Touch the Hem of His Glorious Garment

Saturday, May 22, 2010
Posted in category Messiah Obama

The First Citizen of the World, Herr Obama, is going to be speaking at the commencement ceremony of Kalamazoo Central High School in Michigan next month. But this is no ordinary man, and certainly, no ordinary appearance. Any opportunity to shake the First Citizen’s noble hand will come with a price:

Seniors are being asked to provide their birthdates, Social Security numbers and citizen status to the Secret Service so background checks could be performed. Such a check is required for anyone who gets within an arm’s length of the president, students were told at their senior breakfast Friday.

…K-Central seniors also were told Friday that graduation tickets will come from the White House, and the tickets will have bar codes to heighten accountability and prevent them from being sold. “Any irregularities can be traced back to the student who was given the ticket,” Boehme said.

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

24 Responses to Touch the Hem of His Glorious Garment

  1. liberranter says:

    May 22nd, 2010 at 10:35 am

    As if these poor kids don’t already have enough trials and tribulations ahead of them, they have to suffer the indignity of having their “rite of passage ceremony into the adult world” marred by the attendance of the Cretin-in-Chief. Talk about making an already painfully overblown occasion absolutely insufferable! Can you imagine the long-winded, bloviating bullshit that the Liar-in-Chief is going to spew out at these poor tortured inmates of what is probably an already terminally dysfunctional “publik skool?” I can only imagine being one of those students who tells the school administration to “mail me my diploma, because I am NOT going to be part of this farcical charade in which I and my family are treated like potential terrorists just so I can receive a worthless scrap of paper that makes the transparently false claim that I have received a high school education!” (I wonder, BTW, what the repercussions will be for any students or their parents who refuse to attend the ceremony?)

  2. mike list says:

    May 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 am

    how terribly unreasonable of him. ya wanna know something else? last week i sent my old wet suit to the white house and obama still hasn’t swam down and capped that leak, he’s too busy blaming legitimate businesses for the accident (“accidents will happen” – rand paul) to fix it like he’s supposed to.
    obama is a fascist, er , nazi, er , um socialist, imean terrorist.
    screw that guy i’m voting teabag in november


    can’t find anything real to complain about? then don’t say anything at all.

  3. mike list says:

    May 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 am

    and i’m going to hold my breath until it passes moderation.
    or not. thanks for the opportunity though.

  4. M. Terry says:

    May 22nd, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Goodness – isn’t Obama discriminating against all those poor “undocumented immigrant” students who can’t supply U.S. citizenship certification?

    I wonder if a Hawaiian COLB is acceptable?

  5. Jeannie Queenie says:

    May 23rd, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Libber…fantastic are right on the ticket with this!

    Mike L…look for the tea baggers to make some inroads before November. I became a member a couple months ago, and am witnessing many smart and fun folks joining the TPP. When you hear of crazy stuff at rallys, it is outsiders who are plants. For a quick peek to their growing numbers, ck this url for a birds eye view as to most states growing Tea Party Patriots groups:

    I have been doing research for a month now on this hellish healthcare bill and what it bodes for all of us if not nullified. IT is truly scary sh_t…three other members are taking on finance reform, immigration and one other topic. I’m completing my research to be ready by this Tues meeting..have gone from 40 pages to 18 and now to 5 and still have to get it to 3 max! We want to give folks handout info, for those attending upcoming rallies. Too many are not truly informed about the bills. Recall
    pouty Pelosi and her, “Just pass the damn thing, so that you can see what’s in it”. Well, beeeaaatch, I am learning that it couldn’t be worse than sitting in a locked room filled up with tarantula’s, phythons and very hunger lions.
    She must have had the Romans in mind and their casting Christians to the Hairy blonde devourers when she dreamt up this nightmare life negating loony legislation. I really do believe that destroying the US is foremost on this arrogant administration’s to-do list.

  6. Iluvatar says:

    May 24th, 2010 at 12:02 am

    @ JQ:

    It’s byatch! for bitch.

    And yes, there ain’t no one putting on the brakes heading into the maw of this abyss.

    Obamarama & Co. are pushing hard on the accelerator.

    They want to ensure their damage `fo’ anyone can catch up to `em an’ give them the proper whoopin’ these honk-heads deserve (behind the woodshed)!

    Yippee-Yi-Yo-Tay-Yea; can you say Boor-Rah!???

