assure you I am not. I may be nuts but I am also concerned in the extreme that there are events taking shape that will affect us all. And that if we don't educate ourselves now, and start talking about these things, we run the risk of dealing with dangers we have only begun to imagine. For only one example, read the link below from an internationally respected doc who has a huge following on the web:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/07/23/Journalist-Accuses-WHO-of-Plan-to-Commit-Mass-Murder.aspx

This is only one thing I read this morning before I even got to my freaking coffee... READ UP BOYS AND GIRLS... This is not a hoax... adg

Random disjointed thoughts from a random disjointed mind:

Don't worry about be called "nuts". I mean "they" said the same thing about The Wright Brothers, Charles Darwin, Charles Manson and Me. Which means "they" are only right about half the time.

WHO, bird flu? Scary stuff.It does sound like a James Bond movie, but in matters of money and power, much disgusts me and little surprises me.

Still not sure about this turning republican thing adg. If I had to put a label on it, it sounds like you are rather more libertarian in your views, at least the way things may be seen or defined today. Wanting to perhaps help change the republican party from the inside to what it once was may be admirable, but I fear futile.
I mean I can't see you "Running Down the Road" saying stuff like "Hey Killer, turn up the radio, it's time for Rush Limbaugh!" Or attending a black tie fund raiser for Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney. But who knows.......I mean they say to keep your friends close and your enemies closer....right?
But of course labels are labels and have no substance.

Some stuff is like what I was saying before. Some of the institutions that were created by people take on a life of their own. Which is to say that many of them become what the machines were/are/will be in The Terminator movies. They run us and not the other way around as was the original intention.

Now, the WHO and the UN in cahoots with big pharma? Scary to be sure if true. But the problem as it may be falls on the failure or corruption of the WHO and the UN as well as the guilt of big pharma. Some might then say whay do we need those institutions(WHO & the UN)? There may be a fine line between libertarianism and anarchy.Human nature being what it is, and big bussiness and some governments being what they are, one would hope that institutions such as the WHO and the UN would act as public advocates and not lapdogs of the powerful.Naive? Perhaps.
Oh well, I've only had one coffee and it's the day after poker night with the guys, so I don't know how clearly I'm thinking.

Let's just stay away from these personal attacks again! I don't like peanut butter! Not in the rain,on a train, here, there or anywhere. I don't like the taste, the smell or how it slows me down trying to wash dishes. My grandmother didn't like it, I don't like it, and my son doesn't like it. And if Rush Limbaugh was the only one not serving it I'd sit down and eat with him.

So, Arlo, you mean to tell us that you went from the Group W bench to voting for McCain/Palin? Next I guess is the GOP will co-opt your dad's "Do Re Mi" as its theme song. I hope that coffee you're drinking is Folger's, at least. Aren't Republicans on the endangered list in the Berkshires (whole state, for that matter)?


mikey

Introducing a mutagen into a stable system is one way to induce fast evolution. The trick is to ensure it changes exactly the right hereditary material or it simply spins up a cancer.

I'm not dismayed that Arlo joined the Republican Party because at the same time he says that he introduced issues he says should concern Republicans. Like Larry, it sounds more like a Libertarian agenda but it was precisely the adoption of third party platform issues that put Nixon in the White House, so it can be done. The Republicans want their old jobs back and to get them they are going to have to come up with something more appealing than Fear The Black Guy or Fear The Health Care. Whatever. They need a platform of issues that cut across demographics and regions. They need a national platform. Right now they are spinning up fear which means they didn't learn a lot from that drubbing they took last fall.

But a new platform is what they require and moving them toward one that is more what you want is the way to get the other party to respond with something even more like what you want unless they go off on multiple distractions to keep anyone from getting anything except more of the same. THAT is the clinical definition of cancer.

I want to look at the article Arlo posted in more depth. It has a low probability of being a real threat but it is a weird world and even a low probability is worth investigating when the threat is that serious.

Hahahaha - Lemme Be Clear (thought I was to begin with) I didn't join the Republican Party because I wanted to be like them, vote like them or become them. I joined because I saw an opportunity to help them change into what the USA needed - a voice to speak out against the lunatic fringe (left or right). Someone within the Republican Party has to start speaking up about the crazies at the base. I didn't figure on being one of the first.

When the base of the triangle is equal to or greater than either of the other sides, it stands a good chance of staying around. When the base is at any of the intersections, it stands a good chance of tipping over one way or the other. Therefore a strong party has a lot of folks at the base. The fewer there are, the more likely it'll fall over. Everyone with the party moves as it falls - except the last guy! They can fall around him to the left or to the right, but the last guy just stands there. My clever plan is to be that guy!

Truth is I'm not much of a political animal at all. I just found a different place to be yelling the same old stuff I've been talking about for the last 40 years. It's my hope that if everyone starts yelling loud enough on both sides of the isle everywhere, maybe something will get through. There's something to be said for listening too, but I'm beginning to believe I've heard just about enough garbage to last a while, and if there's one thing I know about - It's garbage.

adg

I get it, Arlo. You'll be the speck of sand in the Republican Party that produces a pearl. We'll be awaitng your "insider reports" from the meetings; don't forget to take good notes with your "cub reporter" pencil.


mikey

Arlo, can you come to Croatia for a while?
Or lend me your red VW microbus?
Cause it seems to me that Croatian government is just a big pile of garbage...

Marina

adg wrote:

" Everyone with the party moves as it falls - except the last guy! They can fall around him to the left or to the right, but the last guy just stands there. My clever plan is to be that guy!"


adg cleverly pointed out many years ago in "The Pause of Mr. Clause" just how much attention is given to "The last guy"......."miles of tape......'cuz there's alot of questions......". Frankly, I'm surprised the triangle didn't just spontaneously combust when it became aware of his membership. Maybe we should ALL join the Republican party; that would drive the right/left crazies even crazier. I mean, I MEAN, can you imagine a thousand Democrats and Independents a day walkin' into election offices all across America and registering Republican??? They might think it's some kind of MOVEMENT......


Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

"The last thing a political party gives up is its vocabulary. This is because, in party politics as in other matters, it is the crowd who dictates the language, and the crowd relinquishes the ideas it has been given more readily than the words it has learned."

I remember my High School Geomotry teacher( Mr. Nixon of all things.....while his namesake was still in the Whitehouse) always gleefully reminding us that the triangle was the strongest shape. And I mean often and gleefully......I guess math teachers don't get out much.
Anyway, I think the concept holds true for pyramids and engineering in general. I think there is a noteable exception for love triangles. As far as political party triangles.......I'm really not sure.
As for the republican party in particular, it's hard for me to see how a party consisting MOSTLY of squares could ever be a triangle........unless of course it was bisected at the proper angle.
I mean ending up as the last guy in a political party triangle would make the last guy a party of one, would it not? I suppose that may make the convention of that party more productive, but would also make fund raising a bitch.
I mean I know of guys that have been the last guy in a pyramid. Bernie Madoff for one. Now he has traded his triangle for a cube.
King Tut for another. I mean he was the last guy in his triangle, and just as he was getting comfortable, some asshole dug him up after 4000 years. I'm not sure it's good to be the last guy in the triangle.

