again

GREENS ASSERT ROLE AS ALTERNATIVE TO BUSH, AS
KERRY RETREATS FROM OPPPOSITION ON MAJOR ISSUES

The 2004 debate over Iraq and other major issues is not
Democrat versus Republican, but Greens versus war parties

Washington, D.C. (GPUS, June 2) -- Green leaders
charged today that the national debate, especially
over the war on Iraq, will not be between President
George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry, and that
Democrats have surrendered their position as
opposition party to the Greens.

Green candidates competing for the party's
presidential nomination, as well as independent
candidate and possible Green endorsee Ralph
Nader, are seeking the support of Americans who
opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
intend to persuade other voters that Bush, backed
by Republicans and most Democrats, misled them
into an unnecessary war.

"A vote for either Kerry or Bush is a vote for
war," said Tony Affigne, co-chair of the
International Committee of the Green Party of the
United States. "The debate over Iraq in the 2004
election is not Democrat versus Republican. It's
Green versus the war parties."

Greens noted other major election year issues
on which President Bush and Sen. Kerry generally
agree:

-- Sen. Kerry and most of his Democratic
colleagues voted yea on the USA Patriot Act,
which Greens call a serious assault on
constitutional rights. (Greens also note that
the October 2002 vote by Congress, including Sen.
Kerry, to surrender war powers to the White House
violated the U.S. Constitution.)

-- Sen. Kerry has endorsed the Bush
administration's support of Sharon policies in
Israel; Greens have condemned Israel's recent
grab of West Bank lands and murders of
Palestinian civilians, called for Israel to adhere
to international law and U.N. directives, and
supported initiatives from Israeli and
Palestinian peace groups.

-- Neither Bush nor Kerry offers strong
initiatives to stem catastrophic global climate
change; Greens have called for a renegotiated
Kyoto Accord with more comprehensive measures,
especially for reversing the global addiction to
fossil fuels, and with the U.S. as signatory.

-- Both Bush and Kerry support international
trade authorities which frequently overrule local
and national environmental, labor, and human
rights protections; Greens have called for
international trade agreements that strengthen
local democracy and economic autonomy,
environmental protections, and workers' rights.

-- Both Bush and Kerry would continue to permit
control by HMOs, insurance firms, drug
manufacturers, and other corporate lobbies over
U.S. healthcare, including prescription drugs;
Greens propose a single-payer national health
insurance program.

For further comparison of Green with Democratic
and Republican positions, visit
www.therealdifference.org.

------------------------------------

Green Party of the United States (GPUS)
1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404
Washington, DC 20009.
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193
www.gp.org

FORWARD 2004!
For information on the Green National Convention
and presidential candidates, visit:
www.gp.org/convention/process.html

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Why don't the Greens and Nader focus on a bottom-up building of the
party, starting with local candidates.. .where people may feel they
can take a "risk" in voting for the 3rd party rather than voting
essentially for Bush ? Strategically, that would seem to make more
sense. . . wasn't there an election in San Fransisco where the GReen
almost won as mayor? that's the kind of real victory we're looking
for I think . .

I also currently agree with the strategy voiced by some union people
I know. . . right now, do everything possible to get Kerry elected,
as soon as that's accomplished, he becomes our greatest enemy.

But as usual, the important thing is to find ways of moving the
entire public away from its current right-ward swing. Politicians
will then follow. That's what the Heritage Foundation and their ilk
achieved in the last 20 years in the other direction, and that's
the real reason why the John Kerrys of the world have to
be "moderate" . . . the public demands it. The trick is to find a
way of convincing the public to demand something cooler.

So. . . how do we get Rush off the air?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> GREENS ASSERT ROLE AS ALTERNATIVE TO BUSH, AS
> KERRY RETREATS FROM OPPPOSITION ON MAJOR ISSUES
>
> The 2004 debate over Iraq and other major issues is not
> Democrat versus Republican, but Greens versus war parties
>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "ZipZapPooZoo" <chris@m...> wrote:

> <snip>
>
> I also currently agree with the strategy voiced by some
> union people I know. . . right now, do everything possible
> to get Kerry elected, as soon as that's accomplished,
> he becomes our greatest enemy.

now that *is* a great strategy !!!

get Kerry in now just to get Bush out, then work for
4 years on developing a serious Green contender for 2008.

i haven't seen _The Day After Tomorrow_ yet
<http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/>, but i'd guess
that it doesn't have much political content, and
that's too bad. a blockbuster movie about a
global-warming disaster would be a great vehicle
for pointing the finger ... and better still,
for *giving* the finger.

> so, how do we get Rush off the air?

we don't, and we shouldn't. America is supposed to be
all about freedom of speech.

what we do is get lots more stuff on the air which
demonstrates how foolish Rush is. everyone gets a
laugh *and* sees the point.

-monz

I can't believe that you would consider handing a vote to Bush during this
emergency of getting Bush the fuck out of office.

This is no time to be an idealist.

On Thursday 03 June 2004 12:18 am, kraig grady wrote:
> GREENS ASSERT ROLE AS ALTERNATIVE TO BUSH, AS
> KERRY RETREATS FROM OPPPOSITION ON MAJOR ISSUES
>
> The 2004 debate over Iraq and other major issues is not
> Democrat versus Republican, but Greens versus war parties
>
> Washington, D.C. (GPUS, June 2) -- Green leaders
> charged today that the national debate, especially
> over the war on Iraq, will not be between President
> George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry, and that
> Democrats have surrendered their position as
> opposition party to the Greens.
>
> Green candidates competing for the party's
> presidential nomination, as well as independent
> candidate and possible Green endorsee Ralph
> Nader, are seeking the support of Americans who
> opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
> intend to persuade other voters that Bush, backed
> by Republicans and most Democrats, misled them
> into an unnecessary war.
>
> "A vote for either Kerry or Bush is a vote for
> war," said Tony Affigne, co-chair of the
> International Committee of the Green Party of the
> United States. "The debate over Iraq in the 2004
> election is not Democrat versus Republican. It's
> Green versus the war parties."
>
> Greens noted other major election year issues
> on which President Bush and Sen. Kerry generally
> agree:
>
> -- Sen. Kerry and most of his Democratic
> colleagues voted yea on the USA Patriot Act,
> which Greens call a serious assault on
> constitutional rights. (Greens also note that
> the October 2002 vote by Congress, including Sen.
> Kerry, to surrender war powers to the White House
> violated the U.S. Constitution.)
>
> -- Sen. Kerry has endorsed the Bush
> administration's support of Sharon policies in
> Israel; Greens have condemned Israel's recent
> grab of West Bank lands and murders of
> Palestinian civilians, called for Israel to adhere
> to international law and U.N. directives, and
> supported initiatives from Israeli and
> Palestinian peace groups.
>
> -- Neither Bush nor Kerry offers strong
> initiatives to stem catastrophic global climate
> change; Greens have called for a renegotiated
> Kyoto Accord with more comprehensive measures,
> especially for reversing the global addiction to
> fossil fuels, and with the U.S. as signatory.
>
> -- Both Bush and Kerry support international
> trade authorities which frequently overrule local
> and national environmental, labor, and human
> rights protections; Greens have called for
> international trade agreements that strengthen
> local democracy and economic autonomy,
> environmental protections, and workers' rights.
>
> -- Both Bush and Kerry would continue to permit
> control by HMOs, insurance firms, drug
> manufacturers, and other corporate lobbies over
> U.S. healthcare, including prescription drugs;
> Greens propose a single-payer national health
> insurance program.
>
> For further comparison of Green with Democratic
> and Republican positions, visit
> www.therealdifference.org.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Green Party of the United States (GPUS)
> 1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404
> Washington, DC 20009.
> 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
> Fax 202-319-7193
> www.gp.org
>
> FORWARD 2004!
> For information on the Green National Convention
> and presidential candidates, visit:
> www.gp.org/convention/process.html
>
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

> i haven't seen _The Day After Tomorrow_ yet
> <http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/>, but i'd guess
> that it doesn't have much political content, and
> that's too bad. a blockbuster movie about a
> global-warming disaster would be a great vehicle
> for pointing the finger ... and better still,
> for *giving* the finger.

I'd have to say you're wrong about this, monz.
TDAT has the most political content (at least
the most direct) of any Hollywood film I've ever
seen.

-Carl

> I can't believe that you would consider handing a vote to Bush
> during this emergency of getting Bush the fuck out of office.
>
> This is no time to be an idealist.

I don't know if I mentioned this yet or not, but I have a new
position available on the election... 3:1 odds, in denominations
of $20 and $50 (one per person, please)! This means that if
Bush takes office in 2004, you loose $20 or $50. If anyone else
takes office in 2004, you get $60 or $150 (it'll be the best
money I've ever spent).

E-mail me off-list! clumma at yahoo.

-Carl

I'm in california. i don't think he is going to carry the state. but idealist
if you think any thing will change if you vote for someone who will take away
half your rights instead of all of them. well guess what next time, they will
offer you someone who will take only 2/3 and so on. until as you see now
someone like nixon looks like a liberal.

This whole election process is a farce and nothing but theater to make it
look like you have a choice. The multinationals back them both and when in
office will tell them what to do. Just watch, when Kerry get s in office, you
are not going to see him undo , what you saw bush undo. No he is going to let
it stand.
now do i sound idealist?

The elections are already over and the plans for the next 5-10 years are
continuing on the preordained multinational course.

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> I can't believe that you would consider handing a vote to Bush during this
> emergency of getting Bush the fuck out of office.
>
> This is no time to be an idealist.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > i haven't seen _The Day After Tomorrow_ yet
> > <http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/>, but i'd guess
> > that it doesn't have much political content, and
> > that's too bad. a blockbuster movie about a
> > global-warming disaster would be a great vehicle
> > for pointing the finger ... and better still,
> > for *giving* the finger.
>
> I'd have to say you're wrong about this, monz.
> TDAT has the most political content (at least
> the most direct) of any Hollywood film I've ever
> seen.
>
> -Carl

well, then i'm happy to know that i was wrong
in my assumption! looking forward to seeing
it now.

-monz

I think the most effective way to influence the current political
system is to demand the truth about 11-9, if not the only way. Really.
Otherwise, like Joe said, it's possible that there even will not be
an election in November. And with the electronic voting systems, you
cannot be sure it will be fair. And whoever will win, he will not
release the truth. Time is running, please see the countdown to
coverup in http://septembereleventh.org .
I'm glad that at least one European politician is waking up now.

One can ask questions to the media why they aren't publishing
anything about the mounting 9/11 truth movement. There are masses of
websites (for an overview see http://www.911inquiry.org/links.html),
books, videos, there was even a conference, but nothing in the
main media. I only saw one television documentary about the
unexplained circumstances of the UA 93 crash some two years ago,
but that's all. You can send them a copy of David Ray Griffin's
_The New Pearl Harbor_ if necessary.
Once the media see they cannot ignore this any longer, I'll take
Carl's bet!

Yesterday Richard Clarke was on TV here, and he gave a quote of
Benjamin Franklin who said: do not trade your civil rights for
security because in the end you will have neither.

Manuel

hi Manuel,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
<manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:

> <snip>
>
> Yesterday Richard Clarke was on TV here, and he gave a quote of
> Benjamin Franklin who said: do not trade your civil rights for
> security because in the end you will have neither.
>
> Manuel

America was founded upon the idea that each individual
citizen should have the right to create his own security.
hence our famous right to bear arms ... which unfortunately
by now has become a big mess, but the original idea
was a good one.

i know that politics is based on the idea of people
being sheep, but the current situation here is ridiculous.
it's hard for me to believe that with so much information
available for people to see alternative viewpoints to
the standard one propogated by the usual media, so many
Americans still believe so much of what Bush (et al) says.

i wonder why there are so many other Americans who
are not as furious as i am about the coup d'etat
by which Bush took control of our country. the only
really effective way i could protest it, is to refuse
to pay my income tax, thereby depriving the government
of some of the money it needs to fight its repugnant
war and carry out its other plans for world domination.
... but of course if i tried to do that i'd end up in jail,
or possibly even be hunted down and killed by
federal marshalls.

i'm not at all convinced that 9/11 was really an
al-Qaeda attack, but am more inclined to believe that
it was our own CIA which orchestrated it. i believe
the same thing about the Nick Berg beheading video.

the 21st century sure started out crazy ...

-monz

the moment i saw the 2nd plane hit , i knew it was a fraud

monz wrote:

>
>
> i'm not at all convinced that 9/11 was really an
> al-Qaeda attack, but am more inclined to believe that
> it was our own CIA which orchestrated it. i believe
> the same thing about the Nick Berg beheading video.
>
> the 21st century sure started out crazy ...
>
> -monz
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Hi Joe,

>it's hard for me to believe that with so much information
>available for people to see alternative viewpoints to
>the standard one propagated by the usual media, so many
>Americans still believe so much of what Bush (et al) says.