  7. mike list says:

    May 24th, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    as described by your bio, an anarchist. “…believe that government is evil, immoral, corrupt, and unnecessary in a free society.”

    i hope you will have the honesty to refrain from criticism on constitutional grounds, since it’s obvious that it is a government sanctioned document.

    likewise, government services. i’ll bet you couldn’t if you wanted to.

  8. Iluvatar says:

    May 25th, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    @ mike list:

    What Constitution?

    That document is something I can’t even read! Furthermore, it hasn’t been obeyed for about 160 years!

    I am not being insolent here – but I want to get your respectful take.

    Please read Article I Section I of the Big C (my FAV acronym) for this.

    It has to do with the census – given the recent one when they asked so many out-of-bounds questions (which I did not – AND have yet to be taken to jail for!).

    Did you understand it?

    If you did, could you PLEASE convey your take on it? `Cause, I did not!

    Help us all out, brother and be kind, kay?

    We ain’t necessarily geniuses here – I kinda like it put into simple terms (you don’t have to reply in big caps tho’ – I ain’t quite that stoopid (grin!))

    But by the same token, I am no longer confused by the term “illegal law”.

    After all, most of the laws are ACTUALLY illegal!

    Go figure@!

  9. Jeannie Queenie says:

    May 28th, 2010 at 1:04 am

    Iluvator, I am interested in knowing why you feel that the Constitution has not been obeyed for 160 years. What is the basis of that perception? I feel that the last 50 years have been a downward spiral both politically and culturally, and that has lent itself to a downgrading of both our Constitution and the problems which we are facing today on many fronts. Won’t go into it now, for I could write pages on this topic, but just want to know why you picked that 160 year figure.

    And why would you say that most laws are illegal…yes, we all know that some are downright asinine, but what of those that really do form the basis of a civilized and moreso, sane society? In fact, it could be argued that the most imperative of laws are the very ones now being disregarded or utterly thrown away.

    Regarding your Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, this deals mainly with Congress and their legislative powers. Neither the president nor the judiciary have those powers, only Congress. Congress, as you know, is comprised of both the House and the Senate. The states via the Tenth Amendment share in this Federal sovereignity, thank god, thus making all Americans citizens both of the federal entity and of his/her state of domicile. Thus, the Constitution allows for the sharing of power between the two levels of govt. We can see with this administration an attempt to take away state’s rights. That would be devastating and our final downfall if they succeed. The problem today and probably why you are thinking that the Constitution isn’t working is that history since the fifties has undergone a massive reconstruction insofar as all generations since the sixties have had it so damn good, most were spoiled and grew up to be ‘me, me, me’ jerks. Nowhere is that more evident than with the boomers, the very guys who ran wall st and banks and markets, actually, ran them into the ground, bringing all of us to the precipice of financial armegeddon. The likes of Barney Frank, Geithner, Obama, Emanuel and others who all fit the definition of the boomers who like to play god. These self serving selfish bastards whose arrogant egos demanded the right to not have any laws constricting them, have managed to screw with others lives, money and futures.

    And what is truly amazing when you look at all recent months of extreme bad news, is that these mother f’rs have taken no personal responsibility in any of it….hell, at least the terrorists man up to when they take out buildings or suicide bombings, but our domestic terrorists think they have a god given right to destroy others at their whims. No sociopath would have anything to do with the Constitution and wouldn’t recognize it if someone bopped it up the side of their deranged heads. Ditto for most of Congress…this is why we are in one helluva mess. So many forces have been at work since the sixties to destroy our country and bring it into the fold of facism. Since cultural values have gone the way of the extinct dodo bird, all we are left with now is a wasteland of irrational, immoral, often amoral, nincompoops who think the govt is something to be bought, manipulated, extorted for their own benefit, and to hell with the rest of mankind, even their very own countrymen.

    From the looks of it, they don’t even know the meaning of the word Treason, which is what most of them could/should be charged with, but seeing as they are all part of the boomer mindset, treason is totally lacking in their liberal, loony lexicon.

  10. mike list says:

    May 31st, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    not so strangely, my replies to iluvatar seem to have failed moderation. embarrassed to have been caught in misdirecting me to the census reference? or showing your limited mastery of written english?

    you are right to be embarrassed. i only went as far as tenth grade, then snagged a ged, but still had no problem reading article 1 section 2, clause three.

  11. Iluvatar says:

    May 31st, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    @ JQ:

    You probably won’t see this until Wednesday (Karen is on holiday), but some answers.