Ok...sorry. If some of us were not nuts, we would be crazy, and if we were not weird, we would be normal. I'm trying not to let those things happen, at least in my case. To temper the serious with the weird and obtuse and season it with fuzzy logic makes life more worth living....donch'a think?

Ok then! Back to solving the world's problems!

It depends. It leaves a lasting impression.

Most of us are worried about the crazies at the top.

Arlo, it's a politics of fear over faith from both sides. They use the issues to write big poems around our lives the same way I embed images in video to build contexts into songs. It doesn't have to be one big plan. It's a lot of game books for people, causes, goals, agendas, bra. Together, it's manipulation. Big money players are screwing with out lives. Anyone who says you are crazy for noticing that is crazy. Heck, it's what mumblers do too, they just sing about it instead of yelling.

I'm too jaded to know crazy when I see it anymore. I know evil. That's not a knowing of facts but a feeling based on the way they stand, they reply, their eyes blink and their noses twitch. Evil smells.

A party that takes us to a first strike war for their own private ends is as evil as a party can get. It has made the false consensus the strategy by moving one step at a time from the unthinkable to the thinkable. In the long run, you can't cheat an honest man. The people have to want it if only briefly and Osama bin Ladin did exactly what would make people want it.

Selah.

As I understand the link you sent, the scenario is that a criminal organization has covertly gained control of the World Health Organization in order to use a pandemic of a secretly bio-genetically engineered variant of swine flu anti-virals as a pretext for introducing a contaminated batch into the US population in order to kill a signficant number of the population to enable a coup by international governments and agencies including China and the UN over the government of the United States. Yes?

Ok. Some events to watch:

The US has just begun the testing of the new vaccine on test volunteers to determine if one or two shots will be needed as well as any other side effects.

Are these test results matched against the results of the state toxicology department examinations for distribution within the local health networks? The state networks are functionally autonomous. The head of it will be a state epidimiologist responsible for reports on all health cases in the state. Before a innoculation effort can be initiated, they have to approve it. Before a health alert can be issued, they have to approve it.

Before a mass poisoning at that scale occurs, they have to be in on it. And not just them, a long food chain of data handlers as werll. Possible, but improbable. Too many people have to be in on it.

Larry wrote:



"Ok...sorry. If some of us were not nuts, we would be crazy, and if we were not weird, we would be normal. I'm trying not to let those things happen, at least in my case. To temper the serious with the weird and obtuse and season it with fuzzy logic makes life more worth living....donch'a think?

Ok then! Back to solving the world's problems!"


Sometimes things are better when they're turned upside down, right Louise? Only those who attempt the absurd will ever have a chance of achieving the impossible

Hi Arlo,

I get the Republican thing. Not my own choice, but I think you are right that there's an opportunity there and I wish you the best with it. I'm curious about any specific plans you have, if you care to share -- sounds like maybe wait, like the bunnies, till you outnumber 'em?

The early morning post and link, though -- to be completely blunt -- were fairly baffling, at least to me. You ended by saying, "This isn't a hoax." But there are a lot of statements on that website and in the linked documents -- did you have something specific in mind? I ask because I do agree with you that we all need to educate ourselves, but the allegations being made by Dr. Mercola and the journalist he is citing (Jane Burgermeister) are pretty far-reaching. I have bits of both Mulder and Scully in me, so I'd say I'm generally willing to consider the possibility of broad conspiracies, but the broader they get (especially when the Illuminati and descendants are said to be involved), the more my internal BS detector gets my eyes rolling. So when I started looking more closely at their statements and at the underlying evidence, well, my tentative conclusion is that it's a mishmash of a few solid points combined with lots of innuendo and unsupported conclusions. There is a lot there, and I was not able to get through all of it, but here's my rundown so far:

1. The basic allegation about Baxter contaminating a vaccine are well-done, generally -- these start on page 53 of the "evidence" document to which the website links (http://wakenews.net/Microsoft_Word__Cri ... _v2_1_.pdf). Of course, it helps when the company involved is the one that first reports it (as the documents say, and as do the few news articles out there on this), so there isn't really any controversy over whether it happened. But there's no evidence for the leap from they did it to they did it intentionally as part of a broad conspiracy, rather than out of incompetence, just a lot of bald statements without any backing. She puts together a story which *might* explain what's going on, but Baxter basically claims incompetence, which also *might* explain what happened. (Personally, I find it easier to buy incompetence since my life experience tells me there's a lot more incompetence out there than there is intentional evil.) And she undermines her case with speculative statements that just made me shake my head. How does she connect Obama and Baxter? Well, they're both from Illinois and Baxter makes contributions to political parties. (Page 62.) I'm just amazed there is no mention of Rod Blagoyevich (sp?). And, ultimately, I keep coming back to the fact that Baxter did report it themselves...why would they do that if the contamination was intentional and part of a big conspiracy? I would vote for revoking Baxter's corporate charter and putting them out of business, and I'm glad there seems to be some investigation going on, but that's as far as I'm willing to go at the moment.

2. More extensive discussion of Obama's role in the conspiracy starts on page 49. The "evidence" against him consists of statements that he was in Mexico City when the first swine flu case was reported, that an archaeologist he met during the trip died with "flu-like symptoms" (actually, news reports said the archaeologist died of a pre-existing heart condition), that a "Federal agent" who accompanied Obama came down with the flu, and Obama did not. And, oh yes, he hasn't proven that he's a citizen. So, Obama the non-citizen went to Mexico City to release the flu virus personally and get the pandemic underway. If you or I were accused of conspiring to commit mass murder based on this flimsy evidence, we'd be outraged. And whatever one might think about Obama, he's not an idiot and he's got flunkies who could do this for him.

3. I also looked at Burgermeister's blog for the latest information she has -- it's at http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/ -- but it didn't exactly lead me to have any trust in her competence. The most recent post is one in which I *think* she is trying to show links between the Rockefellers and WHO and the conspiracy, and she starts out by saying, "Senate bill S. 666, the Biological, Chemical, and Radiological Weapons Countermeasures Research Act of 2003, gave incentives to private industry in the USA to conduct research into bioweapons, allegedly to fill gaps in the US biodefense procurement programs. John Rockefeller was on a key Senate finance committee reviewing the bill which channelled amounts of government money into private biotechnology, pharmaceutical companies such as Baxter in order to develop bioweapons. The Lieberman-Hatch bill S. 666 introduced incentives for companies to detect and weaponise viruses and also find “diagnostics” against viruses. The Rockefeller family is also one of the biggest sponsors of WHO." Except, according to THOMAS (http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d108query.html), S.666 never passed. It was introduced by Lieberman and Hatch (no other co-sponsors) and it was referred to 3 committees (Finance; Judiciary; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) -- that's not unusual -- and it just died there. The other two committees apparently did hold a hearing, but Finance did not, so her point, whatever it is, is pointless. (You can doublecheck my research by going to THOMAS and entering "S.666" on the search line (search by "bill number" by clicking the drop-down menu under "Enter Search").