It requires a big paradigm shift, and it's natural that
people resist that. This is nicely summed up here:
http://septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-01-10-shift.php

>i wonder why there are so many other Americans who
>are not as furious as i am about the coup d'etat
>by which Bush took control of our country.

Most don't know probably that voters were purged.
Some names involved in this interestingly also appear in the
9/11 story: Ted Olson (box cutter theory) and Katherine Harris
(Florida flight schools).

>i'm not at all convinced that 9/11 was really an
>al-Qaeda attack, but am more inclined to believe that
>it was our own CIA which orchestrated it.

Or something in between.

Manuel

Manuel, Joe, Kraig,

Do you go far as to say that anger against the united states' foreign policy
by middle eastern radicals is orchestrated?

that islamic fundamentalism is a CIA invention?

at some point, you have to sit back and apply occam's razor to your arguments,
and also the principle of 'falsifyability': where are the holes in my
argument? look for counter-explanations. the articles that you link to are
amazing short on objective scientific outlook, and high on emotional
rhetoric. i immediately question objectivity when emotional rhetoric gets
high.

there's an idea called a 'meme', richard dawkins talks about it. it's that
ideas can reproduce if they are cultural successful, and get passed around
like 'memetic material' (similar to genes) from mind to mind.

christianity is such an idea, and i think the idea that ghw bush controls
*everything* is another.

don't get me wrong: i think 75% of what is said is true, and the connections
are definately worth being explored. but let's also not lose our own
objectivity, and get emotionally attached to these theories. a good
scientists seeks to *disprove* his theory in order to prove it. scientific
proof is about not being able to *disprove*, rather than trying to *prove*,
which we know, outside of math, is impossible.

when we compare the violence with which a hiter or a hussein or a stalin
openly crushed dissenters, we have to admit that the bushes go about it
differently, and that us dissenters have their own campaigns.

otherwise, michael moore would be found dead in a prison camp, or not even
heard of. he would make it to press at all if the state you describe the US
as were the way it is.

and yes, i think the CIA and the mafia and the military industrial complex
killed Kennedy.... ;)

Best,
Aaron.

On Friday 04 June 2004 08:58 am, Manuel Op de Coul wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> >it's hard for me to believe that with so much information
> >available for people to see alternative viewpoints to
> >the standard one propagated by the usual media, so many
> >Americans still believe so much of what Bush (et al) says.
>
> It requires a big paradigm shift, and it's natural that
> people resist that. This is nicely summed up here:
> http://septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-01-10-shift.php
>
> >i wonder why there are so many other Americans who
> >are not as furious as i am about the coup d'etat
> >by which Bush took control of our country.
>
> Most don't know probably that voters were purged.
> Some names involved in this interestingly also appear in the
> 9/11 story: Ted Olson (box cutter theory) and Katherine Harris
> (Florida flight schools).
>
> >i'm not at all convinced that 9/11 was really an
> >al-Qaeda attack, but am more inclined to believe that
> >it was our own CIA which orchestrated it.
>
> Or something in between.
>
> Manuel
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Aaron,

>Do you go far as to say that anger against the united states' foreign
policy
>by middle eastern radicals is orchestrated?
>that islamic fundamentalism is a CIA invention?

Of course not.

>at some point, you have to sit back and apply occam's razor to your
arguments,
>and also the principle of 'falsifyability': where are the holes in my
>argument? look for counter-explanations. the articles that you link to are
>amazing short on objective scientific outlook, and high on emotional
>rhetoric.

That also applies to the "official" story, which you must agree is
amazingly short on objective scientific outlook, and high on emotional
rhetoric.

>i immediately question objectivity when emotional rhetoric gets high.

Yup.

The theories are only speculation as long as the facts are being
suppressed, I'm not emotionally attached to them. But that the facts
are being suppressed is not a theory!

Best,

Manuel

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> Manuel, Joe, Kraig,
>
> Do you go far as to say that anger against the united states' foreign policy
> by middle eastern radicals is orchestrated?
>
> that islamic fundamentalism is a CIA invention?

Outside of Atta. none of the pictures have been released of any of the other
highjackers. also on one flight the passenger list did not have a single arab and
mid east name on the list. It is known that the pictures shown to be the
highjackers ( remember how they appeared on the next day but they had no
foreknowledge) turned out to be erroneous pictures with some of pictures of
people living on the outskirts of Cairo (one who lost there ID at a bar).
I knew that the coup that put Bush in office was planning a war within a
year. it took 10 months so i was not surprised in the least. not in the least.
If they were not involved , why the blatant cover up?

>
> and yes, i think the CIA and the mafia and the military industrial complex
> killed Kennedy.... ;)

that should be plural

>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

On Friday 04 June 2004 12:03 pm, kraig grady wrote:
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > Manuel, Joe, Kraig,
> >
> > Do you go far as to say that anger against the united states' foreign
> > policy by middle eastern radicals is orchestrated?
> >
> > that islamic fundamentalism is a CIA invention?
>
> Outside of Atta. none of the pictures have been released of any of the
> other highjackers.

I remeber seeing them in Newsweek. This must be misinformation.

> also on one flight the passenger list did not have a
> single arab and mid east name on the list.

Do you know any white males who would end their lives by deliberately crashing
a plane for the CIA?

> It is known that the pictures
> shown to be the highjackers ( remember how they appeared on the next day
> but they had no foreknowledge) turned out to be erroneous pictures with
> some of pictures of people living on the outskirts of Cairo (one who lost
> there ID at a bar).

Do you have a reputable source/bibliography/documentation other than a
speculative paranoia site?

Sorry, I just don't believe everything I read, no matter what political slant
it is (leftist propaganda is still propaganda)

> I knew that the coup that put Bush in office was
> planning a war within a year. it took 10 months so i was not surprised in
> the least. not in the least. If they were not involved , why the blatant
> cover up?

Well, I don't know that there has been a cover-up. But yes, the Iraq thing was
planned, and they are all crooks in the Bush admministration.

> > and yes, i think the CIA and the mafia and the military industrial
> > complex killed Kennedy.... ;)
>
> that should be plural

true!

>
>
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Friday 04 June 2004 10:22 am, Manuel Op de Coul wrote:
> Aaron wrote,

> >at some point, you have to sit back and apply occam's razor to your
>
> > arguments,
>
> >and also the principle of 'falsifyability': where are the holes in my
> >argument? look for counter-explanations. the articles that you link to are
> >amazing short on objective scientific outlook, and high on emotional
> >rhetoric.
>
> That also applies to the "official" story, which you must agree is
> amazingly short on objective scientific outlook, and high on emotional
> rhetoric.

I think the administratiion used 9/11 to its advantage, and covered up *that*
fact. (Iraq and its lies). But I don't buy that they deliberately made a deal
with the US's enemies to blow up the WTC, thus giving them an excuse to
attack the US's enemies !!!! It's an absurd premiss !!!

Like Sherlock Holmes, I only buy an absurd explanation when the other
possibilites have run out. It's not at all clear that these conspiracy sites
are exploring, in an objective way, their own bias to see the world as a
shadowy web of powerful puppeteers.

> >i immediately question objectivity when emotional rhetoric gets high.
>
> Yup.
>
> The theories are only speculation as long as the facts are being
> suppressed, I'm not emotionally attached to them. But that the facts
> are being suppressed is not a theory!

If they are supressed, how did you find them....what are the sources?
Bibliography?

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Friday 04 June 2004 01:57 pm, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> Well, I don't know that there has been a cover-up. But yes, the Iraq thing
> was planned, and they are all crooks in the Bush admministration.
>

I take this back....I think the use of 9/11 to the administrations *advantage*
was a cover-up, not 9/11 being planned by Bush and pals, which I explain is
absurd elsewhere.....

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Friday 04 June 2004 02:06 pm, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
> On Friday 04 June 2004 01:57 pm, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
> > Well, I don't know that there has been a cover-up. But yes, the Iraq
> > thing was planned, and they are all crooks in the Bush admministration.
>
> I take this back....I think the use of 9/11 to the administrations
> *advantage* was a cover-up, not 9/11 being planned by Bush and pals, which
> I explain is absurd elsewhere.....

I should also add that I think the bumbling of our government not responding
to the 9/11 threat while it knew about it was (unsuccessfully) supressed.

We all could see right through Condy Rice's testamony.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

> I think the most effective way to influence the current
> political system is to demand the truth about 11-9, if
> not the only way. Really.

First, imagine any 'truth' you like about 11-9. Aliens
did it, whatever.

Now, can you imagine a form of evidence that would
persuade people of that truth? Imagine the perpetrators
of the conspiracy are under your absolute control.
What sort of event could you construct that would
change the social construct that is 11-9? Can you
spell it out?

Maybe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld get on TV and say, "We
did it, and here's how." Would that work? What would
the effects be?

Now imagine they are not under your control. What sort
of evidence would you require? Video? Documents?

Just a thought experiment.

-Carl

> at some point, you have to sit back and apply occam's razor
> to your arguments, and also the principle of 'falsifyability':
> where are the holes in my argument? look for counter-
> explanations. the articles that you link to are amazing short
> on objective scientific outlook, and high on emotional
> rhetoric. i immediately question objectivity when emotional
> rhetoric gets high.

Well said, Aaron.

But more importantly, who cares? Do I care if Arabs did it,
or Bush? Nope, I don't. I already hate Bush maximally. I
already despise politics maximally. And these conspiracy
theories are nothing but the most despicable, lowest form of
politics.

-Carl

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

>
>
> I remeber seeing them in Newsweek. This must be misinformation.

if you can find any other photos besides the group i mentioned boarding a plane,
i will be more than happy to look at them

> Do you know any white males who would end their lives by deliberately crashing
> a plane for the CIA?

we don't know if they were even steering the plane as it is quite possible to
control such a thing from the ground. BTW o group is immune from being
brainwashed. Interestingly most of the phone calls don't mention that the
highjackers are arabs.

>
>
> > It is known that the pictures
> > shown to be the highjackers ( remember how they appeared on the next day
> > but they had no foreknowledge) turned out to be erroneous pictures with
> > some of pictures of people living on the outskirts of Cairo (one who lost
> > there ID at a bar).
>
> Do you have a reputable source/bibliography/documentation other than a
> speculative paranoia site?

do you have a site that proves that they were the ones on the plane and can you
explain how this list popped out of know where yet they claim they had no
foreknowledge.

but here is one http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
and what you state is impossible because , like neo-cons, one can say any site
is a speculative paranoia site.
you ask for proof and then request something based on opinion not fact

> Sorry, I just don't believe everything I read, no matter what political slant
> it is (leftist propaganda is still propaganda)

One would imagine that a real conspiracy would have to control both ends of the
machine. after all we already have two versions of the skull and bones running
for office. good cop/bad cop.

>
>
> > I knew that the coup that put Bush in office was
> > planning a war within a year. it took 10 months so i was not surprised in
> > the least. not in the least. If they were not involved , why the blatant
> > cover up?
>
> Well, I don't know that there has been a cover-up. But yes, the Iraq thing was
> planned, and they are all crooks in the Bush admministration.

well then i am just a prophet, but i heard many people who felt the same way.

>
>
> > > and yes, i think the CIA and the mafia and the military industrial
> > > complex killed Kennedy.... ;)
> >
> > that should be plural
>
> true!
>
> >
> >
> >
> > -- -Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> > http://www.anaphoria.com
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.dividebypi.com
> http://www.akjmusic.com
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

On Friday 04 June 2004 02:28 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > at some point, you have to sit back and apply occam's razor
> > to your arguments, and also the principle of 'falsifyability':
> > where are the holes in my argument? look for counter-
> > explanations. the articles that you link to are amazing short
> > on objective scientific outlook, and high on emotional
> > rhetoric. i immediately question objectivity when emotional
> > rhetoric gets high.
>
> Well said, Aaron.
>
> But more importantly, who cares? Do I care if Arabs did it,
> or Bush? Nope, I don't. I already hate Bush maximally. I
> already despise politics maximally. And these conspiracy
> theories are nothing but the most despicable, lowest form of
> politics.

You know...that's a great phrase, and true for me too: I hate Bush maximally,
too. And I hate the Arab psychos who were working against or with him. Anyone
who could not hesitate to cut off the head of another human being with a hand
saw is beyond the highest disgust and contempt humanly possible.

The whole fucking planet has gone psycho..... And some of the people that
believe the conspiracy theories the most, and have the most contempt for Bush
have caught the Northwest-US idealism 'green party meme' so badly that they
want to go ahead, waste their vote, and re-elect Bush by voting for Nadar !!!

Now there's logic for ya !!! Keep the conspirators conspiring....!!! We can't
after all, not have anyone to rage against for the next 4 years....let's let
Bush rape the environment, line the pockets of tobacco and gun CEO's, fill
the courts with homophobic right-wing fundamentalist judges, and force
atheist children to say 'Under God' in the pledge, while increasing the
already record national deficit and dependence on oil--- another 4
years---why not?

Don't give me that 'Kerry is the same as Bush' garbage--what a load of *utter
crap* !!! Any fool can look at the basic party platform of the Republicans
and Democrats and know that there is a *huge* difference.