    1) 160 years: bad move, should have been 150 years – when Honest Abe took office. His denial of the states right to secede was a historical turning point and structural change to the balance of power between the states and the Federal government.

    Indeed, it has been permanent, w/ only now some states fighting back under the 10th amendment, brandishing their nullification rights. One of the few hopeful bright points out there in that sea of insanity.

    2) I am speaking strictly of the laws passed by Congress. They are unconstitutional in that they are laws outside the strictly enumerated powers of the Congress. I equate “unconstitutional” & “illegal” in my lexicon, my definitions should have been more clear. But that is how you get an illegal law. It’s no longer a logical dilemma for me.

    3) I read Article 1, Section 1 (specifically regarding the census) and could not for the life of me understand what limited powers were involved in taking the census (the backdoor is “as Congress sees fit”). I find it a challenge understanding the language and meaning. But that’s me. I just don’t get it…

    4) Well, you are going to get no argument from me regarding the last 80 years (since FDR) of the socialisms that have taken root here. I blame these socialistic attitudes for the dumbing down and social numbing of our population.

    As Hayek says, the key characteristic of a socialist society is when a problem is spotted the first (knee-jerk) reaction is: what is government going to do about it?

    But furthermore, the entitlement programs have left us, as a society, almost permanently confused about what “rights” really mean. An example, we don’t have a “right” to healthcare – it is not god-given. Health care is a health issue not a political one (Ron Paul). Taken to a real extreme is the guy of the EU out of Belgium recently saying that a vacation was a “right”! (Oh my, tears were coming out of my eyes from the laughter that ensued. My office mates upchucked on their coffees.)

    5) Also agree w/ you regarding the baby-boomers (and the gen-Xers). Read some articles ~1 year ago how we get these generational devastations (and heros, too). The articles called the baby-boomers “passive aggressive” (riding the tide, so to speak), while the Gen-Xers were described as nihilistic (the quants “jamming” the customer).

    So yes, what do you get? A society that is essentially crumbling, one that has lost its moral compass.

    One where responsibility is not claimed, e.g., in the recent investigations into the cause of the recent meltdowns, did anyone stand up and say that Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed’s easy money stance were the cause and the blame for the real estate bubble?

    Not a one.

    This is the result of socialisms & entitlements. The 80 year experiment has been conducted. We now know the answer. Why continue it further? What did we not understand?

    Tant pis…

  12. mike list says:

    May 31st, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    JtQ, i can only say “we’ll see” to your claim of growinging tea party popularity.

  13. Iluvatar says:

    June 2nd, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    @ mike list:

    Embarrassed me? All the time (grin)!

    And you were correct on the citing (section & clause), excuse me for my senior moment (I could only remember it was in Article I, and did not look it up prior to hitting the send button).

    But here is what I am talking about:

    “…and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

    What does that really mean? What limitation of power is enforceable with that phrase? And where does it state that the only thing they have a legal right to is the head count and nothing more (like are you white, black, hispanic, etc.)? I don’t see it in there!

    Now you said you read it and understood it and I think that is great. I did not. And I think that it is not so great.

    If you get a moment, could you answer my questions above, b/c that’s where I am stuck? I appreciate your time.

    But it also brings up the most severe criticism I have with the Big C: it is hard for people (like myself) to understand. When 10 people read a document and have 6-9 different takeaways on it, then it is an unclear document and is not doing what it is supposed to be doing – communicating.

    Clearly, the multiple interpretations of the commerce clause should be ammunition enough to prove my point? Or am I bonked in my thinking there as well?

    And, oh, btw, I don’t think you’re getting suppressed, all the messages are coming in late, the moderator has been on holiday – please relax, no one is out to get you (smiling); (they are out to get ME!).

  14. Iluvatar says:

    June 2nd, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    @ mike list:


    Were there more than 1 reply to me from you? All I am seeing is the one above. If I missed them, holler back.

  15. mikelist says:

    June 2nd, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    if you read anything about the census in section one article one, you are a very gifted individual and i suggest you run for elected office. you are ahead of the constitution.
    i couldn’t find any mention of the census until article two, clause three.
    the wording is pretty clear, and there isn’t really much to misunderstand.

  16. Iluvatar says:

    June 3rd, 2010 at 1:52 am

    @ mike list:

    I think my previous post from today (02 June), indicated my error – and acknowedged your correct location (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3). Is it also located in Article II, clause 3 as well?

    Well, that’s OK.

    But my issue is with Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, as I highlighted in the previous post which I’ll repeat here: “…and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

    So, they get to execute a census. And they get to execute that census in such a manner as they shall by LAW direct.