There's a lot more in the blog, website, and evidence document, and I'd encourage anyone interested to take one of the allegations and look beneath its surface and report back here (so I don't have to do all the work myself ).

I also want to mention that in my "travels" on this issue, I came across a blog (yes, a blog), which was both interesting and non-sensationalist on the subject of the flu. The writers are literate, engage with the commenters, and provide a lot of thoughtful pieces. It's called "Effect Measure" and is at http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/ ; it's worth checking out. There also is a reporter, Helen Branswell, who is cited in Burgermeister's evidence and who has produced some interesting pieces in Canadian papers. She tweets at http://twitter.com/CP_Branswell .

Eileen

Wow a lot to read, and yeah some of what I've read seems pretty over the edge.... But, there's usually a little but of reality behind every conspiracy theorist and the question really becomes 'Is any of this stuff real?' Seems like a lot to wade through just to get to the reality part here. And if Mercola were the only one with similar warnings I would not have even brought it up. However, he's not the only one. Without exception every doc in the alternative world I have personally spoken with has grave concerns about their ability to continue to keep their doors open to the public.

Dentists, for example, who publicly denounced the use of fluoride have lost their licenses to practice, oncologists similarly have been threatened because of their unwillingness to continue providing chemo, radiation and/or surgery when other natural treatments have proven to be successful. (check Doug Kauffman's website - Know The Cause) In fact, it seems that it is virtually impossible to find a peer-reviewed study on cancer treatments that compare modern methods (chemo, radiation etc.) to natural traditional medicines (non-toxic non-invasive etc.). The only study approaching it is a Canadian study that compares chemo, radiation and surgery to doing nothing. (The AMA and others won't allow these studies)

Another example is the continued promotion (TV and everywhere) by doctors and news media of mammography - they're telling us that if will help detect breast cancer and therefore reduce the chances of having it go undetected. True so far as it goes, but what they don't tell you is that women who get mammograms are 6 times more likely to get breast cancer than woman who don't. In other words, there is certifiable evidence in studies that show that mammograms cause breast cancer. Yet, even yesterday the president was pushing the health care plan by advertising how much easier it would be to get more women tested.

Is there a conspiracy here, any connection between the dots, or just random events seemingly unrelated? And these are only a few things. There's lots more. But, I'm trying to keep it short

A Little Post Script:

A discussion with healthy people is one thing, getting actual help for health is another. I'm constantly reminded that not everyone here is actually in great health to begin with, so some of this discussion can appear to be a distraction rather than a discussion.

There's some really good places on the web (thank you internet) to find out some good stuff that can actually help you get healthy - no matter if modern doctors have written you off, or insurance plans have given you up for dead.

If I were in need of valuable information I'd begin with http://www.westonaprice.org/ these guys. Good reading.

Also, my own doc has recently got a website up and runnning, and there's some valuable info for the public there also. http://www.tennantinstitute.com/TIIM_MAC/Welcome.html Also good reading. In fact it's educational!

As it turns out, I have an appointment with my Doc this morning......with all this info it'll probably be a long one. Thanks Arlo

If you run for President, you will get my vote hon...

Call me a liberal call me what ever you want it's OK but my take on the bail outs and the health care issue is this. In regards to the bail out issue of the banks it is my thinking that deregulation opened up the flood gates to greed with mortgage brokers putting pressure on folks who have no working knowledge of how loans work and the legalalities of financing forcing average folks into variable loans they really should not have been put into. In fact variable loans should be against the law. Variable loans are a trap that in the situation of high inflation can ruin lives. By the way it is my feeling that both the Dems and republican parties are to blame for deregulation.
The health care issue. Well... I will agree with most that there are some issues with the idea of public health care but in the long run I think that having the "option" of public health care is a good idea but not something that should be rushed through congress. This should really be thought out carefully. I have no problem paying taxes for programs that work but I do have a problem paying taxes for programs that don't work and people abuse. So in short if the government can come up with a plan that is rock solid that protects my family and there are no copays and cannot be abused then I will support the move to public health care. But if the government rushes into putting together a system that is broken from the start then I can't support the move. I look at it this way. Having public health care shouold save small buisnesses money and weather I pay the government or the vultures that I have for an insurance company now makes no difference. Someone is going to be taking money from me anyways... Right or wrong that's my 2 cents...
-Eric

Thanks for the links, Arlo. As one with "conditions", help is grace.

Is there a single thread in all of those hints and allegations that float through the web like seaweed? Probably. Here's one.

Big social networks form of transactions which become self-sustaining. As my oncologist recommends me to the physicians who treat my cancer, they also pass me from one machine to the next. Each machine spits out papers, schedules, reports, prescriptions, yadda. Each machine has many hands on it and those hands are of persons who are paid to tend that machine. Without doubt, there is social network pressure to keep that machine running. It's fuel is patients with cancer. It's services are drugs, samples (MRI hardwared), paper and hands. The patient believes they are purchasing health.

The same is true of alternative services. It's a machine too of the same kind. It sells different drugs, paper and hands.

The difference is the big pharmas don't play here. It's like pot as medicine. There is no intellectual property money in that.

Most systems have a component in the design that if changed out or dialed down produces a systemic effect and in some cases, an evolutionary one. Dial down the intellectual property profits from world wide drug sales and costs of medical scans. See what happens to the churn and burn.

I do know this: without the Blue Cross - Blue Shield card, I'd be fucked right now.

That's my bone of contention is as well.

I just know someone out there has killed the thing that is killing us all...the big C....naturally. The moment this person decided to tell us all, Big Pharma said "Oh NO you don't!! If you do that, no one will buy our million dollar meds and I won't be able to buy my kid the G.I. Joe with the kung fu grip for Christmas." So a million more of us are going to die or die trying to get better, but hey...as long as THEIR kids are cared for....no biggie.

Me? I can't afford health insurance and no I'm not on medicade and yes..I might be pregnant and yes I could have to put my house on the market to afford prenatal care. Nice!

I have always felt that we were given everything we needed to survive here. Now that there is only a quarter of it left...people have been forced to try to "recreate" it all in a petri dish out of who knows what...something someone else created in a petri dish.

Okay...the blunderthoughts are taking over here......So Scientist Johnny Fever discovered the seed of an extinct plant in some perfectly preserved remains and shouts "We don't have to use that "recreated" stuff anymore...we have the real thing now! Sure it will take some time to repopulate it, but there will be enough for all of us."

How do we keep that out of Monsanto's hands?

I admit to not being the sharpest tool in the shed and that I don't really understand politics very well, but some things do stick. I want to be allowed to do things as naturally as I like. Natural would cost the .gov less, but yet when they take the corn syrup out and put sugar in, they charge you more to do that. Want it totally sugar-free? Sure but we have to charge you TWICE as much to not put it in in the first place? What the heck??

