| Rayne Today Searching for dharma, in spite of the weather...
Greenspan: not exactly toeing the party line The old man’s opinion hasn’t changed – tax cuts being pushed by Bush will have to be offset by tax increases somewhere and/or spending cuts. In the meantime, no comment on further costs to wage peace in Where will the money come from for those expenses if this market continues a jobless recovery? There won’t be any additional payroll taxes any time soon to help support this spending. The part that takes the cake: Ari’s usual wienie-ness. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said he did not see Greenspan's position on the tax cut as criticism or opposition to it. "He has had a very nuanced statement about it, but certainly never said he was opposed to it," Fleischer said. What a maroon*. Ari’s probably been worried the Iraqi Information Minister will take his job since Bush declared him “my man”. Ari could use a stint in the unemployment line, though, as a nice reality check.
* a la Bugs Bunny -- doesn't Ari kind of look like Elmer Fudd with glasses? 10:55:24 PM  comment []
RantsCounterRants: Bashing Banfield Bashers The following letter has been mailed to NBC and MSNBC as indicated. Whatever real errors Banfield may have committed does not justify the suppression of her right to free speech. Nor should we placidly sit by as we are fed only “glorious and wonderful” pictures instead of the truth. Vote your conscience, vote with your feet. ---
Dear Sirs: Until now, I have been a regular viewer of MSNBC, preferring it to its competitors CNN and Fox. I am appalled by NBC’s and MSNBC’s treatment of Ashleigh Banfield over her remarks at It’s entirely obvious when comparing coverage from around the world over the internet that we, the American viewing public, do not get the full story. The political crisis in Further, I find it incredibly unsupportive and undermining for MSNBC to tolerate more vicious badmouthing and backstabbing amongst its staff, let alone support and perpetuate hate-mongering by people like Michael Savage – while criticizing Banfield for substantively less. Savage’s comments against Banfield are abhorrent, as is his obnoxious rhetoric against a sizeable portion of the American public. This suggests that Free Speech is not welcome at NBC and MSNBC, and that Hate Speech is preferred. Until this is rectified, you’ve lost my viewership. I refuse to watch MSNBC until "Savage Nation" is cancelled; I will encourage other viewers to boycott MSNBC programming until pointed corrections are made in regards to permitting Free Speech by staff and reducing divisive hateful rhetoric by other staff members. I will contact your advertising sponsors from whom I purchase products to let them know that I cannot support them as long as they support your suppression of Free Speech in favor of Hate Speech. Sincerely, --- Background: comment []
ConsciousThoughts: Dreams, redux Thinking about dreams lead me to thinking about interpretations. Not the Freudian “unfulfilled infantile wishes” crap, either. There’s a jillion resources which claim that key components in dreams have particular meanings. Murky waters may mean your life is in flux; an open door suggests an opportunity to be taken. Can’t a shoe just be a shoe? Can’t things be what they are, literally? At what point are they not literally but symbolically something else? And since we can’t share the entirety of our dream – like not being able to share with exactitude the qualia of the color red or the smell of foods with others – how can we expect anyone else or anyone else’s interpretation to work for us? Do dream elements change in interpretation from culture to culture? Or is an open door always an opportunity in every human’s dream? And if components of dreams can have the same symbolic meaning across a culture or cultures (archetypal symbols), does this not suggest that dreams are memetic, possibly genetic, materials? Or perhaps they're not local memetic material, but part of a Jungian collective unconscious accessible in dreams? Is it possible that some of this material isn’t latent or unresolved stuff leftover from the day, but processing which is 1) based on memetic material imbedded in DNA, or 2) remote or entangled with some other processing resource which works using only common archetypal material? To what extent do we process any materials in our sleep, in our dreams? How much of it is local or non-local, as suggested by precognitive dreams? Many questions and few answers yields much food for thought. You can bet I'll be looking for reading material on this topic as well as your comments.
comment []
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
