patrice's Journal - Archives
To DU too:Such beautiful colors!! . . An angel brought a generous bagful & gave them all away to us!
Thanks from all of OccupyKC, to a sweet lady for her gifts to us all, the very very most perfect warm hat that fits comfortably & bright colors are just right!! What a sweet gift to so many great 99 %ers! . . . Thank you.
Thanks to everyone for our holidays' awesome OccupyKCTogether.
OccuPie Thanksgivings' rhythms and rhymes' sweet picnic tribes notes at War History Museum . . .
and at heartland's Pioneer Moms' feet (and hands of us all) to . . . finds us starry night-moon-cloud climbs lead in joyous sky-eyes . . .
All such wonder -full families' & friends' Happy Thanksgivings!
The word "resurrection" can have a wide variety of meanings, more or less 2nd-hand and more or less relevant to the actual phenomena to which they ONLY refer, but, however much more relevant, those meanings are never identical, never equal to their referential objects, therefore, always at least potentially more or less in error.
There is nothing necessary in the relationship between whatever is going on inside one's head when you use the word "resurrection" and whatever happened over 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, just because you use that word. That doesn't mean that there CAN'T happen to be a match, a close match between the two events, just that it's not a necessary relationship. A word is a word, an object an object, an event an event . . . whatever it is that you think you mean is not necessarily the truth of it and we have no way of evaluating the degree of nor the significance of the difference between the 2 phenomena.
To tell the truth, I don't think someone actually died and then came back to life 3 days later and I hope the rationalists amongst us will forgive me for thinking this conventional scenario quite a bit less wonder -full than a more rational one. Though there are also variations on rational hypotheses around that include the possibility of the man Jesus having a near-death-experience, or going into suspended animation, from which he revived, it seems kind of contrived and tricky to me to cook up support for saying someone died by saying he didn't REALLY die and that this "fact" is justification for any significance attached to whatever happened, other than that it happened.
I also mis-trust the other mumbo-jumbo that has been attached for various purposes to this particular story (about an itinerant and very popular teacher who ran afoul of the church-state of the time for being too free and not picking a side in their plutocracy). To me, the fact that the phenomenal universe manifests more or less powerful patterns (and Jesus has been/is a rather powerful one, though not solely in the manner claimed), patterns that manifest and then de- generate, or are destroyed, and re-manifest according to the same pattern again and again, is enough.
And, yes, there are greater and lesser differences between instances of pattern manifestations and those differences are information too, as are their similarities also, but perhaps our assumptions about the significances/meanings of those differences and of the similarities are more a product of who/what we are/do than they are about the phenomenology itself, the "individual" instances of which, as I said earlier, are not equal to our abstractions about them.
Regarding President Obama's remarks in Iowa yesterday, 08/15/11: Public Sector unions is a larger, more general, category than any specific group within that category. There are group traits that all member-groups in that Public Sector Unions category share and there are traits that are specific to only one or more of its member-groups.
As individual groups within the Public Sector Unions category, there will be one or more groups who have the trait = CAN "share the sacrifice" in order to get something else that they might be trying to get out of negotiations. There will also be individual groups within the Public Sector Unions category who have a trait = CANNOT "share the sacrifice" in order to get whatever else they might be trying to get.
The proposal that the necessity of REFORM should be the criteria by means of which those member-groups who CAN "share the sacrifice" determines their role in negotiations seems not only practical, but also useful, though it does depend upon identification of REFORM. To me reform seems to be something that workers themselves know a great deal about since they are the ones doing the work and know what the problems are, so unions COULD have an advantage to the extent that they OWN the issues associated with professional standards and, hence, the degree of reform that is or is not necessary.
The proposal that the necessity of REFORM should be the criteria by means of which those member-groups with trait = CANNOT "share the sacrifice" determines their role in negotiations also depends upon how reform is identified and operationally defined, but in a different more intrinsic way, i.e. in ways that are LESS NEGOTIABLE, since the fact that they cannot "share the sacrifice" has to be related operationally to the necessity of reform, for if they could share the sacrifice, reform would be less necessary and, as in the case of the CAN share sacrifice group, more a matter of improvement than a necessity.
This means that, in situations in which reform, as it is operationally defined by those doing the work, is in fact necessary and the workers, in fact, CANNOT share the sacrifice, the outcome of negotiations should meet a higher standard, i.e. whatever workers who cannot share the sacrifice, ultimately end up giving up SHOULD result in MORE REFORM as they operationally define it and that would seem to include those group traits which contribute to the fact that they cannot share the sacrifice, since that is part of what makes reform necessary.