I'll tell you about the greatest conspiracy yet....Nadar works for Bush.
Why not? Connect the dots, guys !! Who wins if Nadar takes votes away from
Kerry enough to close that margin? Who benefits? And Nadar is no idealist,
but another sad example of a selfish oppurtunist at worst. I think he's
*more* contemptable than Bush, because he's intelligent enough to know better
what his effect on the election might be. But of course, he's been hired by
Bush, so he's just as crooked.

I find that conspiracy scheme *infinitely* more realistic and doable that the
crazy paranoia about 9-11 !

That Nadar voters think that it's more important to make an idealistic point
than to rescue the world from the pure evil that Bush is doing illustrates
just how far they have their heads up their asses. Nobody particularly
*likes* Kerry in a big way, but he's bound to *drastically* change and
reverse a major amount of damage that this administration has done.

Nadar has about as much chance of winning as a giant 800 lb. snowball hitting
my head in July in Phoenix, Arizona....

Aargh !!

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Friday 04 June 2004 03:31 pm, kraig grady wrote:
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > I remeber seeing them in Newsweek. This must be misinformation.
>
> if you can find any other photos besides the group i mentioned boarding a
> plane, i will be more than happy to look at them
>
> > Do you know any white males who would end their lives by deliberately
> > crashing a plane for the CIA?
>
> we don't know if they were even steering the plane as it is quite possible
> to control such a thing from the ground. BTW o group is immune from being
> brainwashed. Interestingly most of the phone calls don't mention that the
> highjackers are arabs.

Yet, you have no proof, but speculation that this is what possibly occurred.
It wouldn't hold up in court.

> > > It is known that the pictures
> > > shown to be the highjackers ( remember how they appeared on the next
> > > day but they had no foreknowledge) turned out to be erroneous pictures
> > > with some of pictures of people living on the outskirts of Cairo (one
> > > who lost there ID at a bar).
> >
> > Do you have a reputable source/bibliography/documentation other than a
> > speculative paranoia site?
>
> do you have a site that proves that they were the ones on the plane and can
> you explain how this list popped out of know where yet they claim they had
> no foreknowledge.

It's a fallacy to think that lack of counter evidence proves any claim. 'Show
me that the tooth fairy doesn't exist anywhere'.

A positive claim requires positive evidence. Lack of evidence against the
negation of a claim is not equivalent to evidence for the claim.

> but here is one http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
> and what you state is impossible because , like neo-cons, one can say any
> site is a speculative paranoia site.
> you ask for proof and then request something based on opinion not fact

That link is interesting.....I'd be willing to believe that they made up the
Arab 'story' to cover up shooting the plane down...that's an easy
explanation, and consitent with what happened to PanAm 700 over Long Island
years ago, which was a big-time cover up.

> > Sorry, I just don't believe everything I read, no matter what political
> > slant it is (leftist propaganda is still propaganda)
>
> One would imagine that a real conspiracy would have to control both ends of
> the machine. after all we already have two versions of the skull and bones
> running for office. good cop/bad cop.

I just don't jump to the conclusion that everything is a conspiracy with no
evidence.

One could think the birth of the universe was a conspiracy....

It's too much of a non-rational knee-jerk reaction.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

>And some of the people that believe the conspiracy
>theories the most, and have the most contempt for Bush
>have caught the Northwest-US idealism 'green party meme'
>so badly that they want to go ahead, waste their vote,
>and re-elect Bush by voting for Nadar !!!
>
>Now there's logic for ya !!!

Well, here I don't think it's so clear cut. It
depends on what you want to get out of your vote.
If you want to send a message, you can vote your
mind. If you actually care about the result of
the election, you have to take the paradoxes
of plurality voting into account and vote for Kerry.
However, in this case it's clear that Kerry isn't
going to win anyway, so again you might just vote
your mind. Finally, if you're like me, you think
voting is at best a dandy waste of time and you
don't vote at all.

In any case, one can't blame another candidate for
a loss. Gore can't blame Nadar for the loss. Gore
is about as electable as a lump of coal. And this
time around, we have an incumbent in wartime. And
the democrats produce a candidate about as electable
as a dialysis pump.

> That Nadar voters think that it's more important to
> make an idealistic point than to rescue the world
> from the pure evil that Bush is doing illustrates
> just how far they have their heads up their asses.

It's the lesser-of-two-evils argument. But sometimes
the lesser evil isn't acceptable. You can't attack
someone for not supporting evil, evin iffin it is
lesser.

-Carl

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

>
> You know...that's a great phrase, and true for me too: I hate Bush maximally,
> too. And I hate the Arab psychos who were working against or with him. Anyone
> who could not hesitate to cut off the head of another human being with a hand
> saw is beyond the highest disgust and contempt humanly possible.
>

there is quite a bit of data that suggest that we do not know who did the
beheading. it looks like white skin to me!

>
> The whole fucking planet has gone psycho..... And some of the people that
> believe the conspiracy theories the most, and have the most contempt for Bush
> have caught the Northwest-US idealism 'green party meme' so badly that they
> want to go ahead, waste their vote, and re-elect Bush by voting for Nadar !!!

this is nonsense in that you imply that those who vote for nader are into
conspiracies. Yoyu have absolutely no knowledge of those who support him. In
fact you are implying a Nader Conspiracy

>
> Don't give me that 'Kerry is the same as Bush' garbage--what a load of *utter
> crap* !!! Any fool can look at the basic party platform of the Republicans
> and Democrats and know that there is a *huge* difference.

yawn

>
>
> I'll tell you about the greatest conspiracy yet....Nadar works for Bush.
> Why not? Connect the dots, guys !! Who wins if Nadar takes votes away from
> Kerry enough to close that margin? Who benefits? And Nadar is no idealist,
> but another sad example of a selfish oppurtunist at worst. I think he's
> *more* contemptable than Bush, because he's intelligent enough to know better
> what his effect on the election might be. But of course, he's been hired by
> Bush, so he's just as crooked.

nice conspiracy theory

>
>
>
> Nadar has about as much chance of winning as a giant 800 lb. snowball hitting
> my head in July in Phoenix, Arizona....

it might happen in flagstaff!

>
>
> Aargh !!
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.dividebypi.com
> http://www.akjmusic.com
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

>
> >
> > we don't know if they were even steering the plane as it is quite possible
> > to control such a thing from the ground. BTW o group is immune from being
> > brainwashed. Interestingly most of the phone calls don't mention that the
> > highjackers are arabs.
>
> Yet, you have no proof, but speculation that this is what possibly occurred.
> It wouldn't hold up in court.

That is what i am saying. that you put out some photos of people and say they
were the ones who did it would not stand up in court.

>

>
>
> > > > It is known that the pictures
> > > > shown to be the highjackers ( remember how they appeared on the next
> > > > day but they had no foreknowledge) turned out to be erroneous pictures
> > > > with some of pictures of people living on the outskirts of Cairo (one
> > > > who lost there ID at a bar).
> > >
> > > Do you have a reputable source/bibliography/documentation other than a
> > > speculative paranoia site?
> >
> > do you have a site that proves that they were the ones on the plane and can
> > you explain how this list popped out of know where yet they claim they had
> > no foreknowledge.
>
> It's a fallacy to think that lack of counter evidence proves any claim. 'Show
> me that the tooth fairy doesn't exist anywhere'.
>
> A positive claim requires positive evidence. Lack of evidence against the
> negation of a claim is not equivalent to evidence for the claim.
>
> > but here is one http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
> > and what you state is impossible because , like neo-cons, one can say any
> > site is a speculative paranoia site.
> > you ask for proof and then request something based on opinion not fact
>
> That link is interesting.....I'd be willing to believe that they made up the
> Arab 'story' to cover up shooting the plane down...that's an easy
> explanation, and consitent with what happened to PanAm 700 over Long Island
> years ago, which was a big-time cover up.
>
> > > Sorry, I just don't believe everything I read, no matter what political
> > > slant it is (leftist propaganda is still propaganda)
> >
> > One would imagine that a real conspiracy would have to control both ends of
> > the machine. after all we already have two versions of the skull and bones
> > running for office. good cop/bad cop.
>
> I just don't jump to the conclusion that everything is a conspiracy with no
> evidence.

I just don't believe every scenario presented to me by the media either. It is
all theater and if they get caught lying,. they just come out and say they did
and then go back to it. I don't believe that everything is a conspiracy but i
also recognize bad sloppy theater and the one thing the forces pulling this off
is is that they leave more questions than they answer.

> One could think the birth of the universe was a conspiracy....
>

the universe has always been here

>
> It's too much of a non-rational knee-jerk reaction.
>

the big bang is very much so

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

On Friday 04 June 2004 04:42 pm, kraig grady wrote:
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> > The whole fucking planet has gone psycho..... And some of the people that
> > believe the conspiracy theories the most, and have the most contempt for
> > Bush have caught the Northwest-US idealism 'green party meme' so badly
> > that they want to go ahead, waste their vote, and re-elect Bush by voting
> > for Nadar !!!
>
> this is nonsense in that you imply that those who vote for nader are into
> conspiracies. Yoyu have absolutely no knowledge of those who support him.
> In fact you are implying a Nader Conspiracy

I'm saying if you think that anything that benefits Bush speaks of a Bush led
conspiracy,you might as well look at Nadar, who benefits Bush Big-Time...

or does your paranoia stop there? ;)

But about Kerry being in a conspiracy with Bush? You lost me there !!!
That's like saying that it benefits Bush to lose the election by being behind
in the polls, which Bush now is.

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> However, in this case it's clear that Kerry isn't
> going to win anyway...

You know what I'm going to say, don't you? :)

Cheers,
Jon

On Friday 04 June 2004 04:02 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >And some of the people that believe the conspiracy
> >theories the most, and have the most contempt for Bush
> >have caught the Northwest-US idealism 'green party meme'
> >so badly that they want to go ahead, waste their vote,
> >and re-elect Bush by voting for Nadar !!!
> >
> >Now there's logic for ya !!!
>
> Well, here I don't think it's so clear cut. It
> depends on what you want to get out of your vote.
> If you want to send a message, you can vote your
> mind. If you actually care about the result of
> the election, you have to take the paradoxes
> of plurality voting into account and vote for Kerry.
> However, in this case it's clear that Kerry isn't
> going to win anyway, so again you might just vote
> your mind.

Kerry looks like he will win if Nadar doesn't steal the margin from him.
No president has ever been re-elected with Bush's low approval rating being
where it is.

But I worry about 2000 all over again, where it was too close for comfort.

About not voting...That's your right....at least it benefits no one and hurts
no one.

A vote for Nadar helps Bush, though, because he won't win, and it hurts Kerry.

> In any case, one can't blame another candidate for
> a loss. Gore can't blame Nadar for the loss.

This only works if the candidates are even matched. If Nadar cares about
change at this crucial time, he would swallow his pride and drop out.

> Gore
> is about as electable as a lump of coal. And this
> time around, we have an incumbent in wartime. And
> the democrats produce a candidate about as electable
> as a dialysis pump.

Hah!

> > That Nadar voters think that it's more important to
> > make an idealistic point than to rescue the world
> > from the pure evil that Bush is doing illustrates
> > just how far they have their heads up their asses.
>
> It's the lesser-of-two-evils argument. But sometimes
> the lesser evil isn't acceptable. You can't attack
> someone for not supporting evil, evin iffin it is
> lesser.

But supporting Nadar is supporting Bush, which *is* supporting evil.

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Aaron,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> But supporting Nadar is supporting Bush, which *is* supporting evil.

...among many other posts. Since this is all going to be archived on the web for all eternity, maybe at this point you should start spelling it "Nader", as he does. :)

Cheers,
Jon

> About not voting...That's your right....at least it benefits
> no one and hurts no one.

On the contrary, it benefits all mankind by reducing the
power of government.

> A vote for Nadar helps Bush, though, because he won't win,
> and it hurts Kerry.

How can a vote for Nader help Bush more than a null vote?

> > In any case, one can't blame another candidate for
> > a loss. Gore can't blame Nadar for the loss.
>
> This only works if the candidates are even matched. If
> Nadar cares about change at this crucial time, he would
> swallow his pride and drop out.

How can more options hurt?

> > Gore
> > is about as electable as a lump of coal. And this
> > time around, we have an incumbent in wartime. And
> > the democrats produce a candidate about as electable
> > as a dialysis pump.
>
> Hah!

'There are bits of lemon peel floating down the Thames
more qualified to hold public office,' to quote Black Adder.

> But supporting Nadar is supporting Bush, which *is*
> supporting evil.

I don't follow.

-Carl

> > However, in this case it's clear that Kerry isn't
> > going to win anyway...
>
> You know what I'm going to say, don't you? :)

Honestly, no. But one doesn't have to say. Now, with
my patented Gambling technology, one can *buy*, which
is infinitely better. Buy, buy, buy your way to riches!*

-Carl

* With perfect odds you could gamble constantly and
your net gain/loss would be zero.