Why is the amount of ill people quadrupling ?? Will my child have autism or ADD or ADHD because I ate twinkies growing up instead of apples? Is anyone looking?

Alright...I'm sorry... all this has nothing to do with the price of tea in china or what you all are discussing, but the mention of Holistics really sent me into a coffee induced blathering blunderite babble.

Thank you for allowing me the place to say it. Wishing everyone a peacful sunrise this morning.[/quote]


Oh dont you know that they have cure for alot!!!!they just aint tellin because the pharmas would go under,another reason they dont want us using herbs and natural medications.the rich get richer the poor get poorer-thats the way its always gonna be,sadly.
wait till they figure out coffe has so many antioxidants they will ban that too
i dont know what people are gonna do man,i mean they tell you to go get checked for free for this and that-then when you have something they basicly send you home to check out.there is no excuse for someone having C and not being able to get proper care as some big old cheese in washington.
the world is a beautiful place,but in some areas its as ugly as the backside of a mule.

EVERYONE DESERVES THE GIJOE WITH THE KUNG FOO GRIP.
PEACE BE WITH YA.

To EPR

Yeah what you're saying makes sense although it doesn't address my concerns. That is that with or without bail outs, the plain truth is that there are people regulating the money supply - folks who can change the value of your money should they decide to do that. For the last 100 years (aprox) with the founding of central banking and later with the Federal Reserve System, your dollar has lost almost all of its value. A dollar now buys about 4 cents worth of 1913 stuff. People call it inflation, that's the means by which you lose the value for your work. With bail outs, they inflate (on purpose) the amount of dollars available, pay some bankers, and supposedly they start loaning money again and we all go back to work. It may be true, but now your dollar buys you even less. If the bankers had to keep their money in dollars it might help, but they don't because they're smarter than we are. They trade their more worthless dollars in for stuff that doesn't lose its value. So now they've gained not only the dollars we gave them, but the difference in value as well. That's why it's not the bail out that's the problem I have, but the value of the dollars we're left with. If they bailed the banks out with real money (real meaning gold or something), the banks would not profit from the bail outs, as they'd be expected to pay it back the same way they got it (in gold or whatever). These guys and their families have already stolen 96 cents from every dollar you have!

Well Arlo I can say that I completely agree with you I just wish that somehow we can all just get out of this pickle that we are in and get on with life and feel secure about our jobs and freedom from fear of losing what we have like our homes. I just hope that the next generation is taking note of the current screwup so that they do not make the same mistakes as our generation....But history has a way of repeating itself doesn't it?
-Eric

Geez, I'm slow on the draw with stuff, and I'm not politically savvy. But I want to share my thoughts on a couple of the original items brought up.

About the 13 year old boy with cancer. I can see both sides of this issue. I believe, the people in that community are truly concerned for that child's welfare and obviously believe that allopathic medicine is the only way to go.

I've seen plenty of people go through chemotherapy. My understanding is that it not only kills off the cancer, but also destroys the person's body. Everyone I know who has undergone chemotherapy has suffered immeasurably. Most, but not all, did not survive.

I believe that this young man's parents really do care about him. Maybe they have witnessed the suffering of people who have gone through chemotherapy and did not survive. Maybe they didn't want that for their child. I've known people who have used naturopathic medicine and cured their cancer. It cost them lots and lots of money. Most of them have survived, not all, but most.

I don't think this is only about one 13 year old boy. I think this is about our freedom to choose how we live and care for ourselves and our children. Maybe you don't agree with those parents and think the state needed to step in and take over management of what they can and can not do concerning the care of their child.

But think about this, let's just say it's your child. And your community/doctor/whoever decides that your child who is sick with cancer needs to not have the allopathic chemotherapy you think is right, but must have an alternative treatment of high doses of vitamin C. Would you want these other people to make that decision for you? How strongly do you feel about being in control of your own destiny?

Someone I talked to recently was totally shocked that Arlo became a republican. I was shocked too, but then I thought about it and can see how you, Arlo, came to your conclusion. And it might work. I can see how it might work. That has not been my experience with large organizations though. I hope your venture changes the republican party for the better and does not harm you or cause you to loose your own ideals. As I've heard said, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

To someone who is undergoing it, that's bad news. Some first person reports:

1. Chemo varies in treatment types depending on cancer type and specific issues. The child under discussion has the same cancer I do.

2. Depending on the stage, the treatment might not be as bad as you think. The later it goes, the worse the treatment is. However, the treatment works insofar as what I am receiving. Delays to explore alternatives if available are reasonable but a trade off.

3. It isn't pleasant. You have to ask yourself if that is sufficient reason for the parents or the child to defer treatment if that is the only alternative. If alternatives are withheld that are reasonable, you have cause to resist. Some alternatives are not reasonable. Letting a child die of a treatable condition by claiming prayer and ritual such as faith healing are acceptable alternatives is beyond reason and the State should intervene for the good of a child not at age of emancipation from parental authority.

That is a separate issue from the notion that the state owns you and can compel you to take a certain course of action when in fact there are reasonable alternatives.

I'm familiar with allopathic cures and ayurveda. I agree that the Western physicians don't do enough research into these alternatives, that the machine tends toward high profit cures and that this is part of the reason for high medical costs. It has it's own momentum. The larger issue then is the issue of personal rights over states rights and federal rights.

I'm from the State where we've been villified and scorned for almost fifty years when the Governor stood in a university door and claimed states rights as the defense of "segregation now and forever". As arguments go, this one is a can of worms because one has to stay very focused on the rights at hand or it turns to gray goo fast. There are those such as Jon Taplin preaching the notion of The New Federalism which relaxes Federal control in favor of block grants with increased State discretion over spending. States are increasingly defying Federal regulations on such things as marriage sanctions and distribution of controlled substances for medical applications.

How to extend that type of resistance to notions such as state enforcement of medical prescriptions for treatment is the problem. Examples such as chemo vs herbs are useful but tend toward goo (insufficient background to evaluate examples to determine if they are relevant).

Who is to decide what is a reasonable alternative? If we are to be free to choose how we take care of ourselves and our families, then we have to be able to make those choices, even if they look unpalatable to others.

Your choice of treatment may appear to be unreasonable to someone who whole heartedly believes in naturopathic medicine, but it is your choice. You have done the homework and found it to be the most effective way to heal yourself. I would not ever attempt to impose a different choice on you, and I would defend you to the very last for your right to make that choice.

[/quote]The larger issue then is the issue of personal rights over states rights and federal rights.[/quote]

I don't want any government agency to make this sort of decision for me.

[/quote]How to extend that type of resistance to notions such as state enforcement of medical prescriptions for treatment is the problem. Examples such as chemo vs herbs are useful but tend toward goo (insufficient background to evaluate examples to determine if they are relevant).[/quote]

I'm not sure I understand what you saying here, but let me take a guess.
Are you talking about finding a way to force people to take medications when not in the hospital??
I fully believe that it is up to the individual or parent to make this sort of decision. If the decision is to follow what a doctor at a hospital tells them to do, such as chemotherapy or surgery, that's all fine and well. But I believe that they have a right to choose an alternative. I might not like that choice, and I might try to convince them with facts to change their mind, but it is still not my choice to make.