If Ed Schultz failed to mention or refer to anything about the traits of individual member-groups within the Public Sector Unions category, it is a safe bet that he was engaging flamebait in order to drive his click-and-other media assets up.
This is a fellow I met during the Health Care debate last year. He is known to quote Physicians for National Health Program.
Regarding the matter of payments to providers: Dr. Freeman's most recent blogpost is titled: Greed Corruption and Medical Procedures: Ignoring or Suppressing the Evidence and it concerns the matter of the nature of scientific proof and other factors of concern that are involved in medical decisions made by providers.
This is not the first time that orthopedics organizations (which for some reason choose to use the British-style diphthong “orthopaedics” despite being Americans who do not make a practice of using other medical diphthongs such as haemorrhage, oesophagus, or oedema) have chosen to to attack evidence-based rules by political means. When, back in 1995, the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (now the Agency for Health Quality and Research, AHRQ) issued evidence based guidelines that recommended that certain popular (and remunerative) back surgeries for back pain were not very effective, the orthopedic groups were able to convince Rep. Henry Bonilla (San Antonio) to introduce legislation to de-fund the agency! (“Agency’s report provokes a revolt”, by Neil A. Lewis, NY Times September 14, 1995).That’s playing hardball! However, the procedure, vertebroplasty, was overused, usually didn’t work and often caused harm. Interestingly, mounting evidence of its inutility continues to this day, recently for vertebral fracture in the British Medical Journal, the results of which summarized by the editors of Journal Watch General Medicine.
I don’t want to pick especially upon orthopedists (or orthopaedists), although as high-income procedural specialists, they have been involved in more than their share of these issues. Many of the IOM’s recommendations involve procedures done by other specialists, including cardiologists. Indeed, we need to applaud the work of the academic cardiologists who have done the studies that show that many of these procedures that constitute a major source of income for their practicing colleagues (the pâté and vichyssoise if not the bread and butter) are not indicated.
The researchers doing this work are some of the true heroes of medicine. Those who hold on to evidence-free procedures because they make a lot of money from them need to be careful that they do not join the villains.
If you are interested in the issue of Medicare PAYMENT Reform, I hope you visit Dr. Freeman's blog as it is fully archived and quite searchable.
forum and I'm sure you'll get a pretty good price.
Shoot! Bang! Kill, the film:
You can be included in the film production process, with actual artists & media professionals, in SOCIAL SOFTWARE driven film production.
& You and YOURS can also have your name in the film credits.
Check out the KICK Starter (green button), where you will see the crew's professional credentials!
Rachel Maddow is on Roku.
in this dynamic is the responsibility of the people. It will be what THEY make it if they are free enough from BOTH of the sets of precursors to USE them effectively for their OWN purposes.
Something that is often left out when referring to such dialectics is that, classically, it doesn't end with whatever 3rd way that manages to manifest itself out of 2 sets of elements. The classic hypothesis is that combination and reconfiguration of elements from 2 precursor sets results in a synthesis which IS greater than the sum of its constituent parts. As a third thing that is the result of 2 predecessors, past factors inher in a 3rd way, but its gestalt, resulting from combination & reconfiguration, is relatively new. That gestalt, of the past but not contained in it as everything that has preceded it has and does, constitutes a 4th term, undefinable, of limited predictability, more of the future than of the past, a becoming, a potential present that may become another thesis which manifests yet another anti-thesis, the 2 of which yield yet another synthesis and another ? and so on and on . . .
I know error messages aren't always the best, but: Internal server configuration problem - ?
Someone called me this morning about weird stuff in her email regarding a netmail account that she didn't have.
My deceased MIL's Bible actually, which I found in what was once her treausseaux chest for her marriage to Floyd, a talented but under-employed musician and music teacher.
Dorothy was a pioneering business woman, young mother to Paul, executive PR assistant, writer, and "go to" for, the (male lead, of course) greater metro Chamber of Commerce, the quintessential attractive, 1950s career girl, and a state delegate to the '51(?) Republican convention that nominated and then elected Dwight David Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States.
I flipped the Bible open, not so randomly really, because it contained a single prayer card for Dorothy's best friend, her SIL, Ruby, wife to her beloved brother, Henry, who was a journalist and an independent publisher of small, mid-western, town-newspapers.