On Friday 04 June 2004 06:18 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > About not voting...That's your right....at least it benefits
> > no one and hurts no one.
>
> On the contrary, it benefits all mankind by reducing the
> power of government.
>
> > A vote for Nadar helps Bush, though, because he won't win,
> > and it hurts Kerry.
>
> How can a vote for Nader help Bush more than a null vote?

1. Nader (I prefer 'Nadar' as in 'radar') is not going to win. Even his
staunchest admirers pretty much acknowledge that fact.
2. A vote for someone who has no chance of winning is a wasted vote, at least
in an election where someone evil is a front runner.
3. If one dislikes Bush intensely, one should vote for the person most likely
to succeed in ousting him.
4. That person is John Kerry.
5. Not helping Kerry directly is helping Bush. That includes not voting.
6. If you maximally dislike Bush, and want to do your part as a good citizen,
you would vote for Kerry, who could very likely win the general election,
esp. if he's not hindered by Nader voters.
7. If you think Kerry is the same as Bush, you should still vote for him on
the off chance that he's not...what have you got to lose--by voting for Nader
you are asking for 4 more years of Bush anyway !!! The worst case scenario (a
very unlikely one BTW) is that you will get 4 more years of someone close to
Bush in policy that you took a logical chance on, wanting *change*.

> > > In any case, one can't blame another candidate for
> > > a loss. Gore can't blame Nadar for the loss.
> >
> > This only works if the candidates are even matched. If
> > Nadar cares about change at this crucial time, he would
> > swallow his pride and drop out.
>
> How can more options hurt?

See above.

> > > Gore
> > > is about as electable as a lump of coal. And this
> > > time around, we have an incumbent in wartime. And
> > > the democrats produce a candidate about as electable
> > > as a dialysis pump.
> >
> > Hah!
>
> 'There are bits of lemon peel floating down the Thames
> more qualified to hold public office,' to quote Black Adder.

Those bits of lemon peel are not runniing for office, however. If they were, I
might consider them.....

> > But supporting Nadar is supporting Bush, which *is*
> > supporting evil.
>
> I don't follow.

See above......

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Friday 04 June 2004 05:53 pm, Jon Szanto wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> > But supporting Nadar is supporting Bush, which *is* supporting evil.
>
> ...among many other posts. Since this is all going to be archived on the
> web for all eternity, maybe at this point you should start spelling it
> "Nader", as he does. :)

'Nadir' is the actual spelling ;)

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

hi Aaron,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> Manuel, Joe, Kraig,
>
> Do you go far as to say that anger against the
> united states' foreign policy by middle eastern
> radicals is orchestrated?
>
> that islamic fundamentalism is a CIA invention?

oh, no ... those are both absolutely real, and
to me, understandable.

but it's also clear to me that the current US administration
is *exploiting* those already-exisiting factors so that
it can gain control of the one precious and fast-disappearing
resource that is currently controlled by the Arab world: oil.

these Texas cowboys desperately need that oil to keep
their military-industrial complex booming and bringing
in the big dollars. owning Iraq, which lies in the
dead-center of the Muslim-nation bloc stretching from
Morocco to Indonesia, is crucial to them.

> when we compare the violence with which a hit[l]er
> or a hussein or a stalin openly crushed dissenters, we
> have to admit that the bushes go about it differently,
> and that us dissenters have their own campaigns.
>
> otherwise, michael moore would be found dead in a
> prison camp, or not even heard of. he would[n't] make
> it to press at all if the state you describe the US
> as were the way it is.

yes, well of course i have to conceed that you're
right about that ... but at the same time, the dissenting
voices are indeed being crushed in a less violent way,
thru such tactics as very heavy FCC fines to radio
stations which broadcast "objectionable" material
like the Howard Stern Show.

and now that almost all major radio and TV stations
in the country are owned by Clear Channel Communications,
that kind of thing matters a lot.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > About not voting...That's your right....at least it
> > benefits no one and hurts no one.
>
> On the contrary, it benefits all mankind by reducing the
> power of government.

no, Carl, that's wrong. it reduces the power of
*democracy*, not of government.

until humanity reaches a higher level of evolution
where we can all live together without government,
it will always exist in one form or another. and
if it's not democracy, then it will be something worse.

>
> > A vote for Nadar helps Bush, though, because he won't win,
> > and it hurts Kerry.
>
> How can a vote for Nader help Bush more than a null vote?

a null vote has no effect whatever.

a vote for Nader would benefit Nader if his popularity
was high enough to make him a real contender.

in the upcoming election that's not the case.
it's clear that the vast majority of votes will
be fairly evenly split between Bush and Kerry.
a vote for Nader in this scenario helps Bush
because if that person instead redirected his/her
vote to Kerry it would help to ensure the margin
needed for Kerry's victory.

>
> > > In any case, one can't blame another candidate for
> > > a loss. Gore can't blame Nadar for the loss.
> >
> > This only works if the candidates are even matched. If
> > Nadar cares about change at this crucial time, he would
> > swallow his pride and drop out.
>
> How can more options hurt?

again, assuming that you agree that this is a crucial
time in American and world history and that it would
be imprudent to vote to keep Bush in office, having
the extra option of Nader only matters if he has a
real chance of winning the election, which he doesn't.

as i said before, my own history of voting shows that
i have *always* voted for the person i really wanted
to see in office, no matter how slim his/her chance
of winning ... and most of the time, it's been for
candidates who come in at the very bottom when the
votes are tallied. but this time, i view my right
to vote as a chance to help rid the world of real evil,
and i will vote for the person who seems to have the
best chance of beating Bush. context matters.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> as i said before, my own history of voting shows that
> i have *always* voted for the person i really wanted
> to see in office, no matter how slim his/her chance
> of winning ... and most of the time, it's been for
> candidates who come in at the very bottom when the
> votes are tallied. but this time, i view my right
> to vote as a chance to help rid the world of real evil,
> and i will vote for the person who seems to have the
> best chance of beating Bush. context matters.

but then on the other hand, i'm so cynical and
distrustful of the Bush administration that i'm
not convinced that *anyone's* votes will matter
in the next election. i really think they're
going to pull off a "terrorist attack" just before
the election and then suspend the election and
keep Bush in office.

yes, maybe i'm just extra-paranoid ... but take
a look at the track record. in March 2003, Bush
started a war in Iraq and said that "the United States
is there to liberate Iraq, not to occupy it". a year
later, no-one in the administration blushes at calling
the US-led coalition an "occupational force", and
Bush himself in his speech last week spoke of "ending
the occupation".

so the CIA creates some "terrorist" emergency which
keeps Bush in office as "President", and then a few
months later he'll just retitle himself as "Dictator"
or "Emperor" or whatever. as long as the CEOs keep
making the big bucks, who cares?

-monz

In a message dated 6/5/2004 6:00:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
monz@... writes:

> but this time, i view my right
> to vote as a chance to help rid the world of real evil,
> and i will vote for the person who seems to have the
> best chance of beating Bush.

I agree Monz. This really is an anyone-but-Bush crisis. I am so afraid that
he will get in for a second term.

The fact that his employment is so important to him for a second term, more
than what is good for the country as a whole, indicates to me that he will be
ever more radical. There will be no stops on him without a pending election,
in other words.

Nadir cannot help the situation unless he backs Kerry and there are
indications -- based on the Nadir/Kerry tete-a-tete recently -- that this can happen.
At least most people that voted for Nadir in the past know the implications.

best, Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Saturday 05 June 2004 08:40 am, Afmmjr@... wrote:

> Nadir cannot help the situation unless he backs Kerry and there are
> indications -- based on the Nadir/Kerry tete-a-tete recently -- that this
> can happen. At least most people that voted for Nadir in the past know the
> implications.

Johnny-

I'm glad we agree.....and I see you caught my joke by spelling 'Nader'
'Nadir' ;)

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Kerry should offer him sec. of labor or attn. general.
in fact he is probably the only one qualified for these positions.
( and watch the blood bath begin!)
the four months he would be alive would do more good for this country than 40 years of
the Kerry types.

Kerry will win and he will leave every thing Bush put into place and say it has little
choice
and all the stop Bush people will go back to sleep

Afmmjr@... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/5/2004 6:00:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> monz@... writes:
>
> > but this time, i view my right
> > to vote as a chance to help rid the world of real evil,
> > and i will vote for the person who seems to have the
> > best chance of beating Bush.
>
> I agree Monz. This really is an anyone-but-Bush crisis. I am so afraid that
> he will get in for a second term.
>
> The fact that his employment is so important to him for a second term, more
> than what is good for the country as a whole, indicates to me that he will be
> ever more radical. There will be no stops on him without a pending election,
> in other words.
>
> Nadir cannot help the situation unless he backs Kerry and there are
> indications -- based on the Nadir/Kerry tete-a-tete recently -- that this can happen.
> At least most people that voted for Nadir in the past know the implications.
>
> best, Johnny
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

On Saturday 05 June 2004 09:58 am, kraig grady wrote:
> Kerry should offer him sec. of labor or attn. general.
> in fact he is probably the only one qualified for these positions.
> ( and watch the blood bath begin!)
> the four months he would be alive would do more good for this country than
> 40 years of the Kerry types.

Kerry is most likely a neo-Clintonian. Clinton is was best president since
JFK.

> Kerry will win and he will leave every thing Bush put into place and say it
> has little choice
> and all the stop Bush people will go back to sleep

Suport Nadar then until Novemember, but watch the polls. If the margin is too
close between Kerry and Bush, do the right thing and get Bush out by casting
your vote for Kerry. Or don't and just vote for Bush instead of Nadir--it
will amount to the same thing.

We're lucky that you live in California, which will be Kerry's to lose.

What is 'everything Bush put in place' that Kerry would keep?

Can you run down an itemized list, or is that just sloganeering?

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Carl wrote:

>First, imagine any 'truth' you like about 11-9.

I won't. Finding out the facts is much much more interesting
than having imaginations on what might have happened.

>Now, can you imagine a form of evidence that would
>persuade people of that truth?

Why imagine again? The _real_ evidence, which is
buried, ignored and destroyed! Such as the hijackers'
bodies, the black boxes, the WTC steel, the flight
controller's logs, the witness reports, the FBI files,
etc. etc.

>Maybe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld get on TV and say, "We
>did it, and here's how." Would that work? What would
>the effects be?

Then they would get arrested and an independent commission
would be formed (unlike the current one with members
appointed by Bush) which would find out what happened.

>But more importantly, who cares? Do I care if Arabs did it,
>or Bush? Nope, I don't.

Plenty of people care. Take the families of the victims
for example. The ones now sueing the US government for
not conducting a proper investigation.
And the rest of the world, which cares because wars have
been legitimised by the supposition that Muslim fanatics
are solely responsible.

>And these conspiracy
>theories are nothing but the most despicable, lowest form of
>politics.

If you think this is only about conspiracy theories you
haven't taken a good look at the sites I posted. Do me a
favour, get a copy of Griffin's book, try to forget what you
already know, read it, think about it thoroughly. The story
about 11-9 is very complicated. You need at least a whole day,
but better several days of looking into the facts and
circumstances and then you'll see that the credibility of
the US government version of the story is very low.

Manuel

I see you don't sleep either

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

>
>
> Kerry is most likely a neo-Clintonian. Clinton is was best president since
> JFK.

oh the one who gave drug dealer pardons while keeping Leonard peltier in
prison.
and the same who made sure that honeywell will continue making their land
mines.
And dealt with the poor by cutting off the welfare. hmmmmmm

> What is 'everything Bush put in place' that Kerry would keep?

Even the war will be prolonged , saying it is really impossible to just back
out,
we will see how strong he is on the environment and big business (don't hold
your breath)
and what will happen with medical care and prices in this country.
Do you think he will dismantle the secret police system being put into place
in order control the interest of the multinationals? ?
Tourism is down cause people are afraid to come here, in case something might
happen to them

The thing is is that there is no real vision here ( they have to do the market
research first and the public opinion has already been determined by the
heritage foundation)

We are confronted with real problems that are not going to go away. For one you
cannnot continue to build cities the way they have and not expect it to cause
even more of the problems along the lines of what we have.

what is the biggest and most wasteful energy consumer. The single family
dwelling. At a certain point all the cities will consume more than they can
produce. we already have traffic moving at rates that one cam go back to the
horse. LA will be the first to collapse. the rapid transit in LA is such that
one can ride a bike quicker.

As long as you have a big military you are going to promote your own decay
cause sooner or later , one ends up paying for it slaves (workers abroad)

As Frank L. Wright said a half century ago ( and i concur) the person who should
be president is an architect. Either that or we may be forced to do what the
mayans appeared to do. get up one day and walk away from the cities (2012!)
because as machines (which is what they are) no longer works.
There is not even a cabinet position in place to deal with such problems

At best the cities need to be gutted and reorganized, and how in the hell
are we going to do that.