Oh by the way, peanut butter fudge YUM!

Your parents made that choice by having you here. It is individuals subordinate to the laws of the land. The struggle is to get good laws particularly where they are based on cases. That is why a better supreme court is the centerpiece of campaigns and the struggle between states rights and federal perogatives advocates is bitter and eternal.



Not at all. It is the broader issue of when any government at any level can compel a citizen to any act against the express will of the citizen.

The child next door has juvenile diabetes diagnosed at age 12. The parents say their pastor advises them that it is God's will for the child to have the condition and God's will if the child survives. Prayer is the only acceptable alternative.

Does the State have a right to take the child from the parents and get medical treatment for a condition that will most certainly kill the child quickly?

Yes. Case after case has been decided on this kind of issue. The state can and should compel acts where the life of the child is clearly in danger. Notice, I am only talking about a child being lovingly abused, not an adult seeking alternatives for their own conditions. The sad fact is the quickest way to get the kinds of decision autonomy in these cases is to have no medical insurance. The machine tends toward the high cost solutions whether appropriate or not. The insurance companies keep premiums high to support the expected costs. The expected costs are all figured in terms of the machine's costs. With no alternatives, with high cost penalties for lawsuits and the rising cost of malpractice insurance that leads to more testing given the need for irrefutable documentation in court, all the system CAN do is spiral into bankruptcy.

That's why it is a health crisis not a states vs individual rights crisis.

So the looser case is one that I facetiously but intentionally states. Does the insurance company have the right to suspend my insurance over the peanut butter fudge cookies even though I am fully paid up? Possibly yes. It depends on obscurities of contract law so dark most people can't read them much less interpret them correctly. This is where remedies are needed. The companies have little in the way of regulations to ensure decisions about health care made available is just. That gives them enormous leeway to keep their own losses within their own assessed goals without regard to patient consequences.

That is the sort of thing I want to see the Obamaites address among the many.

Just a couple of thoughts I am blundering over as I read this excellent discussion......One thing I've discovered so far: It's very difficult to find a good quote regarding peanutbutter fudge


"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do". - Eric Hoffer

And......

"If one considered life as a simple loan, one would perhaps be less exacting". - Eugene Delacroix

I'm a slave to peanut butter fudge with oatmeal. Insurance be dammed. I'll take the insulin and walk off the fat. Life is too unsweet to be without the occasional orgy of peanut butter fudge and sassafrass tea.

So there.

And they scare me right down to my socks. The Russians are getting very brazen with their wet work. Another journalist was found dead. The rise of terrorism is scary but the rise of gangster states with nukes chills me in old dark places.

Anyone can make noise but start to dig deep, it gets cold fast. The evil is intimidation works.

Kevin wrote:

"One thing I've discovered so far: It's very difficult to find a good quote regarding peanutbutter fudge"


Not anymore......Len's quote is perfect:


"I'm a slave to peanut butter fudge with oatmeal. Insurance be dammed. I'll take the insulin and walk off the fat. Life is too unsweet to be without the occasional orgy of peanut butter fudge and sassafrass tea.

So there"

Added to book of aphorisms under "Sweet Things", "Life's Too Short..."
and "Torpedos Be Damned"

Oh yeah, about what Arlo wrote about the devaluation of our money,definately a major problem.........
I wanted to add an enlightening perspective from an old man of Woody's generation: I was complaining to him that a loaf of bread had just cost me 3 dollars and change, and that I had read that during the worst of the Great Depression a loaf cost only a nickel. He told me that what the difference is and what I was failing to comprehend was that even at 3 dollars a loaf today, I have the 3 dollars. Back when it was "only" a nickel, lots and lots of folks didn't have and couldn't find a nickel.......!

Arlo, thanks for the clarification; sorry if I was being dense. Kauffman's site is very interesting (and I saw he just posted yesterday on Burgermeister).

Cheryl/Len, I just want to say what an interesting and thoughtful exchange you are having. I agree with both of you -- never have been able to make my mind up about what I think about government response in cases like that -- I wish we could figure out a better way of dealing with issues like that, without hurting families, scaring kids, etc. I don't know what it is.

Quotes...nice quote from Len...are any of you Buffy/Angel fans? Two of the greatest works of art America has produced? If no, ignore me (or go watch it, whichever you will)...but there's an episode in which Angel (vampire with a soul, striving for redemption) becomes human for a day (until he reverts in order to save the world, which he can only do if he's a vampire)...after 400 years of being a vampire with no sense of taste or smell...and we get:

Buffy yells: "Peanut butter, preferably crunchy!"
Angel's head pops up above the door of the fridge: "I got it."
His arms piled with food he makes his way back to the bedroom with some strategically placed props all that's preserving his dignity.
He dumps the stuff on the bed and slips under the sheet.
Buffy wearing a black robe smiles at him: "The perfect yum. (Angel feeds her a spoon of ice cream) Mmm, this is a dream. You're human for like a minute and already there is Cookie-dough-fudge-mint-chip in the fridge."
Angel: "God, I love food."
Buffy feeds him some ice cream on a chocolate waffle: "Food is good."
They kiss.
Angel: "Why didn't you ever tell me about chocolate and peanut butter?"

I'm a Joss Whedon fan. I admit it. I worked backwards from Firefly to Buffy and Angel but only after syndication. During the Bush years, I couldn't watch morning news without screaming at the TV, so I started watching Buffy reruns at six AM. Got hooked. Great ensemble. Have you checked out Felicia Day's "The Guild" webisodes?

Big thread bifurcation here...

Inflation is bad but the door that opened in the recent financial meltdowns drained almost 60% or a lot of retirement accounts. Who went to jail for that? Bernie Madoff and only because he skimmed the wrong people for the wrong people. If Jon Taplin is right and beneath the surface of his case is money laundering through the Russians, we aren't seeing 2% of what is going on here. The bailouts aren't just financing recovery; they are hiding criminal conspiracies on scales we aren't willing to admit exist.

It's a bit like Angel and Buffy in that regard: cities full of frikkin demons that no one admits exist in the daylight and they own the night. I often think our TV and movie trends reflect what is going on beneath the surface of our society, our fears unheeded, and when you look at the rise in vampire flicks and other sordid plots, there is a lot of unheeded fear out there combined with a lot of unanswered passions, and that can be very bad juju.

Too nice a morning for this darkness. My son's band is coming to record in a few hours and I've got to get ready for a day with metalcore drums and bass in the headsets. Ouch!!!

I bet you'll be ready for the ear plugs lol. Have fun...

Big nasty green ones. But a chance to record my son's first band. They're a hot klingon rock opera. It's been awhile since I found him on the couch on Christmas morning staring at the toy keyboard synth. It's a nice moment with the Buddha.