Dorothy/Floyd/Paul/Ruby/Henry's prayer card marked: Isaiah 48
Strength does not require agreement, sameness, subjection . . . in fact, it thrives on diversity and dialectic, something that males in this country may have lost, if they ever had it, hence their sense that they are very much in danger of not going out with a bang, "but with a whimper."
This is something that strong women know and have suffered from since the beginning.
I agree and so, it is said, does a guy named Jesus in "My kingdom is not of this world" and churches
are most definitely of this world, for who would believe what were it not for the support and encouragement and rewards from like-minded folk. Indeed, it is an addiction.
Wouldn't the real definition of a belief be, not only the extent to which it does not rely on "proof", but also on no other form of support? And wouldn't such a belief, valid or not, unify its adherents more completely than anything that is adulterated by extraneous and, hence, disonant conditional qualifications such as "Who/how many others believe _____________"?
||Yoga of the Field and the Knower of the Field||
"Undivided but situated in the beings divided, bearer of beings but also to be known as the devourer and illuminator."
. . . kind of interested in the proximity of "devourer and illuminator" here.
An award that speaks to our highest aspirations
Our actions matter and can bend history toward justice
I'm at the beginning of my labors
Most profound issue surrounding this prize is that I am CIC of troops at war
I have acute sense of costs of armed conflict
War has always been a human fact
Law sought control
Philosophy sought control
Just war was defined
Just war has historically been rarely observed
Defeat of 3rd Reich was Just Cause
More civilians than soldiers died in WWII
Institutions developed to prevent world war
America lead World to construct these institutions
Some success in this = no WW III
We are the heirs of foresight & fortitude
Old architecture is buckling under new threats
In today's wars more civilians are killed, seeds of future conflicts sown
I have no solution to the problems of war
We must think in new ways about the imperatives of Just Wars and the imperatives of Just Peace
We will not eradicate violent conflict
Nations will find the use of force necessary & Justified
MLK Violence never brings permanent peace
I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence, it is not weak, passive, or naďve
As a head of state, sworn to protect my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone
I face the world as it is and cannot be idle in the face of evil in the world
This not cynicism, but a recognition of history, imperfections of man, limits of reason
There is deep ambivalence about military action no matter what the cost
Reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military super-power
Whatever mistakes we have made the fact is that for 6 decades the US has underwritten global security
This promoted peace and security
Not to impose our will
Out of enlightened self-interest
We seek better lives for our children and believe they will have it if others have peace & prosperity
So instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace
This truth must co exist with another
No matter how Justified war promises human tragedy
Soldiers' courage and sacrifice is full of glory expressing devotion to country, cause, comrades in arms
But war itself is never glorious
Must never be trumpeted as such
Part of challenge is to reconcile two seemingly ir-reconcilable truths
War is necessary: War is an expression of human folly
JFK let us focus on a more practical more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution of human institutions
What might this evolution look like:
Practical steps: all nations must adhere to standards that govern the use of force;
Adherence to standards strengthens those who do and isolates and weakens those who don't
Consensus re self-defense, against aggression
No nation can insist that others follow rules if they don't follow them themselves
Doing so makes their actions appear arbitrary and undercut legitimacy of future interventions
No matter how justified
This becomes particularly important when purpose of military extends beyond self defense
Or (beyond) the defense of one nation against an aggressor
More questions about how to prevent a a government killing its own citizens
Or prevent violence from engulfing a region
Force can be justified on humanitarian grounds
In-action tears at conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later
All nations must embrace role military with clear mandate can play to keep the peace
America's commitment to global security will never waver
America cannot act alone, because America alone cannot secure the peace
True in Afghanistan and Somalia will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come
NATO demonstrate this truth
But many nations have disconnect between efforts of those who serve & ambivalence of broader public
I understand why war is not popular, but
The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it
Peace requires responsibility, entails sacrifice,
This is why NATO is indispensable and we must strengthen UN peace keeping
Don't leave task to a few countries
Why we honor those who return home, not as wagers of wars, but as makers of peace
As we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must think clearly about how we fight it
We have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct
This makes us different from those whom we fight
Why I closed Guatanamo, ended torture, recommit to Geneva conventions
Effort to avoid such tragic choices = 3 Ways to build Just and lasting peace:
1. Must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior
Words of international community must mean something
Those who break rules must be held accountable
Sanctions must exact a real price
Intransigence must be met with increased pressure
Pressure exists only when world stands together as one
One urgent example = prevent spread of nuclear weapons,
e.g. Nuclear nonproliferation treaty 50 years ago
All will have access to peaceful nuclear power
Those without will forsake nuclear weapons
Those with them will work to disarm
This treaty is a center piece of my foreign policy