    What does that mean?

    My point is that this is what I call a legal “back door”.

    You can execute a census “in any way you so shall see fit!@!”. That’s how – there are no legally (to be read constitutionally) imposed LIMITS on how you conduct the census and what kinds of information you collect.

    By virtue of that clause, they can ask how many shoes you own and what the color of your skin is.

    Do you see anywhere there where that is prohibited? After all, they will execute the census as by the direction of their OWN LAW – as they SEE FIT!.

    That means, there is no limit to what they can deem themselves able to do in this regard!

    I am not happy about this, are you?

    You like being tickled about what you got in the fridge? I sure don’t.

    But, I was trying to make a simple point; the disaster of the “Big C” goes much beyond this.

    We have had a congress that has ignored the “Big C” for about 150 years. No wonder Judge Napolitano calls it the Constitution in Exile!!

    I would call it the Constitution in “Hostage” & Big Gov has got the poor ol’ gal in the back room and ain’t letting her go!

    And we need to fight to bring the ol’ girl back – warts and all!

    So, in answer to my previous post and your post as of today, I would like to respectfully disagree with you on the logically developed grounds I have given here.

    Look, dude, I already get that you are a genius, ok? Trust me, I get it. You already said it: “10th grade then dumped HS for a GED”. My neighbor behind me has a daughter who did the same and actually both of their daughters are geniuses (math and music).

    But one thing geniuses do (and it is their fatal flaw!) badly? They don’t listen to questions very well!

    So I would only beg you to respect me well enough to consider the questions I have put forward and to put forth a constructive effort that helps us all.

    After all, we’re all brothers here (on this planet).

    And lastly, I read a very good book about 12 years ago that helped me very much.

    It is called “Emotional Intelligence” by Dan Goleman. It can be found here: It charts out how really, really smart people (very HIGH IQ’s) can NOT listen b/c they are too smart. It also charts out how those folks are not very successful in their careers or socially. I found it very interesting.

    I have been suffering from this disease for about 40 years and I am now only in remission.

    But hey! I have been a recovering ex-Christian now for 45 years! This must be a good thing (grin!@).

  17. mike list says:

    June 3rd, 2010 at 7:29 pm

    the DoD evaluated my iq at 155 (mm score on dd214), i acknowledge that some benefits accrue a high iq score, but it only covers adaptive reasoning, which is valuable but not necessarily the most important point of intelligence. the fact that my dad taught me to read before kindergarten has been more valuable overall.
    but i never was a good listener, the nuns at st mary’s school could attest to that, and they did their level best to beat the distraction out of me. they failed miserably, which may or may not have left me unimpressed with the power of god.

    i just get sick of the snarky ridicule that seems to follow one of the most deliberative presidents in recent history. you dislike his left-wing tendencies, i dislike that he’s not left-wing enough. he was given an unenviable mess to deal with, and it’s natural to be disappointed with the results, but jebus, “the hem of his glorious garment”? it smacks f sarcasm for the sole purpose of being sarcastic, and if there is a point to be made it is well concealed by the dismissive attitude. i may be dead wrong in my sociopolitical idea(l)s, but i have put a lot of thought into them and snarky doesn’t do a thing except irritate.

  18. Iluvatar says:

    June 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    To mike list:

    I am sorry & apologize in advance since my obvious domination of threads has got my boss really P-O’d at me. But I thought that I should address your response. I will try to obey rules of maximum terseness here (sorry Boss!)

    1) I was evaluated once for my IQ and it came out 185, but I did not believe it for 1 second. I have always believed it was somewhere around 125, which makes me doubly STOOPID b/c – I can’t listen and have no listening skills & on top of that I am not that smart! Dan Goleman would have called me a lost cause (very big wide grin)!

    But I am an aggressive learner & my humility is based upon reading philosophy where these cats simply blew me away (John Locke, Kant, etc). These dudes were way smarter and informed than I will ever be! To LEARN, I just carry a LOT of elbow grease around. That is the deal, brother.

    2) There is nothing wrong about NOT being a listener if you are independent minded (which it sounds like you are). Being independently minded is your first gift! My (new) belief is that you ALWAYS listen, but listening DOES NOT imply agreement! You evaluate, then make your choice – AND sometimes it is the absolute opposite direction that you were given!!! Amen@!

    Independent and informed thought is worth more than GOLD, brother!!