Here's something for the Sabbath. It's a choral piece derived from a previous instrumental for 12th night. I finally have Sibelius (software) upstairs where I can work on the scores. Once it sounds good in Sibelius, it's usually playable live by the real instruments, and as sample synths go, it's a pleasant rendering.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/mp3/Epiphany2.mp3

Happy Sunday morning!

Well, Len, it's 2:20 a.m. and why am I up so late? Because, of course, I knew about "The Guild" and had even watched an episode before (and liked it), but up till a month or so ago, I only had dial-up, so my online video viewing was fairly limited. So I get home tonight and figure I'll watch another...and another...Felicia Day is quite talented...I knew that from seeing her in Dr. Horrible, but it's really quite amazing what she's put together...I just read that Wil Wheaton is going to be the "big bad" for Season 3. And this on top of Leonard Nimoy joining "Fringe." I'm there. Also can't wait to see her appearance in "Epitaph One" for "Dollhouse" (Whedon's latest...started off iffy but I was really liking it by end of the season).

Liked your "Epiphany"; a nice way to end my evening audio/visual experiences.

I hadn't thought about demon metaphors for our current condition...interesting. This thread had reminded me of Firefly and Serenity (big screen sequel to "Firefly", have you seen it?) both in general themes ("People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.") and the parallels between the flu "conspiracy" discussion and the main plot of "Serenity"...of course Mal is a big libertarian hero and...if I were not so tired right now I would write an extensive essay comparing/contrasting Mal and Arlo and get the discussion back on track.

Hi Eileen:

1. Yes, I've watched most of Whedon's work with the exception of DollHouse. I'll catch up with that on DVD.

2. Thanks. Epiphany is an ongoing work that started with an improvised instrumental, then I scored a version and continue to work on that. All sweetness and melancholy.

Arlo put a lot of topics into the post that starts this thread. Throughout them there is an archetype of dark forces that control our lives unchecked, so yes, the demons metaphor is apt, and Mal isn't a bad model for that kind of thinking. That isn't paranoia on anyone's part. It's real enough.

The insidiousness of the web is my demon. The rise of the tethered devices through which our entertainment, our news, our conversations, heck, even our phone bills arrive and depart mapped to our bank accounts should cause even the most sober among us to take notice.

In two decades or less they will be burning effigies of Tim Berners-Lee. We no longer own the songs we buy or even the hardware. We are renting our passions in exchange for access to the controls over our own cultural evolution.

Some yak about The Singularity glowingly or fearfully, the rise of the machines. I think the Singularity is bad math in service of technology over science to sell droids. It won't happen (sensitivity to initial conditions guarantees churn, not convergence). What is happening and is happening now is control over your finances, your education and even what you can listen to is concentrating in ever fewer hands as a result of the very technologies we were told would free them.

EMI morphed into Apple iTunes. WLS morphed into Spotify.

Meanwhile, every Blackberry, cell phone, Tivo or any Internet device has become a leash and a whip. Now it is a matter of time to see if that pacifies or enrages our culture. My bet is we will simply accept it with some questions but like Arlo As Republican, it won't change the beast because we seldom challenge convenience.

And control over our genes. That's the one that gets me. The whole idea that genes should be patentable is just repugnant, but it's been happening. I saw the documentary, "In the Family," last year -- it's about the struggles of families dealing with the BRCA gene mutations (which are linked to breast and ovarian cancer -- Christina Applegate is one of the more public figures facing the dilemma) -- and the company which has a patent on the gene mutations not only controls testing (at $3K) but also is able to control the ability of researchers to study the gene mutations. ACLU and another group filed a lawsuit over it a few months ago, and it'll be interesting to see how it goes (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/brca.html). I don't know what decision I would make about testing if I was in that position (the whole idea of these gene mutations seems like a sick cosmic joke), but I would want to have the option to make my own decision and I would want other scientists to be able to research further.

And it goes even farther than this. Let's take the cookie analogy. What happens if some insurance company decides that yes, they'll pay for testing, and once they know a person's test results, they start dictating what they will and won't cover. So, for example, somebody tests positive for the gene mutation and their insurer says, "We'll cover the surgery, but we won't cover your cancer treatment if you actually develop cancer, because you could have avoided the cancer by having the surgery." Or, "We don't think you should have children, given the results of your test, so if you do, we're not going to cover them either." Maybe i'm speculating wildly, but I could see it happening.

mikey, I agree.

Bobbi (D)

Nixon went to China, Arlo joined the republican party.....maybe Obama will join the KKK next?
I'll take Arlo at his word that he is looking to change the republican party from within and assume that he did not join the party for what they are, but rather for what the once were or could be. Again, to afix a label to it, it sounds to me that Arlo has more of a libertarian philosophy.
Much of the opposing philosophies of the major parties, or at least many of the citizens that belong to them, may revolve as much around thresholds on many issues as they may revolve around polar opposite views on a particular issue.All the while, I'll assume that most of our citizens share more common goals than not, with how to get there being the point of contention. Most people want to be free, safe and secure both physically and finanically.
Thresholds....who decides where there are to be placed?
Defense:
As much as I dislike violence, if you are holding a gun and about to fire it at my daughter or grandaughters, if I got a gun and I have the chance to pull the trigger first, you're toast. If you have a gun and may use it at sometime in the future, but I'm not really sure, you're safe from me if I have one too.
Banking regulation:
Most of the population are "the chickens", so simply don't let the fox guard the henhouse.
Personal freedoms:
If the republicans are the party that is for less government intrusion, why is it that they are the ones that oppose gay rights and abortion and are more likely to trample the bill of rights during times of war(of choice). Of course the same republicans bristle at the thought of government intrusion into bussiness.
The democrats are more the opposite, intruding more into bussiness and less into the other above stated issues.

Ok, I'm starting to ramble.....maybe I should run for office.
It's all about finding the "Goldylocks Zone".....not too hot, and not too cold.............just right!
The fact is, we need government, but we need to clearly define it's role and we need to clearly define the limits of it's power, and we need to clearly define thresholds on issues that the government may decide that are consistant with our freedoms and our constitution.
Much of this is more difficult now than when the constitution was written because of more advanced technologies, but should be easier in some regards due to more social enlightenment.

Ok.......just one coffee, and off the cuff.

Who canceled the sexual revolution and why?

revolutions by definition revolve. maybe somebody just changed the direction of the revolution. kinda like playing a record backwards....maybe.
I mean it could change everything.
you know what they say happens if you play and old country record backwards doncha? You get your job back, you sober up, your wife comes back, your dead dog comes back to life, you get out of jail.........

@Larry: One answer from a History Channel program:

Women. They won.

You got it with the change of direction. It morphed into radical feminism. Here's the kick: it made Sarah Palin possible.

I guess I know stuff that I don't even know.

Creative destruction, kali or apoptosis...

"the differentiation of fingers and toes in a developing human embryo occurs because cells between the fingers apoptose; the result is that the digits are separate"

You may not know, but the toes know. You pop toes.