It is incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations do not game the system
We who claim to uphold international law cannot avert our eyes when IL is flouted
Care for security cannot ignore danger of arms race in ME
Same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people
Must be consequences
Yes to engagement, yes to diplomacy, but must be consequences
Closer we stand together the less likely that we will be faced with a choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression
2. The Nature of the peace that we seek
Peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict
Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can be lasting
Declaration of Universal Human Rights after WWII too often ignored
Some countries' failures = excuse that these are Western principles foreign to local culture or stages of development
In America tension between Realists and Idealists re human rights
Suggests stark choice between narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices
Peace is unstable where people are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders, or assemble without fear
Pent up grievances fester, suppression of tribal and religious identity leads to violence
The opposite is also true: only when Europe became free did it find Peace
Neither American interests nor the World's are served by the denial of human aspirations
Even as we respect countries and cultures we will always be a voice for universal aspirations
It is telling that the oppressive leaders fear their own people more than the power of other nations
It is the responsibility of all nations to make clear that these movements of hope and history have us on their side
Promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone, also painstaking diplomacy (lacks the satisfaction and purity of indignation) but sanctions without outreach, condemnation without discussion can carry forward only a crippling status quo
No regime can move down a new path without an open door
No simple formula, must balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentive
So that human rights and dignity advance over time
3rd Just peace includes not only political and civil right, but also economic security and opportunity
Peace = Not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want
Development does not take root without security, security does not exist where there is not enough access to food, clean water, medicine, shelter, no decent education, or a job that supports a family
The absence of hope can rot a society from within
Helping others is not mere charity,
Security is also why world must come together to address climate change = more conflict for decades
Not just scientist, and environmentalists, but also military leaders in my own country know this
We need agreements among nations, strong institutions, support for human rights, investments in development
I do not believe that we will have the will, determination, staying power to complete this work without something more
We need the continued expansion of our moral imagination
To the insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share
As world grows smaller you might think that it would be easier for us to recognize how similar we are
Globalization, cultural leveling of modernity = people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities, their race, their tribe, most powerfully in their religion
Some places this fear has lead to conflict
Feels like we have moved backwards in many regions
Most dangerously seen in how religion is used to justify the murder of innocence by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam and have attacked my country from Afghanistan
These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of god , e.g. The Crusades
Remind us that no holy war can ever be a just war
Belief that you are carrying out divine will = no need for restraint against anyone even someone of one's own faith
Warped view of religion is incompatible with concept of Peace and also the very purpose of Faith.
The one rule at the heart of every major religion = Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to law of Love has always been the core struggle of human nature
We are fallible
We make mistakes
Fall victim to the temptations of pride and power and sometimes Evil
Even best of intentions fail to right the wrongs before us
We don't have to believe that human nature is perfect to believe that human nature can be perfected
Don't have to live in an idealized world to reach for ideals to make it a better place
Nonviolence may not have been historically possible in every circumstance, but Love, faith in human progress must always be the guide on our journey
If we lose that, faith is silly or naďve,
We lose what is best about humanity, our sense of possibility
MLK = refuse despair as final response to ambiguities of history, refuse to accept is-ness of man's present condition makes him morally capable of reaching up for ought-ness
Let us reach for the world that ought to be
That spark of the divine that still steers within each of our souls
Somewhere today, in the here and now world as it is, a soldier sees that he is out-gunned, but stands firm to keep the peace
Somewhere a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government but has the courage to march on
Somewhere a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child and still scrapes together the coins she has to send the child to school because she believes a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams
Let us live by their example
We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us and still strive for justice
Can admit the intractability of deprivation and still strive for dignity
Clear eyed we can understand that there will be war and still strive for peace
We can do that, because that is the story of human progress
The hope of all the world
And at this moment of challenge that must be our work here on Earth.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Impeachment is the only cure for the Supreme Court
Did "NoElephants" pass away??
A Giant Union Is Planning to Protest the Oscars
Happy Valentines Day, old friends!
NEVER trust government. nt
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.