And one has to wonder if countries are the organizing factor anymore, it seems
that multinationals
have far more to say as to what happens and , determine what is referred to as
foreign policy. Before 9-11 countries no longer existed and now they are once
again the veil for the populace.

Who are the 'foreign contractors' who ran the prisons and why do they not say
the name of the companies. Cause these are the real governing bodies. and
stopping Bush does absolutely nothing in dealing with those who put him and/or
Kerry there.

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> > > About not voting...That's your right....at least it
> > > benefits no one and hurts no one.
> >
> > On the contrary, it benefits all mankind by reducing
> > the power of government.
>
> no, Carl, that's wrong. it reduces the power of
> *democracy*, not of government.
>
> until humanity reaches a higher level of evolution
> where we can all live together without government,
> it will always exist in one form or another. and
> if it's not democracy, then it will be something worse.

Government is made of the attention of human minds.
Taking attention away from it -- there is no other
way out. No process of "evolution" is bringing us
closer to 'all being able to live together without
government'. We are as ready now as we'll ever be to
live without it.

> a vote for Nader would benefit Nader if his popularity
> was high enough to make him a real contender.

A vote for Nader sends a message that you like Nader.

> in the upcoming election that's not the case.
> it's clear that the vast majority of votes will
> be fairly evenly split between Bush and Kerry.
> a vote for Nader in this scenario helps Bush
> because if that person instead redirected his/her
> vote to Kerry it would help to ensure the margin
> needed for Kerry's victory.

In the same way, a non-voter 'helps Bush because if
that person instead redirected his/her vote to Kerry
it would help to ensure the margin needed for
Kerry's victory'.

Except Kerry won't win, not even the popular vote,
not even with Nader out of the equation. And even
if he does, do you think Bush will give up power?
He seized it in 2000, when he wasn't even popular.

> > How can more options hurt?
>
> again, assuming that you agree that this is a crucial
> time in American and world history

It's always a crucial time in history.

> and that it would
> be imprudent to vote to keep Bush in office, having
> the extra option of Nader only matters if he has a
> real chance of winning the election, which he doesn't.

Having the extra option can only be a good thing. If
the option is no good, nobody will vote for it. If the
option is good, people will vote for it, which empowers
the option whether it takes the election or not.

> as i said before, my own history of voting shows that
> i have *always* voted for the person i really wanted
> to see in office, no matter how slim his/her chance
> of winning ... and most of the time, it's been for
> candidates who come in at the very bottom when the
> votes are tallied. but this time, i view my right
> to vote as a chance to help rid the world of real evil,
> and i will vote for the person who seems to have the
> best chance of beating Bush. context matters.

Ok, you intend to place a strategic vote. That's fine.
But, Aaron, the refusal to vote strategically can ill
be condemned.

-Carl

> There will be no stops on him without a pending election,
> in other words.

For real! Can you imagine Bush's lame duck!

-Carl

> >Now, can you imagine a form of evidence that would
> >persuade people of that truth?
>
> Why imagine again? The _real_ evidence, which is
> buried, ignored and destroyed! Such as the hijackers'
> bodies, the black boxes, the WTC steel, the flight
> controller's logs, the witness reports, the FBI files,
> etc. etc.

It's a thought experiment about social reality.

> >Maybe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld get on TV and say, "We
> >did it, and here's how." Would that work? What would
> >the effects be?
>
> Then they would get arrested and an independent commission
> would be formed (unlike the current one with members
> appointed by Bush) which would find out what happened.

Perhaps.

> >And these conspiracy theories are nothing but the most
> >despicable, lowest form of politics.
>
> If you think this is only about conspiracy theories you
> haven't taken a good look at the sites I posted. Do me a
> favour, get a copy of Griffin's book, try to forget what you
> already know, read it, think about it thoroughly.

That's right I haven't, because I don't care. Moreover, I
would at least question the sincerity of anyone who didn't
breath the ash who claims to care.

> The story
> about 11-9 is very complicated. You need at least a whole day,
> but better several days of looking into the facts and
> circumstances and then you'll see that the credibility of
> the US government version of the story is very low.

I'm sure it is very complicated. And what methods do I have
at my disposal to find the truth, buried and burned by the
government? It is not my place to do so.

-Carl

On Saturday 05 June 2004 10:42 am, kraig grady wrote:
> I see you don't sleep either
>
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > Kerry is most likely a neo-Clintonian. Clinton is was best president
> > since JFK.
>
> oh the one who gave drug dealer pardons while keeping Leonard peltier in
> prison.
> and the same who made sure that honeywell will continue making their land
> mines.
> And dealt with the poor by cutting off the welfare. hmmmmmm

Welfare is and was a failed system that keeps the poor in their cycle of
ignorance, poverty and dependence. The facts show that poor blacks in ghettos
who use crack and make babies just end up using welfare money to fuel their
drug addiction and make more babies, contributing to overpopulation of inner
city neighborhoods, producing the next generation of drug-addicted gang
members.

Until you take responsibility for yourself through education, there is no
hope. So the answer is not welfare but education and training. I know this
because I am involved in music education programs in Chicago inner cities.
I see how it works, and believe me welfare is the last thing these people
need. They need to have jobs, and learning to speak in complete Engish
sentences goes a long way.

> > What is 'everything Bush put in place' that Kerry would keep?
>
> Even the war will be prolonged , saying it is really impossible to just
> back out,

Unfortunately it is. It's naive to think that the power vacuum won't be filled
by Islamic fanatics.

> we will see how strong he is on the environment and big business (don't
> hold your breath)

You have no facts on his position, You're just saying 'we will see this'. You
are not basing your points on anything but knee-jerk leftist rhetoric.

> and what will happen with medical care and prices in this country.

I don't know. If you vote for Nadir (Bush), let's see what will happen.

> Do you think he will dismantle the secret police system being put into
> place in order control the interest of the multinationals?

Yes.

> Tourism is down cause people are afraid to come here, in case something
> might happen to them

Tourism is down because people hate Bush. Vote for Nadir and watch Bush win,
and let it go down further.

> The thing is is that there is no real vision here ( they have to do the
> market research first and the public opinion has already been determined by
> the heritage foundation)

I don't know what to make of such a vague paranoid statement. Your opinion is
clearly not determined by the Heritage Foundation. Neither is mine. And we
are not alone.

The Heritage Foundation is a neo-conservative group. Kerry is simply not a
neo-con.

Make a list for yourself on Bush's position on: Abortion, Gun control, Sep of
church/state, environment, tobacco, insurance companies, education, econoomy,
civil rights. Then do Kerry's. The difference is clear.

> Who are the 'foreign contractors' who ran the prisons and why do they not
> say the name of the companies. Cause these are the real governing bodies.
> and stopping Bush does absolutely nothing in dealing with those who put him
> and/or Kerry there.

Halliburton.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Carl, you realize, don't you, that Joe Monzo replied to you after I replied,
don't you...?

On Saturday 05 June 2004 11:55 am, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > > About not voting...That's your right....at least it
> > > > benefits no one and hurts no one.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, it benefits all mankind by reducing
> > > the power of government.
> >
> > no, Carl, that's wrong. it reduces the power of
> > *democracy*, not of government.
> >
> > until humanity reaches a higher level of evolution
> > where we can all live together without government,
> > it will always exist in one form or another. and
> > if it's not democracy, then it will be something worse.
>
> Government is made of the attention of human minds.
> Taking attention away from it -- there is no other
> way out. No process of "evolution" is bringing us
> closer to 'all being able to live together without
> government'. We are as ready now as we'll ever be to
> live without it.

False. Humanity is pretty fucking unable to do anything without organization
of some sort.

> > a vote for Nader would benefit Nader if his popularity
> > was high enough to make him a real contender.
>
> A vote for Nader sends a message that you like Nader.

Voting is not about sending a message. It's about picking a leader for a
leadership job.

It's also 'sending the message' that you don't care that Bush wins again, by
voting for a long shot.

You're smart, do the math. If Nadir holds the margins percentage of votes,
slightly larger than the margin of victory for Kerry, then giving them to
Kerry gets Bush out of office.

This election is about getting Bush out of office more than anything.

How can 'sending a message' maen anything?

BTW, you are 'sending a message' to the Republicans that there are enough
over-idealistic types in this country that they can count on a close race
even with their guy being behind in polls as long a spoiler like Nadir is in
the race, too.

> > in the upcoming election that's not the case.
> > it's clear that the vast majority of votes will
> > be fairly evenly split between Bush and Kerry.
> > a vote for Nader in this scenario helps Bush
> > because if that person instead redirected his/her
> > vote to Kerry it would help to ensure the margin
> > needed for Kerry's victory.
>
> In the same way, a non-voter 'helps Bush because if
> that person instead redirected his/her vote to Kerry
> it would help to ensure the margin needed for
> Kerry's victory'.
>
> Except Kerry won't win, not even the popular vote,
> not even with Nader out of the equation. And even
> if he does, do you think Bush will give up power?
> He seized it in 2000, when he wasn't even popular.

Kerry is very likely to win. Even Republicans are conceding that.

At the least, wait until Novemember to see how much Kerry needs your vote
before wasting it on Bush via Nadir.

> > > How can more options hurt?
> >
> > again, assuming that you agree that this is a crucial
> > time in American and world history
>
> It's always a crucial time in history.

We've never had such a fucked-up president in history. Ever.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> On Saturday 05 June 2004 10:42 am, kraig grady wrote:
> > I see you don't sleep either
> >
> > "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > > Kerry is most likely a neo-Clintonian. Clinton is was best president
> > > since JFK.
> >
> > oh the one who gave drug dealer pardons while keeping Leonard peltier in
> > prison.
> > and the same who made sure that honeywell will continue making their land
> > mines.
> > And dealt with the poor by cutting off the welfare. hmmmmmm
>
> Welfare is and was a failed system that keeps the poor in their cycle of
> ignorance, poverty and dependence.

that sounds like it from the heritage foundation

> The facts show that poor blacks in ghettos
> who use crack and make babies just end up using welfare money to fuel their
> drug addiction and make more babies, contributing to overpopulation of inner
> city neighborhoods, producing the next generation of drug-addicted gang
> members.

most people on welfare are white and not doing crack. heritage foundation racist
propaganda

>
>
> Until you take responsibility for yourself through education, there is no
> hope.

education is not distributed equally

> So the answer is not welfare but education and training. I know this
> because I am involved in music education programs in Chicago inner cities.
> I see how it works, and believe me welfare is the last thing these people
> need. They need to have jobs, and learning to speak in complete Engish
> sentences goes a long way.

well then the government should apply the same standards to corporations . the
amount of money that goes in to corporate welfare makes individual warfare
nothing.
in holland every person is guaranteed at a certain age an apartment with
southern light exposure, every family a house. they also have full health care.
There is no reason that this country could not afford the same thing.

In case you haven't noticed there are hardly ANY manufacturing jobs. I
supposed people are supposed to survive on fast food jobs

>
>
> > > What is 'everything Bush put in place' that Kerry would keep?
> >
> > Even the war will be prolonged , saying it is really impossible to just
> > back out,
>
> Unfortunately it is. It's naive to think that the power vacuum won't be filled
> by Islamic fanatics.

the country was a secular country before and it will be in our interest to have
as totalitarian gov't in there as much as possible. which historically been our
standard policy. Undermine democracies where ever they appear, cause it
interferes with capitalism

>
>
> > we will see how strong he is on the environment and big business (don't
> > hold your breath)
>
> You have no facts on his position, You're just saying 'we will see this'. You
> are not basing your points on anything but knee-jerk leftist rhetoric.

I have not seen the left really say much on these, but i will enjoy being proved
wrong.

>
>
> > and what will happen with medical care and prices in this country.
>
> I don't know. If you vote for Nadir (Bush), let's see what will happen.

they will continue under either Bush or kerry

>
>
> > Do you think he will dismantle the secret police system being put into
> > place in order control the interest of the multinationals?
>
> Yes.
>

I seriously doubt it.

>
>
> > The thing is is that there is no real vision here ( they have to do the
> > market research first and the public opinion has already been determined by
> > the heritage foundation)
>
> I don't know what to make of such a vague paranoid statement. Your opinion is
> clearly not determined by the Heritage Foundation. Neither is mine. And we
> are not alone.

>
> > Who are the 'foreign contractors' who ran the prisons and why do they not
> > say the name of the companies. Cause these are the real governing bodies.
> > and stopping Bush does absolutely nothing in dealing with those who put him
> > and/or Kerry there.
>
> Halliburton.

no blackwater. a security company for multinationals. it is an independent
police force made out of many mid career military men. Maybe they have black
helicopters :)

>
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.dividebypi.com
> http://www.akjmusic.com
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> We've never had such a fucked-up president in history. Ever.
>

I'm not sure about that.

I'd like to think that that we have had fucked up presidents before,
but this time, huge numbers of people actually REALIZE it, and
want to and are doing something about. I think mainly because
of the Internet, et al.

I'm sure that without the internet, I myself would not be very
interested, and certainly not as active as I am now, in politics.