Like we know there's nothing funny about the 'funny bone'......it's just that anatomists found it humerus

I cannot tell you how happy I am to see your political affilition is so close to mine. I am registered independent but I voted for Bush Jr twice. I also voted for Perot but I have learned to regret it. Third parties don't help much. I voted for McCain but I wished we had had Sarah sooner and she could have run for president. Well she still may. I just love how she ran corruption out of her state and her own party. She is a new broom and that is exactly what we need.

Anyway, I want to welcome you to the conservative side even if I am a few years late. I loved the movie Alice's Restaurant. I loved your fathers work. But I have come to see that law has replaced the need for unions. Unions might be useful again if we can shrink the government. But they are pretty useless right now. And one of the reason we need them so little is because your dad was an activist for their cause. At the time that was a needful thing but these days a lot has changed.

I see there is an option to disable similes. How does that work I wonder... Let me switch it on like a light switch. There. Does it act like a censor? Will it be like big brother and remove only the similes it dislikes and pass others like a whimsical poet?

Wow mikey, did you know that in 1964 the Republican party pushed through the opposition of the democrat party to pass the Civil Rights act which the democrats opposed? In '64 Gore senior was fillibustering the Civil Rights Act. Did you also know the Voting Rights act was passed in 1965 by Republicans pushing against Democrat oppostion? It is, as they say, history.

Democrats are the party of low expectations for minorities. Democrats make them second class everthing by lowering education standards for minorities. Then everyone knows they were not held to the same high standards certain other races are held to.

Race is a stupid word: we are the human race. That is the only race I know.

I do not want to allow certain races to be held to lower standards on SATs or anything else. It denigrates them and their abilities. It makes them second class.

What I want is a party beyond parties. Is there anything better than a party system? Or is it just a matter of a blank space?

Political parties are really just containers for interest groups, both traditional and grassroots. The situation has evolved from a "This town ain't big enough for the both of us" attitude to it's opposite, "There's only the two of us, and towns are popping up all over the place". The worst result of the two-party system has been the way they've been manipulated into mechanisms for the extreme polarization of many people. Most focus too much on the differences and not enough on their common interests.

Political parties are like sinus infections. Sleep on your left side and all the crud slides left; sleep on your right side and all the crud slides right. Sit up and it starts coming down your throat and out your nose. And you have an achy head no matter what you do.

recklessprocess, I don't consider the Dixiecrats of 1948 who fought Harry Truman tooth and nail over Civil Rights or the segregationist Southern Democrats of the mid-sixties to be representative of their party any more than you probably consider Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins representative of theirs. You have your RINO's and we have our DINO's.

I still say it's a fact that the impetus for progress came from Democratic leaders like Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, and the legislation came to fruition under their watch, rather than under the watch of Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan.

Today, we have the "Blue-Dog" Democrats in place of the Dixiecrats, but "we shall overcome" on the important issues.

By the way, I wouldn't feel too confident about the folkslinger turning into a conservative. A careful reading of his message indicates to me that he's trying to lead you all away from the "dark side" and towards the light, just as we had to do with the segregationist southern Dems.


mikey

Not to mention that some of those Dixiecrats became Republicans (Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond pop into mind), corrupting the soul of the party -- I was actually thinking of them when I wrote my earlier analogy. The breakdown of the vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act was:

By party

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Righ ... 4#By_party

I love Wikipedia. I wish politics were more like Wikipedia.

Who gets to decide which is Ceasar's?

The Nevada Gaming Commission?

It looks like the Republicans are primed for apoptosis as the Libertarians and the Republican outwing drift toward each other.

I suppose that would be Mrs. Ceasar?

The two party system is messed up, but very unlikely to change.
With the melding and morphing of ideas, values and philosophies concerning both social issues and the "simple" business of running the government, many people are somewhat inclined to chose a party based on one half of it's basic dogma or the other.
This is largely how the republican party has recruited many folk to often vote against their own intrests other than thier "social and family value" views. That is to say, by engaging the evangelical base.Condesending,crude, but effective.
The demographics of the country are changing to the point that if the republican party does not change it's stripes of many on the social issues, they will be irrelevent or margianalized in large measure. That is unless the democrats happen to do what the recent republicans in power did, and that is to screw stuff up so bad as to force people to insist upon change.Either way, I will not be surprised.
Having said that the two party system is messed up, it's still way better than a one party system. So, saving and changing the republican party may be a noble goal for all of us, regardless of party affiliation. Perhaps Arlo is ahead of the curve on this one!

Perhaps but unless he is prepared to pay attention, he will soon be featured in an ad claiming he supports Sarah Palin's new initiatives on health care as every loyal Republican must.

Will the Republicans co-opt Arlo's brand? They just might. The Romans absorbed the Greek culture and began their decline because whereas they needed the mathematics to empower their engineering genius, they didn't need the rest of the package but got it anyway as they suffered from lack of artistic credibility and as a culture, they hated lacking anything.

Self-image as brand is a cobra in a hat box.

The parties may not be as important as we think. Ad sales may be all that matters as the collapse of media into conglomerates couples to the rise of the Google monopoly over information. Here is something to chew on:

http://aralbalkan.com/2284

To be fair, I am listed as a Sys-Con author. I was some years ago until when they realized they weren't getting enough content, they began to scrape my posts to XML-Dev and claim them as articles on their site. I objected but was told I could pretty much go screw myself as they would anyway.

So now it is the right of every mother's son to republish Arlo's songs on the web, the right of every major company to republish anything we write, in fact, they own our genes.

Now what do you think will be the outcry should Arlo Palin decide that regulating these companies is in the best interests of the public? Ok, don't like that. How about an ISP tax/fee that collects $3 a month from every ISP subscriber to pay to ASCIII/BMI/SESAC to redistribute to their members to offset publishing lossses?

It isn't about the parties. The masks are off. It is about enslavement by the few of the many through a legal system that permanently enfranchises their brands and concentrates the wealth even more that it has been concentrated.

What will we do about that? Whine. Why? We want the bread and circuses. We can't tolerate the boredom of our anonymity.

It's clear to me that Arlo did not join the republican party to drink the current batch of Kool-Aid that they got in the punchbowl, but you are correct, some folks will make that leap. Such is a world of sound bytes and knee-jerk reactionism.
There is no way that anyone who read Arlo's reasoning for party affiliation could label him a "loyal republican" in my view, taking into account the popular definition of "loyal".
Maybe I should phone into the Rush Limbaugh radio program and let Rush know about Arlo's switch over to the republicans and see how much we can get our favorite folkslinger in the news? NAH!!!!!! ( Not without asking Arlo first anyway)

Since it was in the Times and was linked in Facebook, I would have expected discussion. I saw very little. Apparently shock is losing it's value these days.

Arlo gave a long list of the issues he believes the Republicans should step up to. Have you heard of a tactic called the Overton Maneuver or Overton Window? It is a strategy of describing a set of positions or talking points between an acceptable and an unacceptable position. In a debate one moves one position at a time until the logic for the unacceptable become irrefutable. It's fun to figure out the 'inbetweeners' for that. I'd enjoy seeing him on stage with Sarah Palin. The surreality of that would surpass Nixon standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial asking the hippie kids "What do you want?"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017497.php

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

Note the comment about the value of such critiques within the party being critiqued. The 'slinger may be the 'loyal opposition'.