    3) Hey, if you like Obama, then that is your choice. I haven’t like ANY president for about 50 years, Oh well. A lot of the readers here don’t like Bush any more than they like Obama. There just are no more heros out there – please apply your high IQ in discerning this! It isn’t political – it is beyond that. It is about FREEDOM and RIGHTS. And absolutely NO ONE is bringing it! I hate Bush as much as I hate Obamarama. B/c it is a loss of our rights to be FREE! Bush’s Patriot Act of 2001 was an absolute atrocity to our rights to be free, man! Dude was an absolute monster!

    From where I come from, a simple man who just wants to be free, an ex-Ohioan. I claim that it is time for US to take our country back!

    Not many people realize this yet? But we OWN our country! This country is OUR country to run as WE see fit!!!


    PS Sorry for being an complete `noid? What does a “snarky” mean?

    PPS We move rapidly in our positions (political, religious, and otherwise) as we age – SO did ALL the great philosophers – Bertrand Russel for one and a great French philosopher as well (sorry suffering another senior moment here…)
    I would describe myself as something almost as strong as a political atheist! I want NO affiliation with that slimey/oily machine! But that also puts me on the fence as a (major) “Wuss”, since all I am doing is whining!

    Mebbe, I decide to get off this fence, huh?, become a real MAN!!!

    Dude, let those arrows fly!!!!!!!!!

  19. mike list says:

    June 4th, 2010 at 10:42 am

    i disagree with the premise of contemporary anarchy. marx envisioned anarchy as the final step in sociopolitical evolution, but acknowledged that people, as currently socialized, aren’t ready for anarchy. “i worked for mine, you can’t have it”, and other similar expressions of selfishness (ayn rand was only a novelist)show that people aren’t ready for anarchy, imho. an intrinsic sense of altruism will be a required trait in evaluating whether or not we are as a society or even species, are ready for anarchy.

    in the meantime, we have to use governmental systems and entities, to keep our ingrained sense of greed from overcoming the good of the overall society. it has been said that communism won’t work because of greed, while capitalism works BECAUSE of greed. it may be true, but i don’t think it works at all, as long as the dream of owning all the beans is celebrated as a good thing. a capitalist free market does regulate itself, but doesn’t concern itself with the fate of the market losers, leaving it to a sense of noblisse oblige that isn’t reflected in the attitude of the winners. without regulation, we would return to the robber baron paradigm very quickly, as is shown by the eagerness to find and exploit loopholes in regulation.

    a semblance of a sense of social justice has evolved over generations, that leads me to believe that a responsible anarchy could be achieved in future generations, but an arbitrary shift to anarchism at this point would be a bloodbath, literally and figuratively.

  20. mike list says:

    June 4th, 2010 at 10:44 am

    i forgot to explain snarky, which is condescending sarcasm.

  21. mikelist says:

    June 4th, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    another post missing, but as long as the moderator READ it critically i don’t care. i’m done with this crap anyway. theoretical politics don’t get anything done. and that’s this site in its entirety.
    anarchy may be a good idea someday, but not today, and i don’t have to point at anything in particular to prove that it’s not.

    fun talking to you but nothing i have read here comes close to changing my mind, and my best effort at showing you why i think your host’s position is untenable will have similar ineffectiveness. so sayonara.

  22. Iluvatar says:

    June 5th, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    To mikelist:

    It was fun talking to you too.

    Actually, your post on anarchy opened up so many interesting issues that I had drafted about 5 pages of notes that I was getting ready to respond to until I saw your Adieu post – rats!

    Funny, you refer to this site as theoretical. I would have said the opposite (I have seen those sites, they make my head hurt).

    But I also fret about talking ad nauseum.

    As an engineer, I want to fix things. Not just whine.

    I just would like to know what the right-minded action is that I could take – I hate sittin’ on the fence, whining.