> > And dealt with the poor by cutting off the welfare.
hmmmmmm
>
> Welfare is and was a failed system that keeps the poor in their
cycle of
> ignorance, poverty and dependence. The facts show that poor
blacks in ghettos
> who use crack and make babies just end up using welfare
money to fuel their
> drug addiction and make more babies, contributing to
overpopulation of inner
> city neighborhoods, producing the next generation of
drug-addicted gang
> members.
>
> Until you take responsibility for yourself through education,
there is no
> hope. So the answer is not welfare but education and training. I
know this
> because I am involved in music education programs in
Chicago inner cities.
> I see how it works, and believe me welfare is the last thing
these people
> need. They need to have jobs, and learning to speak in
complete Engish
> sentences goes a long way.
>

I am inclined to agree; unfortunately, conservatives generally
believe that public education is also an evil waste of money, and
education should ultimately be privatized. Affordable state
colleges are out of money, and of course high schools in inner
cities have never had enough money.

Therefore. . . . No Rich Child is Left Behind.

> > > What is 'everything Bush put in place' that Kerry would
keep?
> >
> > Even the war will be prolonged , saying it is really
impossible to just
> > back out,
> > we will see how strong he is on the environment and big
business (don't
> > hold your breath)
> > and what will happen with medical care and prices in this
country.
> > Do you think he will dismantle the secret police system
being put into
> > place in order control the interest of the multinationals?
>
>

I think it's wrong to sit back in one's armchair, and wish the
"right" candidate would come along with the "right" views that
match one's own.

Far better to work with whoever's in office, and work to influence
public opinion in positive directions, and the office-holders will
follow.

Whereas GWB will never adopt progressive positions, no
matter the public pressure, I think Kerry, however, would be
quite amenable to progressive positions, given an outpouring of
public support for such. It's up to us to generate that support.

Just sitting at home wishing that Nader were in office, will not
generate that support, and will not change Kerry's actions,
assuming he's elected.

> > The thing is is that there is no real vision here ( they have to
do the
> > market research first and the public opinion has already
been determined by
> > the heritage foundation)

Again, if that's the case, then our task is clear: we have to outdo
the Heritage Foundation and Rush Lumbaugh and Mike Savage,
and change public opinion in a more positive direction.

It can be done, in fact it's already happening: MoveOn, ACT,
Znet, Howard Dean's whatever $#%^$%^ organization, etc. etc.
There are a lot of progressive groups out there that are gaining a
lot of steam very fast.

On Sunday 06 June 2004 04:20 pm, ZipZapPooZoo wrote:

> I think it's wrong to sit back in one's armchair, and wish the
> "right" candidate would come along with the "right" views that
> match one's own.
>
> Far better to work with whoever's in office, and work to influence
> public opinion in positive directions, and the office-holders will
> follow.
>
> Whereas GWB will never adopt progressive positions, no
> matter the public pressure, I think Kerry, however, would be
> quite amenable to progressive positions, given an outpouring of
> public support for such. It's up to us to generate that support.
>
> Just sitting at home wishing that Nader were in office, will not
> generate that support, and will not change Kerry's actions,
> assuming he's elected.

Yes, yes, yes, amen.... !!!

> > > The thing is is that there is no real vision here ( they have to
>
> do the
>
> > > market research first and the public opinion has already
>
> been determined by
>
> > > the heritage foundation)
>
> Again, if that's the case, then our task is clear: we have to outdo
> the Heritage Foundation and Rush Lumbaugh and Mike Savage,
> and change public opinion in a more positive direction.
>
> It can be done, in fact it's already happening: MoveOn, ACT,
> Znet, Howard Dean's whatever $#%^$%^ organization, etc. etc.
> There are a lot of progressive groups out there that are gaining a
> lot of steam very fast.

Yes, there are. But I think Kraig is coming from the position, for whatever
reason, that these organizations are all working for Bush, who controls
everything.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Sunday 06 June 2004 12:14 pm, kraig grady wrote:
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> > Welfare is and was a failed system that keeps the poor in their cycle of
> > ignorance, poverty and dependence.
>
> that sounds like it from the heritage foundation
>

I did some research and I stand corrected:

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

...however I don't see how voting for Bush through Nadir is going to get you
your ideal world of peace and love. ;)

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

> > >Now, can you imagine a form of evidence that would
> > >persuade people of that truth?
> >
> > Why imagine again? The _real_ evidence, which is
> > buried, ignored and destroyed! Such as the hijackers'
> > bodies, the black boxes, the WTC steel, the flight
> > controller's logs, the witness reports, the FBI files,
> > etc. etc.
>
> It's a thought experiment about social reality.
//
> > If you think this is only about conspiracy theories you
> > haven't taken a good look at the sites I posted. Do me a
> > favour, get a copy of Griffin's book, try to forget what
> > you already know, read it, think about it thoroughly.

Reason I ask is, the sort of evidence presented in this book
is obviously not sufficient.

-Carl

> > Government is made of the attention of human minds.
> > Taking attention away from it -- there is no other
> > way out. No process of "evolution" is bringing us
> > closer to 'all being able to live together without
> > government'. We are as ready now as we'll ever be to
> > live without it.
>
> False. Humanity is pretty fucking unable to do anything
> without organization of some sort.

There are many forms of organization.

> > > a vote for Nader would benefit Nader if his popularity
> > > was high enough to make him a real contender.
> >
> > A vote for Nader sends a message that you like Nader.
>
> Voting is not about sending a message. It's about picking
> a leader for a leadership job.

Votes for Nader put pressure on other parties, and strengthen
the Green party.

> This election is about getting Bush out of office more than
> anything.

According to you.

> > > in the upcoming election that's not the case.
> > > it's clear that the vast majority of votes will
> > > be fairly evenly split between Bush and Kerry.
> > > a vote for Nader in this scenario helps Bush
> > > because if that person instead redirected his/her
> > > vote to Kerry it would help to ensure the margin
> > > needed for Kerry's victory.
> >
> > In the same way, a non-voter 'helps Bush because if
> > that person instead redirected his/her vote to Kerry
> > it would help to ensure the margin needed for
> > Kerry's victory'.
> >
> > Except Kerry won't win, not even the popular vote,
> > not even with Nader out of the equation. And even
> > if he does, do you think Bush will give up power?
> > He seized it in 2000, when he wasn't even popular.
>
> Kerry is very likely to win. Even Republicans are
> conceding that.

Well I've got 3:1 odds against him at the moment, so I'd
snap them up if I were you.

> At the least, wait until Novemember to see how much Kerry
> needs your vote before wasting it on Bush via Nadir.

Remember, I don't vote. I'm dealing in hypotheticals here.

> > > > How can more options hurt?
> > >
> > > again, assuming that you agree that this is a crucial
> > > time in American and world history
> >
> > It's always a crucial time in history.
>
> We've never had such a fucked-up president in history. Ever.

That's debateable, but you're missing the point. There are
always grievances to be found, if not in politics, somewhere
else. And if such grievances are not apparent, so much more
a positive hope can be imagined.

-Carl

Carl wrote:
>I'm sure it is very complicated. And what methods do I have
>at my disposal to find the truth, buried and burned by the
>government? It is not my place to do so.

Here's an example of the kinds of fact that can still be
investigated:
http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_2_030225.html

>Reason I ask is, the sort of evidence presented in this book
>is obviously not sufficient.

Sufficient to prove the guilt of people in the government before
a court, no.
Sufficient to insist upon a full and open investigation, using the
heretofore suppressed evidence, very much so.

Manuel

=======================================
911 Victim Ellen Mariani Open Letter To The POTUS
Thursday, 27 November 2003
Press Release: Ellen Mariani Lawsuit
=======================================
Open Letter To The President Of The United States

Mr. Bush,

This ''open letter'' is coming from my heart. I want you to know that I am
neither a Republican nor a Democrat and that this is not an attempt to
''bash the Government''.

You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for any and all acts
that were committed to aid in any "cover up" of the tragic events of
September 11, 2001. As President you have a duty to protect the American
people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to issue a
nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack on America.
We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news networks.

In the months leading up to the attacks you were repeatedly advised of a
possible attack on American soil. During your daily intelligence briefings
you were given information that had been uncovered that the very real
possibility existed that certain undesirable elements would use commercial
aircraft to destroy certain "target" buildings. You never warned the
American people of this possible threat. Who were you protecting?

When you took no responsibility towards protecting the general public from
the possibility of attack, you were certainly not upholding the oath you
spoke when you took office. In that oath you pledged to uphold the
Constitution of the United States of America.

On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully
aware of the unfolding events yet you chose to continue on to the Emma E.
Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and "photo op".
While our nation was under attack you did not appear to blink an eye or
shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was "business as usual".

In the days following the attacks all air traffic was grounded and
Americans, including myself, were stranded wherever they had been when the
flight ban was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in Chicago, unable
to continue on to California for my daughter's wedding. Imagine my surprise
when I later found out that during this "no fly" period a number of people
were flown out of the country on a 747 with Arabic lettering on the
fuselage. None of these people were interviewed or questioned by any local,
State or Federal agencies. Why were they allowed to leave and who exactly
was on that flight. We know for a fact that some of the people on the
flight were members of (or related to) the royal family of Saudi Arabia and
members of the Bin Laden family. Were these people allowed to leave because
of the long-standing relationships that your family has with both families?

It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to gather
public support for a "war on terrorism". These wars, in Afghanistan and
Iraq, have not accomplished what you stated were your goals. Why have you
not captured Osama Bin Laden? Where are Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction? All that has happened is a bill that is passed before Congress
for 87 billion dollars to rebuild what you ordered blown to bits. As an
American who lost a loved one in the "war on terror" I do pray and support
our troops who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq by you. These troops have
and will continue to die for your lies. As an American I can make this
statement as it appears that associates of your family may stand to prosper
from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your control over us. Stop
blocking the release of certain evidence and documents that were discovered
by the 9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to hide proving
you did not fail to act and prevent the attacks of 9/11. Your reason for
not releasing this material is that it is a matter of "national security".
When in fact I believe that it is your personal credibility/security that
you are concerned with. You do not want the public to know the full extent
of your responsibility and involvement.

After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act were passed. Both of
these allow the government to tap your telephone, search your home, and
seize whatever they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do this
without a judge's review or a warrant. I feel that this is in direct
conflict with our rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following
questions:

1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored at
your request?

2. Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

3. Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for
Flight 11 and Flight 175?

5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers
boarding the doomed flights?

6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?

7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of
the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records and files be
removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane and
flown out of the country. Where were they taken and who ordered it done?

It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost loved ones "remains"
have still yet to be identified and their remains placed in a landfill at
Fresh Kill. We want our heroes brought back and given a public and proud
resting place where we all can pay our respects and honor them. These
innocent people never had a chance as they were taken from us on that sad
September Day.

In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are being uncovered each
day. My husband, all of the other victims and their families and our nation
as a whole, has been victimized by your failed leadership prior to and
after 9/11!

I will prove this in a court of law!

Ellen M. Mariani ###

Carl,

It's clear I'm not going to change anyone's mind about the importance of
getting rid of Bush in this election. Most people agree with me and for those
that don't, I don't want to reiterate over and over how crucial *to me*
getting a new president is for the health of this country, and how I'm not
interested in being idealistic at the expense of being realistic, so I would
never consider Nader (or as I like to refer to his effect on the process of
re-electing Bush, 'Nadir').

Bush has got to go *for real* to me, I'm not trying to 'send a message' or any
such abstract concept. I think it simply has to happen. End of story.....

But this thread is getting nowhere for me. Most everyone seems to agree with
me except you and Kraig. Personally, I'd rather change the subject !

BTW, I'll call you soon.

Best,
Aaron.