So its mutation or apoptosis for the Republicans. There was a time when they stood for something better instead of merely being the party of the rich. I feared Arlo woke up one day to realize he was too rich and too old to go on being a Democrat. It has happened so many times to otherwise reasonable folks. It's part of the syndrome of trying to remain relevant. Most of us hit that syndrome when we realize our children are simply tuning us out and the iPod is actually turned off.

If he is planning on " moving the conversation away from the failed conservative ideas of the past" as Krugman was, he might want to note that last comment. It could be the case that having his photo in the NY Times signals the end of his career as an anti-establishment critic if not as the head of the first family of American folk.

We are all old enough that we must to some degree consider ourselves to BE the establishment. Even if that is not true, attemping to change what may be bad about the establishment from within the establishment might just be the most productive way.
And by definition, if Arlo or anyone else is attempting to change the republican establishment from the inside OR from the outside, they would be anti-establishment.....would they not?
So far as some kind of "status" as a folk icon, I would see nothing that would change that except perhaps in the eyes of some. Folk is many things, but it's not a political party. It's about people.

Who camp out and smoke pot in the rain for fun which is possibly safer than leaning out of an airplane with a 30:30 sighting moose.

I believe a spirit rises up from the people when it's needed and the first thing it looks for are scruffy kids with guitars and a deep need to say something noticeable.

Someone just called to tell me Ron Paul's son will run for the Senate in Kentucky.

For years both parties have plead in public for more citizens to get actively involved in local politics. I think for their sins they are getting what they said they wanted. My wife is asking me to write a song with the hook "And Arlo became a Republican". I just might do it. It seems.... trendy.

I think we are going to be in a whole lot of trouble if the National Healthcare goes into effect. Even with insurance, my co-pays are over $1000.00 per month! and that is using mostly generics. what happens when someone tells me I need to use a drug similar, but not as good as the ones I am taking now because it is cheaper???


Love you Arlo. You gave me the best memories yet!

Who 'we', kemo sabe? If he does that he'll NEVER qualify for the rock 'n roll hall of fame. This is how the left becomes right, the right becomes center, the batter bunts and homeplate is where you warm up leftover grits for Amish rebels. He'll become a political pundit and I'll become a folk singer. GAD!!!

It just ain't koscher for the kid who lifted his middle finger to the draft and wrote "I Just Gotta Ball You Right Now" to join the ReproBates. What am I gonna believe in now? Will he cut his hair? Buy a suit? Play a Takamine instead of a Martin? Ride a Yamaha instead of a Harley (oops.... there were signs)? Date starlets? Drink Sanka? Make war not love? Play Aleister's BBQ on Thanksgiving? Learn to like PICKLES?

It cain't be true!!! Then again... it might be right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316441057304748.html

Easy now! The sky ain't falling.......just everything else.

Apparently the Wall Street Journal and the Chinese agree with Arlo about the dangers of printing money to buy back the patriot's dream:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316460622633026.html

Let the sky fall. I went long on salt mines and shorted the airlines. I'm gonna make a killin'.

The best way for Arlo to counteract the possibility of his name being co-opted by Republicans he might not like would be for Obama to appoint him to some position here in DC. Obama likes appointing Republicans (Lahood), and celebrities (Kal Penn). This would give him 2 for the price of 1. Maybe something in the National Park Service, like "Park Ranger Troubadour".

And so many of us refuse to look beneath the masks, finding other imaginary conspiracies to occupy our minds.

BTW, on a related subject, my Dollhouse DVDs arrived today, and Epitaph One (unaired episode that time jumps) is right on point -- dystopic vision of a future world where those in control use the bodies of those not to achieve immortality.

Eileen wrote:



"The best way for Arlo to counteract the possibility of his name being co-opted by Republicans he might not like would be for Obama to appoint him to some position here in DC. Obama likes appointing Republicans (Lahood), and celebrities (Kal Penn). This would give him 2 for the price of 1. Maybe something in the National Park Service, like "Park Ranger Troubadour"."


Great idea Eileen! I think Obama should create a new cabinet position for Arlo......make him head of the "Department of Peace, Love and Diplomacy Through Storytelling and Folk Music" Drastic times call for drastic measures!!!

One thing I read about Obamas healthcare that scares me is. I read where he wants to make it where if you don't have health insurance you have to pay a penalty fine. He evidently does not realize that the reason folks don't have it is either they can't afford it or have a pre-exisiting condition like diabetes & the insurance co won't cover them. Mike & I couldn't get the insurance cuz we had a pre-exisiting condition, diabetes and couldn't afford the insurance anyway. Thank God we were able to get under a free medical program at a local hospital. So before penalizing folks for not having insurance, he needs to understand why the folks don't have it. Sure hopem he does not do this. He means well with his new health plan but some parts of it like this penalty for not having insurance stuff just isn't right...

Maybe. I mean perhaps we now have a mole, an guy..... inside....... undercover..... working as a spy.I mean Arlo may not look like your prototypical republican. But as Arlo has noted at some of his gigs(paraphrasing) " There are lots of weird people here disguised as normal". I mean do you think he could sell the republicans on the reverse in his case?
I mean some of them will be smart enough to know that he is actually working for them by working for us.....won't they?
Some of them will rejoice at having folded the hippies into thier party.
Others will just look quizzeled and say "WTF"?!
Any way you work it......it's gunna be fun.

As the only male founding member of the local Women's Political Caucus, I say with some experience, change from the inside is tough if you are the goat to be sacrificed at the beginning of the meeting.

A cause without a goat is peanut butter fudge without the oatmeal. It tastes ok but you can't hold it together once out of the pan.

Still, he is right. The Republicans are in the weeds of a estuary. There is burgeoning life all around them but all they worry about is the mud sucking sound they make as they keep looking for a way onto dry land so they can shoot geese. Unless a) The Democrats blow it (50/50) or b) Palin or Huckaby or whosis get a heart transplant and better script discipline, the Republicans are down for a term and a half meaning it could be 2016 before they get another shot at the White House. Meanwhile, a quiet but consistent infusion of new members with different ideas from the evangelicals, yet with a spirit of outreach and genuine caring for those NOT of their kind could transform the party into not just the loyal opposition, but the worthy opposition.

Evolution is slow but it has one advantage over radical change: the features it brings tend to last. As I said, the sexual revolution would have vanished without impact had it not been absorbed into radical feminism. It isn't that radical now but the change appears to be permanent. Women really do own their own bodies now, have choices and make them without thinking twice that exactly one generation ago, this wasn't the case.

As long as he isn't the goat, he can make a difference there that he won't make on the Democratic side where by their current measures, he is a vegetarian at a goat burning.

It would sure make the Republican National Convention alot more fun and interesting. Arlo: "Come on, everybody sing......This land is your land, this land is my land......"

Please post your reply in the Blog-Forum.