    Hey dude? Take good care; love your brothers…

  23. Jeanne Queenie says:

    June 6th, 2010 at 1:29 am

    So Iluvatar, it looks like Mr Sayonara evaded your question. I wouldn’t be crying my heart out over this one when he also takes a knock at Karen’s site and this post in particular, referring to ‘his hem’ as snarky. The hem of his garment is actually sneaky, but we won’t get into that right now. But then what do you expect from someone/Mike L who actually advocates Marxist thought. Guess he has no problem then with the Alinsky method espoused by the Reneger-in-Chief..and he then goes onto say that anarchy at this point would never wash..that it will take eons to get there. Well Mr. List, what rock will you be hiding under when the show hits the road? Mike sounds like a little spoiled liberal when he advocates that it is selfish to be responsible for oneself and that it is wrong to bask in the benefits of one’s own labor.
    People with ideas like that scare the hell out of me..that they’d actually believe that what’s theirs is theirs and what is yours is theirs as well. Sounds to me like a perfect candidate for the DoD where the whole idea is built upon bilking the public to grow not just govt, but to line their own pockets with your money. Michael List might as well as stay away from this site as he has already admitted to not being a good listener. To attempt to talk to someone with a closed mind is virtually useless. I see this not as a sign of high intelligence, but rather a low IQ and even lower emotional intelligence, for really smart people are always open to other’s viewpoints, if for no other reason than to point out the fallacy of the other’s lack of logic or reasoning. I have lived long enough to know that when someone claims that they are not a good listener, you are dealing with a severe lack of emotional intelligence, and/or a severe case of narcissism which disallows any other possibilities to exist…but in Mike’s case, it almost appears that he is lying about not being a good liistener. I find it very strange that he listen’s to Marx and his madness enough to know that Mike feels it the answer to the world’s woes. Sounds like SELECTIVE listening to me Mr. List. In short, you aren’t about to change your mind even if someone presents compelling facts revealing your lack of logic. I suggest you read at the top of this page in the upper right hand corner a quote put there by Karen….’by what right do men have to exercise power over each other?” If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty, you’ll see that your love of Marx sadly, indicates stupidity, and shows even less emotional intelligence. Are you sure that the DoD figure of 155 wasn’t the combined score of native and emotional intelligence?

  24. Iluvatar says:

    June 6th, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    @ JQ:

    Glad you’re back! Were you on vacation?

    I am going to have to be real terse here, since my boss is fed up with me violating the PC rules of posting (dominating threads). Hey, boss it was directed @ me! I am just tersely responding; don’t drop the hammer on me!

    It is my belief that he did not avoid the question(s) that I was asking – I think he got it (wrt the Big C). My take is that he IS VERY intelligent and a young man – nothing wrong w/ that! Oh, to be young again!

    I will take this opportunity to shoot an arrow at myself as well (you can too, let them fly!). I remember my thoughts as an adolescent – I was extremely liberal then – made my ol’ man throw up listening to me – he was a hard-core conservative (much more the pity).

    But I was without knowledge! I was without experience! I was ignorant – at least MikeL demonstrated the fact that he wasn’t! He certainly would have kicked my butt when I was his age!

    Boy! Did that ever start changing when A the age of 17!

    And sure, he was a bit irreverent; but he was also angry besides – Karen’s remark did not help (“hem of his garment”). I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt – we all get angry sometimes, and these days we all are under extreme stress; we manage it the best we can (I certainly failed in that regard recently!).

    But our trajectories change over time, as we age – certainly mine did, in all the fields of regard that actually MATTER in one’s life: religion, philosophy, & government/political position.

    And they continue to evolve today, it’s part of maturing – we are ALWAYS in motion if we are healthy – we ARE ALWAYS MATURING; there is absolutely no shame in this – it is a lifelong process! It is when we are NOT that a warning bell should go off in our heads.

    I was hoping to reply to him in an essay format (notes were 5 pages long) on his feelings about Marx, keeping what was yours & so forth only to help him see a different perspective w/o attacking him per se.

    I just don’t feel that attacking folks helps them; I’d rather convey to them some different ideas and let them digest it in a neutral way.

    Doesn’t mean we’ll agree at the end; but we will BOTH come away more informed (“smarter”) after the debate.

    That’s win-win in my book.

    Hell, we are ALL learning here. And there is nothing WRONG with that! It is healthy!

    And, based on what I have learned here (& it’s been a lot!), then maybe this site provided a small benefit towards mankind, yes?

    PS I read your link on that poor doctor regarding the vaccines and then e-mailed Karen on it. That was an EXCELLENT catch – great job!

    PPS If you read Dan Goleman’s book, you will find that really, really (MENSA types) smart people actually don’t listen at all – and that turns out to be a real deficiency in their lifehood. Here is why: it is b/c they are so smart they know what you’re going to say BEFORE you say it! And when that happens more than 1000 times, you basically stop listening – AND YOU MISS the really good stuff that they had to offer, when it actually comes! Trust me, I know, I am still recovering – and I don’t even have the IQ to prove it (lol)!

    Bon Soir amis!

Leave a Reply