On Monday 07 June 2004 07:26 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > Government is made of the attention of human minds.
> > > Taking attention away from it -- there is no other
> > > way out. No process of "evolution" is bringing us
> > > closer to 'all being able to live together without
> > > government'. We are as ready now as we'll ever be to
> > > live without it.
> >
> > False. Humanity is pretty fucking unable to do anything
> > without organization of some sort.
>
> There are many forms of organization.
>
> > > > a vote for Nader would benefit Nader if his popularity
> > > > was high enough to make him a real contender.
> > >
> > > A vote for Nader sends a message that you like Nader.
> >
> > Voting is not about sending a message. It's about picking
> > a leader for a leadership job.
>
> Votes for Nader put pressure on other parties, and strengthen
> the Green party.
>
> > This election is about getting Bush out of office more than
> > anything.
>
> According to you.
>
> > > > in the upcoming election that's not the case.
> > > > it's clear that the vast majority of votes will
> > > > be fairly evenly split between Bush and Kerry.
> > > > a vote for Nader in this scenario helps Bush
> > > > because if that person instead redirected his/her
> > > > vote to Kerry it would help to ensure the margin
> > > > needed for Kerry's victory.
> > >
> > > In the same way, a non-voter 'helps Bush because if
> > > that person instead redirected his/her vote to Kerry
> > > it would help to ensure the margin needed for
> > > Kerry's victory'.
> > >
> > > Except Kerry won't win, not even the popular vote,
> > > not even with Nader out of the equation. And even
> > > if he does, do you think Bush will give up power?
> > > He seized it in 2000, when he wasn't even popular.
> >
> > Kerry is very likely to win. Even Republicans are
> > conceding that.
>
> Well I've got 3:1 odds against him at the moment, so I'd
> snap them up if I were you.
>
> > At the least, wait until Novemember to see how much Kerry
> > needs your vote before wasting it on Bush via Nadir.
>
> Remember, I don't vote. I'm dealing in hypotheticals here.
>
> > > > > How can more options hurt?
> > > >
> > > > again, assuming that you agree that this is a crucial
> > > > time in American and world history
> > >
> > > It's always a crucial time in history.
> >
> > We've never had such a fucked-up president in history. Ever.
>
> That's debateable, but you're missing the point. There are
> always grievances to be found, if not in politics, somewhere
> else. And if such grievances are not apparent, so much more
> a positive hope can be imagined.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> Carl,
>
> It's clear I'm not going to change anyone's mind about the importance of
> getting rid of Bush in this election. Most people agree with me and for those
> that don't, I don't want to reiterate over and over how crucial *to me*
> getting a new president is for the health of this country, and how I'm not
> interested in being idealistic at the expense of being realistic, so I would
> never consider Nader (or as I like to refer to his effect on the process of
> re-electing Bush, 'Nadir').

By your political views , it is apparent that you are not interested in Nader
stance on things anyway.

BTW can you explain to me , now that we have gotten away from welfare, just what
has been gained.
Absolutely nothing because it was nothing but a diversions from those who are
taking your money on a level that welfare means nothing.
Of course you just ignored the concept of corporate welfare.

All this point to a failure on the construction of our political system.

Under proportional representation in order for the democrats to get the support
of the green, they would offer them something, Instead the stance is , you are
nothing and we are the next best bullies in town , so vote for us.

I say if the whole system goes down under its own corruption, so be it.
Kerry is apart of the machinery to continue the corruption and as far as bush ,
there are thousands of Bush's in the wings and every single election from here on
will be a cheap theater display to prevent any humanitarian change.

>
>
> Bush has got to go *for real* to me, I'm not trying to 'send a message' or any
> such abstract concept. I think it simply has to happen. End of story.....

then change the system that rewards such corruption to hold a monopoly over your
choices

>
>
> But this thread is getting nowhere for me. Most everyone seems to agree with
> me except you and Kraig.

you might be surprised

> Personally, I'd rather change the subject !
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> Carl wrote:
> >I'm sure it is very complicated. And what methods do I have
> >at my disposal to find the truth, buried and burned by the
> >government? It is not my place to do so.
>
> Here's an example of the kinds of fact that can still be
> investigated:
>
> http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/
> project_achilles_report_2_030225.html

Referring to the cell phone call(s) made before the plane
crashed? Dude, weak.

> >Reason I ask is, the sort of evidence presented in this book
> >is obviously not sufficient.
>
> Sufficient to prove the guilt of people in the government
> before a court, no.
> Sufficient to insist upon a full and open investigation, using
> the heretofore suppressed evidence, very much so.

By "sufficient" I mean, sufficient to make it happen. Since
it hasn't happened and until it does, I'll call it insufficient
re. social reality. As for personal reality, I wouldn't be
surprised by any of the following...

() The Bush administration allowed the 9/11 attacks.
() Wellstone and his family were assasinated.
() Berg killing was faked or timed by CIA or similar group.
() Bush declares martial law in 2007.

...which isn't to say I believe (or expect) them, either. As
for the conspiracy sites you've linked to, and the letter you
copied, I'm afraid the terrorists, whoever they were, found
their ideal targets in them. Their words and presentations
seem full of terror to me.

-Carl

Now if bush really wanted to get reelected, he would create a loose
cannon candidate with this as his platform. He/she would get way more
votes than Nader!

Carl Lumma wrote:

> As for personal reality, I wouldn't be
> surprised by any of the following...
>
> () The Bush administration allowed the 9/11 attacks.
> () Wellstone and his family were assasinated.
> () Berg killing was faked or timed by CIA or similar group.
> () Bush declares martial law in 2007.
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Carl wrote:
>Referring to the cell phone call(s) made before the plane
>crashed? Dude, weak.

The story about a 20 min. uninterrupted cell phone call from
high altitude is also weak.
Why not apply the same level of skepticism towards what can
be called the common theory as to the alternative theories?
Remember that the common theory is also just a theory, not
proven by fact. Apparently there's a double standard here,
I don't know why.

Here's a set of articles that may provide some insight:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/topics/left_911.html

>Reason I ask is, the sort of evidence presented in this book
>is obviously not sufficient.
>By "sufficient" I mean, sufficient to make it happen. Since
>it hasn't happened and until it does, I'll call it insufficient
>re. social reality.

If people read this book and then don't speak about it then
of course it will remain a private reality and not become a
social reality.

>As for the conspiracy sites you've linked to, and the letter
>you copied, I'm afraid the terrorists, whoever they were, found
>their ideal targets in them. Their words and presentations
>seem full of terror to me.

Ideal targets are also people who put their head in the sand
instead of demanding investigations.

Manuel

> >Referring to the cell phone call(s) made before the plane
> >crashed? Dude, weak.
>
> The story about a 20 min. uninterrupted cell phone call from
> high altitude is also weak.

Q: What technology does the AirFone use?

With CDMA, antenna are usually pointed at the horizon, and
I think this limits upward radiation. Nevertheless, planes
usually fly below 50K feet, which is well within CDMA range.
What altitude was the call made from? I have had reception
on my CDMA phone through the takeoff process (to about 20K,
I'm guessing) before I remembered to turn it off.

But it looked like they were testing with Nokia and Motorola
phones, so I assume the call was made with TDA or GSM, which
I don't know anything about. Anyway radio can do weird things,
and how do we know this is not within spec for the phone used?
For the price of that test flight, an antenna expert could
have been consulted.

What is unlikely is that the government would fake a call
that is known to be an impossibility. Engineers would have
already stepped forward to say so.

Weak, weak, weak.

> Why not apply the same level of skepticism towards what can
> be called the common theory as to the alternative theories?

I never said I accepted the common theory.

> Remember that the common theory is also just a theory, not
> proven by fact. Apparently there's a double standard here,
> I don't know why.

It's social reality at work. The event is now part of history.
We have far too much invested in it to reconsider it. Just
as religious people have far too much invested to rationally
consider the existence of God. This is why I asked you what
form of evidence would be required.

-Carl

Asking a few people about the phone at work someone said that jets have
relays that pick up your messages and send them out at a high signal,
similar to those on top of large buildings. This enables one , for
instance , to use the internet with a notebook computer.

Carl Lumma wrote:

> > >Referring to the cell phone call(s) made before the plane
> > >crashed? Dude, weak.
> >
> > The story about a 20 min. uninterrupted cell phone call from
> > high altitude is also weak.
>
> Q: What technology does the AirFone use?
>
>
> It's social reality at work. The event is now part of history.
> We have far too much invested in it to reconsider it. Just
> as religious people have far too much invested to rationally
> consider the existence of God. This is why I asked you what
> form of evidence would be required.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Here's some info...

http://www22.verizon.com/airfone/af_faqs.html

-C.

> Asking a few people about the phone at work someone said
>that jets have relays that pick up your messages and send
>them out at a high signal, similar to those on top of large
>buildings. This enables one, for instance, to use the
>internet with a notebook computer.

Carl wrote:
>Q: What technology does the AirFone use?

Good point, it may have been an AirFone call
mistaken for a cellphone call. The call records
would have to be examined to be sure, which are
classified. I agree that it's difficult to prove
the impossibility of that call. A discussion
can be found here:
http://physics911.org/net/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=1

>What is unlikely is that the government would fake a call
>that is known to be an impossibility.

Not if they needed it to bring the story about which
kind of hijackers there were.

>Engineers would have
>already stepped forward to say so.

Yeah right, to be immediately branded as conspirary theorists.

>It's social reality at work. The event is now part of history.
>We have far too much invested in it to reconsider it. Just
>as religious people have far too much invested to rationally
>consider the existence of God. This is why I asked you what
>form of evidence would be required.

Conclusive evidence. I'm not so pessimistic. Well probably
overwhelming conclusive evidence. But I can't predict it.

Manuel

none of the phone calls identified the hijackers as of mid east origin

Manuel Op de Coul wrote:

> 1
>
> >What is unlikely is that the government would fake a call
> >that is known to be an impossibility.
>
> Not if they needed it to bring the story about which
> kind of hijackers there were.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
<manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:

>
> Carl wrote:
> >Q: What technology does the AirFone use?
>
> Good point, it may have been an AirFone call
> mistaken for a cellphone call. The call records
> would have to be examined to be sure, which are
> classified. I agree that it's difficult to prove
> the impossibility of that call. A discussion
> can be found here:
> http://physics911.org/net/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=1

my recollection of the 9/11 story is that someone
made a phone call on their own cell phone while
hiding in the airplane's bathroom.

airlines don't allow one to use cell phones during
takeoff and landing, but after takeoff i've tried
many times to use my cell phone, and it never worked.
thus, this aspect of the 9/11 story made me suspicious
right away.

> >What is unlikely is that the government would fake a call
> >that is known to be an impossibility.
>
> Not if they needed it to bring the story about which
> kind of hijackers there were.

that's a really good point.

there had to be a way to somehow link this "terrorist"
attack with Iraq, because the administration was
already intent on taking over Iraq long before 9/11/2001.

-monz

This is really amazing:
http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/north_tower.htm
http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/aa11.html

Did anyone videotape it?

Manuel

the first i could not get it to up load the image. a flash could have been
caused by a reflection hitting the camera though. those i could see later
on this page looked like the plane. pixels distort and internet pictures
even more so . neither one of these is convincing.

Manuel Op de Coul wrote:

> This is really amazing:
> http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/north_tower.htm
> http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/aa11.html
>
> Did anyone videotape it?
>
> Manuel
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Nothing's coming up for me :(. But it's often the case that a rapid
change in field on a magnetic tape can alter the tape on both sides
of it, so that there would seem to be a "pre-effect" if the tape is
then viewed in order. Besides, do you know anyone who was actually
*there*? I sure do.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
<manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:
>
> This is really amazing:
> http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/north_tower.htm
> http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/aa11.html
>
> Did anyone videotape it?
>
> Manuel

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> > One could think the birth of the universe was a conspiracy....
> >
>
> the universe has always been here
>
> >
> > It's too much of a non-rational knee-jerk reaction.
> >
>
> the big bang is very much so

Please elaborate your view. Everyone believed in a steady-state
universe, with no birth, in the early 20th century. Then the evidence
came forth and people still stubbornly clung to the steady-state
theory, until after decades of consideration the evidence became too
overwhelming to ignore. I could hardly call this a knee-jerk
reaction, let alone a non-rational one.

one can get more funding proposing big bang ideas than not because of its
religious implications.
there fore the conclusions become questionable

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
>
> > > One could think the birth of the universe was a conspiracy....
> > >
> >
> > the universe has always been here
> >
> > >
> > > It's too much of a non-rational knee-jerk reaction.
> > >
> >
> > the big bang is very much so
>
> Please elaborate your view. Everyone believed in a steady-state
> universe, with no birth, in the early 20th century. Then the evidence
> came forth and people still stubbornly clung to the steady-state
> theory, until after decades of consideration the evidence became too
> overwhelming to ignore. I could hardly call this a knee-jerk
> reaction, let alone a non-rational one.
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

actually though this was not my quote. i don't know who said or posted it

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
>
> > > One could think the birth of the universe was a conspiracy....
> > >
> >
> > the universe has always been here
> >
> > >
> > > It's too much of a non-rational knee-jerk reaction.
> > >
> >
> > the big bang is very much so
>
> Please elaborate your view. Everyone believed in a steady-state
> universe, with no birth, in the early 20th century. Then the evidence
> came forth and people still stubbornly clung to the steady-state
> theory, until after decades of consideration the evidence became too
> overwhelming to ignore. I could hardly call this a knee-jerk
> reaction, let alone a non-rational one.
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> one can get more funding
> proposing big bang ideas than not because
> of its
> religious implications.

This is utterly far-fetched. Do you have any evidence for this? Even
anecdotal?

Bibical religions say the universe was created 6000 years ago.

All the cosmological evidence *directly* contradicts this -- each
piece of evidence independently points to an age of about 14 billion
years.

99% of cosmologists are very upset by the watering-down of science
that the religious right has wrought upon American schools.

And yet you suggest that cosmological theory plays into religious
biases for purposes of funding? On what planet?

> there fore the conclusions become questionable

Why don't you draw your own conclusions, then? Go ahead -- I'm all
ears.

Much love and highest regards,
Paul

>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > One could think the birth of the universe was a conspiracy....
> > > >
> > >
> > > the universe has always been here
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's too much of a non-rational knee-jerk reaction.
> > > >
> > >
> > > the big bang is very much so
> >
> > Please elaborate your view. Everyone believed in a steady-state
> > universe, with no birth, in the early 20th century. Then the
evidence
> > came forth and people still stubbornly clung to the steady-state
> > theory, until after decades of consideration the evidence became
too
> > overwhelming to ignore. I could hardly call this a knee-jerk
> > reaction, let alone a non-rational one.
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> actually though this was not my quote. i don't know who said or
>posted it

Was this entire post

/metatuning/topicId_7289.html#7319

forged by an impostor? Or only part of it?

aaron wrote this as you can see by the quote marks a sentence or two
before that

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
>
> > actually though this was not my quote. i don't know who said or
> >posted it
>
> Was this entire post
>
> /metatuning/topicId_7289.html#7319
>
> forged by an impostor? Or only part of it?
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

That's false, Kraig. Look at Aaron's original post

/metatuning/topicId_7289.html#7316

and compare it to your reply.

Where Aaron wrote,

"> One could think the birth of the universe was a conspiracy...."

You added

"the universe has always been here"

and where Aaron wrote,

"> It's too much of a non-rational knee-jerk reaction."

You added,

"the big bang is very much so"

Or was it an impostor-Kraig?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> aaron wrote this as you can see by the quote marks a sentence or two
> before that
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > actually though this was not my quote. i don't know who said or
> > >posted it
> >
> > Was this entire post
> >
> > /metatuning/topicId_7289.html#7319
> >
> > forged by an impostor? Or only part of it?
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

> "the universe has always been here"

If chaotic inflation is true, wouldn't it be true that in some sense
the universe "has always been here" *and* that there was a big bang?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
>
> > one can get more funding
> > proposing big bang ideas than not because
> > of its
> > religious implications.
>
> This is utterly far-fetched. Do you have any evidence for this? Even
> anecdotal?

The Friedmann cosmologies (isotropic big bang models) were
rediscovered by Fr. Lemaitre, a Belgian priest/astrophysicist. His
religious background helped him break away from the folly of other
scientists, including Einstein, who wanted a universe which was
infinitely old. Because of Olber's paradox and the second law of
thermodynamics, they should have known better, so I think it would be
fair to call this absurd blindness some sort of religious-philosopical
prejudice. Friedmann was a mathematician, and I don't know if he was
religious, but from a mathematical standpoint the Friedmann
cosmologies are sort of obvious, and should have been discovered
before he found them.

Later came the steady-state universe, which Hoyle in particular has
clung to with a religious zeal going beyond good sense. Again, I think
this has more to to with metaphysics than physics or cosmology.

That modern cosmologists do not have God on the brain is shown pretty
clearly by their readiness to embrace inflation, it seems to me, which
makes God a little less necessary than He was seeming to be for a
time. Now we've got to face the possibility that our own big bang was
created by a pimply-faced alien science geek for a high-school science
fair project, of course.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

> Please elaborate your view. Everyone believed in a steady-state
> universe, with no birth, in the early 20th century. Then the evidence
> came forth and people still stubbornly clung to the steady-state
> theory, until after decades of consideration the evidence became too
> overwhelming to ignore. I could hardly call this a knee-jerk
> reaction, let alone a non-rational one.

They believed in a static universe despite the fact that undergraduate
physics shows it cannot possibly be true. Go figure.

>>Please elaborate your view. Everyone believed in a steady-state
>>universe, with no birth, in the early 20th century. Then the
>>evidence came forth and people still stubbornly clung to the
>>steady-state theory, until after decades of consideration the
>>evidence became too overwhelming to ignore. I could hardly
>>call this a knee-jerk reaction, let alone a non-rational one.
>
>They believed in a static universe despite the fact that
>undergraduate physics shows it cannot possibly be true.
>Go figure.

You're referring to the 2nd law? The 2nd law is poorly
understood IMO. It's recently been violated on a microscopic
scale and applying it on a cosmological scale seems iffy.

-Carl

you are reading the post wrong Paul except i did say

"the universe has always been here"

the second i did not
nor the previous.

what is your petty point anyway

Paul Erlich wrote:

> That's false, Kraig. Look at Aaron's original post
>
> /metatuning/topicId_7289.html#7316
>
> and compare it to your reply.
>
> Where Aaron wrote,
>
> "> One could think the birth of the universe was a conspiracy...."
>
> You added
>
> "the universe has always been here"
>
> and where Aaron wrote,
>
> "> It's too much of a non-rational knee-jerk reaction."
>
> You added,
>
> "the big bang is very much so"
>
> Or was it an impostor-Kraig?
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
> > aaron wrote this as you can see by the quote marks a sentence or two
> > before that
> >
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > actually though this was not my quote. i don't know who said or
> > > >posted it
> > >
> > > Was this entire post
> > >
> > > /metatuning/topicId_7289.html#7319
> > >
> > > forged by an impostor? Or only part of it?
> > >
> > >
> > > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> > >
> > > To post to the list, send to
> > > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > You don't have to be a member to post.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -- -Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> > http://www.anaphoria.com
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

very profound

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
>
> > "the universe has always been here"
>
> If chaotic inflation is true, wouldn't it be true that in some sense
> the universe "has always been here" *and* that there was a big bang?
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> >>Please elaborate your view. Everyone believed in a steady-state
> >>universe, with no birth, in the early 20th century. Then the
> >>evidence came forth and people still stubbornly clung to the
> >>steady-state theory, until after decades of consideration the
> >>evidence became too overwhelming to ignore. I could hardly
> >>call this a knee-jerk reaction, let alone a non-rational one.
> >
> >They believed in a static universe despite the fact that
> >undergraduate physics shows it cannot possibly be true.
> >Go figure.
>
> You're referring to the 2nd law? The 2nd law is poorly
> understood IMO. It's recently been violated on a microscopic
> scale and applying it on a cosmological scale seems iffy.

It applies to Einstein's static, closed, finite-volume cosmolgical
model. Moreover, Olbers' paradox is even worse; you simply can't have
a static universe where the stars have been forming and shining
forever by some magic means without energy accumulating to infinity.
You have to drain it off somehow, and there goes the 1st law. So we
have a violation of the first two laws of thermo. None of this is
particularly deep, and it doesn't require relativity--Newtonian models
have the same problems. Olbers, and before him Kepler and Halley,
realized the darkness of the night sky was a problem. Kant (whose
theoretical work in astronomy was of considerable value) suggested the
island universe as a solution--what we would now call a galaxy,
sitting in a cosmic void. None of these problems went away when GR
came along, they'd simply been shoved to the back burner, and should
not have been ignored.

>>>They believed in a static universe despite the fact that
>>>undergraduate physics shows it cannot possibly be true.
>>>Go figure.
>>
>>You're referring to the 2nd law? The 2nd law is poorly
>>understood IMO. It's recently been violated on a microscopic
>>scale and applying it on a cosmological scale seems iffy.
>
>It applies to Einstein's static, closed, finite-volume
>cosmolgical model.

I'm unconvinced. Entropy is a relative concept. What's it
relative to when you're talking about the entropy of the
universe?

> Moreover, Olbers' paradox is even worse; you simply can't
> have a static universe where the stars have been forming
> and shining forever by some magic means without energy
> accumulating to infinity.

Huh? Stars don't violate the conservation of mass/energy.
And since they don't, lots of them over time don't.

> Olbers, and before him Kepler and Halley,
> realized the darkness of the night sky was a problem. Kant
> (whose theoretical work in astronomy was of considerable value)

Kant did something of value?

> suggested the
> island universe as a solution--what we would now call a
> galaxy, sitting in a cosmic void. None of these problems
> went away when GR came along, they'd simply been shoved
> to the back burner, and should
> not have been ignored.

Don't forget Poe's solution -- the light hasn't had time to
get here.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> >It applies to Einstein's static, closed, finite-volume
> >cosmolgical model.
>
> I'm unconvinced. Entropy is a relative concept. What's it
> relative to when you're talking about the entropy of the
> universe?

Einstein's universe is a fixed, finite geometry--a closed box. You can
compare to the state where no more energy is available to do
work--maximum disorder. Ordinarily, one would say most of the energy
available to do work is in the form of graviational energy, which
would show itself during the big crunch. However, neither the big
crunch nor blowing itself up by means of the cosmologial constant are
being allowed, so the maximum entropy state is some state the universe
would have to reach without doing either, where there was no more fuel
for stars to shine with. The point is, available energy in such a
universe is a strictly finite resource, like Saudi Arabia, only
bigger. A finite amount of gas in the tank and a static universe with
no starting point in time are contradictory notions; you run out of gas.

> > Moreover, Olbers' paradox is even worse; you simply can't
> > have a static universe where the stars have been forming
> > and shining forever by some magic means without energy
> > accumulating to infinity.
>
> Huh? Stars don't violate the conservation of mass/energy.
> And since they don't, lots of them over time don't.

The point is, if the universe is infinite and static, everywhere you
look there is a star and so the night sky is like the sun. Moreover,
if stars have been shining forever they've used energy they can't
possibly have to heat the universe up to infinity degrees Kelvin, more
or less, whatever that means.

> > Olbers, and before him Kepler and Halley,
> > realized the darkness of the night sky was a problem. Kant
> > (whose theoretical work in astronomy was of considerable value)
>
> Kant did something of value?

Even leaving aside philosophy, several things. He's obviously way
smarter than you are giving him credit for.

> > suggested the
> > island universe as a solution--what we would now call a
> > galaxy, sitting in a cosmic void. None of these problems
> > went away when GR came along, they'd simply been shoved
> > to the back burner, and should
> > not have been ignored.
>
> Don't forget Poe's solution -- the light hasn't had time to
> get here.

The two apparent solutions are that one and the red shift, but you
can't use either in a static universe infinite in time.

> > >It applies to Einstein's static, closed, finite-volume
> > >cosmolgical model.
> >
> > I'm unconvinced. Entropy is a relative concept. What's it
> > relative to when you're talking about the entropy of the
> > universe?
>
> Einstein's universe is a fixed, finite geometry--a closed box.
> You can compare to the state where no more energy is available
> to do work--maximum disorder.

Yes, I suppose.

> > > Moreover, Olbers' paradox is even worse; you simply can't
> > > have a static universe where the stars have been forming
> > > and shining forever by some magic means without energy
> > > accumulating to infinity.
> >
> > Huh? Stars don't violate the conservation of mass/energy.
> > And since they don't, lots of them over time don't.
>
> The point is, if the universe is infinite and static,
> everywhere you look there is a star and so the night sky
> is like the sun. Moreover, if stars have been shining
> forever

If stars have been shining forever, which I suppose they
would in a static universe that currently has stars.

> > > suggested the
> > > island universe as a solution--what we would now call a
> > > galaxy, sitting in a cosmic void. None of these problems
> > > went away when GR came along, they'd simply been shoved
> > > to the back burner, and should
> > > not have been ignored.
> >
> > Don't forget Poe's solution -- the light hasn't had time to
> > get here.
>
> The two apparent solutions are that one and the red shift,
> but you can't use either in a static universe infinite in
> time.

True.

-Carl

I understand that one burns out every three minutes somewhere in the
universe

Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
> If stars have been shining forever, which I suppose they
> would in a static universe that currently has stars.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Hey,

my original quote was:

>I just don't jump to the conclusion that everything is a conspiracy with no
>evidence.

>One could think the birth of the universe was a conspiracy....

>It's too much of a non-rational knee-jerk reaction.

I should have put the 2nd line in parenthesis or something.

I certainly believe in the Big Bang !!!!

-A.

On Monday 14 June 2004 04:25 pm, kraig grady wrote:
> aaron wrote this as you can see by the quote marks a sentence or two
> before that
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > actually though this was not my quote. i don't know who said or
> > >posted it
> >
> > Was this entire post
> >
> > /metatuning/topicId_7289.html#7319
> >
> > forged by an impostor? Or only part of it?
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/jemaah-islamiah/

Is JI religion that you write of some fundamentalist Moslem group, that wishes to take over planetary tuning?

I thought I was supposed to hold the monopoly on harmonic megalomania and pi ;-)

Charles Lucy - lucy@... (LucyScaleDevelopments)
------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
for information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
for LucyTuned Lullabies go to http://www.lucytune.com
http://www.lucytune.co.uk or http://www.lullabies.co.uk

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/jemaah-islamiah/

Charles Lucy - lucy@... (LucyScaleDevelopments)
------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
for information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
for LucyTuned Lullabies go to http://www.lucytune.com
http://www.lucytune.co.uk or http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Obviously this underscores that the variety of tunings is not limited to
JI or ET

Charles Lucy wrote:

> http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/jemaah-
> islamiah/
>
> Is JI religion that you write of some fundamentalist Moslem group, that
> wishes to take over planetary tuning?
>
> I thought I was supposed to hold the monopoly on harmonic megalomania
> and pi ;-)
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST