I cycled past a retention pond near the Motiva refinery and glanced into
some
underbrush and there it was: an old Texaco sign, still wired to a fence.
I
had been very passively even unconsciously looking for a piece of evidence
like
this for a couple of years and it presented itself not far away from the
offices and people with time and money for eliminating all such
references.
With morbid satisfaction I could now prove even the window dressing wasn't
complete.
There was never any argument that there was any fundamental change.

When it comes to bringing about fundamental change most people seem to
fall
into one of two camps. Either they are very conservative and believe
fundamental improvement is always very difficult if not impossible to
accomplish or they are very shallow and believe fundamental improvements
are
very easy.

Very few seem to adopt the not quite intermediate position that under some
circumstances and with the right effort some fundamental permanent change
is
possible.

The LeChatelier Principle is a combination of the First and Second Laws of
Thermodynamics but it has a very general validity on a wide range of
issues:

"If the external constraints under which an equilibrium is established are
changed, the equilibrium will shift in such a way as to moderate the
effects of
the change."

Free speech is the secret to changing the internal constraints of a
political
situation.

Thomas Paine was always credited at being in the right place at the right
time
but Paine's early personal success, however, may have resulted in some
later
miscalculations. Paine later said the revolution was betrayed but
shouldn't
Paine have better known what would happen?

Bret Cahill


"To throw statues into the mud and salt into the ocean are among the
greatest
of follies."

-- Nietzsche "On Great Events"









All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

Message-id: <tY0Fb.4238$n01.3536@bignews5.bellsouth.net> writes:

There is no such thing as "fundamental permanent change"

(consider the
meaning of the words "permanent" and "change").

Permanence is an illusion of
the mind; there is only change.

"ta" ta33@bellsouth.net in
Message-id: <tY0Fb.4238$n01.3536@bignews5.bellsouth.net> writes:

. . .

There is no such thing as "fundamental permanent change"

What about FDR introducing Social
Security?

That was a change from before and it's
pretty permanent. Even controlling all
three branchs of government the
Republicans dare not touch it.

(consider the
meaning of the words "permanent" and "change").

In the sense that the change is to keep on
changing, well that is the essence of
democratic freedom.

As soon as the change is from change to
stagnation as it is now, that ain't freedom.

Permanence is an illusion of
the mind; there is only change.

Go to some of those backwards places in
Asia and report back to us about any
substantial changes in the past 2,000
years.

I cycled past a retention pond near the Motiva refinery and glanced into
some
underbrush and there it was: an old Texaco sign, still wired to a fence.
I
had been very passively even unconsciously looking for a piece of evidence
like
this for a couple of years and it presented itself not far away from the
offices and people with time and money for eliminating all such
references.
With morbid satisfaction I could now prove even the window dressing wasn't
complete.
There was never any argument that there was any fundamental change.

When it comes to bringing about fundamental change most people seem to
fall
into one of two camps.

Either they are very conservative and believe
fundamental improvement is always very difficult if not impossible to
accomplish or they are very shallow and believe fundamental improvements
are
very easy.

Very few seem to adopt the not quite intermediate position that under some
circumstances and with the right effort some fundamental permanent change
is
possible.

The LeChatelier Principle is a combination of the First and Second Laws of
Thermodynamics but it has a very general validity on a wide range of
issues:

"If the external constraints under which an equilibrium is established are
changed, the equilibrium will shift in such a way as to moderate the
effects of
the change."

Free speech is the secret to changing the internal constraints of a
political
situation.

Thomas Paine was always credited at being in the right place at the right
time
but Paine's early personal success, however, may have resulted in some
later
miscalculations. Paine later said the revolution was betrayed but
shouldn't
Paine have better known what would happen?

Bret Cahill


"To throw statues into the mud and salt into the ocean are among the
greatest
of follies."

-- Nietzsche "On Great Events"









All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

Message-id: <vubl05h0vqo832@corp.supernews.com> writes:


"BretCahill" <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031220121521.19282.00001148@mb-m13.aol.com...
I cycled past a retention pond near the Motiva refinery and glanced into
some
underbrush and there it was: an old Texaco sign, still wired to a fence.
I
had been very passively even unconsciously looking for a piece of evidence
like
this for a couple of years and it presented itself not far away from the
offices and people with time and money for eliminating all such
references.
With morbid satisfaction I could now prove even the window dressing wasn't
complete.
There was never any argument that there was any fundamental change.

When it comes to bringing about fundamental change most people seem to
fall
into one of two camps.

I don't believe they fall in two camps except for the convenience of media.

People's ideas about the rate of change probably cluster all over your graph

Either they are very conservative and believe
fundamental improvement is always very difficult if not impossible to
accomplish or they are very shallow and believe fundamental improvements
are
very easy.

Very few seem to adopt the not quite intermediate position that under some
circumstances and with the right effort some fundamental permanent change
is
possible.

The LeChatelier Principle is a combination of the First and Second Laws of
Thermodynamics but it has a very general validity on a wide range of
issues:

"If the external constraints under which an equilibrium is established are
changed, the equilibrium will shift in such a way as to moderate the
effects of
the change."

Free speech is the secret to changing the internal constraints of a
political
situation.

Thomas Paine was always credited at being in the right place at the right
time
but Paine's early personal success, however, may have resulted in some
later
miscalculations. Paine later said the revolution was betrayed but
shouldn't
Paine have better known what would happen?

Bret Cahill


"To throw statues into the mud and salt into the ocean are among the
greatest
of follies."

-- Nietzsche "On Great Events"









All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

"Immortalist" Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com in
Message-id: <vubl05h0vqo832@corp.supernews.com> writes:


"BretCahill" <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031220121521.19282.00001148@mb-m13.aol.com...
I cycled past a retention pond near the Motiva refinery and glanced
into
some
underbrush and there it was: an old Texaco sign, still wired to a
fence.
I
had been very passively even unconsciously looking for a piece of
evidence
like
this for a couple of years and it presented itself not far away from
the
offices and people with time and money for eliminating all such
references.
With morbid satisfaction I could now prove even the window dressing
wasn't
complete.
There was never any argument that there was any fundamental change.

When it comes to bringing about fundamental change most people seem to
fall
into one of two camps.

I don't believe they fall in two camps except for the convenience of
media.

I've never seen the media even broach the
issue. If anything the corp. media want
above all else to keep the public from
getting any ideas about the possibility of
bringing about real change.

Just dumb 'em down any way possible.

People's ideas about the rate of change probably cluster all over your
graph

The rate of change isn't really the issue
here.

The issue is, if you asked most people if
it was possible to bring about change --
fast or slow -- the answers would either be:

1. it's very very difficult, or,

2. it's very very easy.

The first group are conservatives, not
activists by definition and the second
group is merely a bunch of shallow
incompetents.

The successful activist has few useful
allies.

. . .

Either they are very conservative and believe
fundamental improvement is always very difficult if not impossible to
accomplish or they are very shallow and believe fundamental
improvements
are
very easy.

Very few seem to adopt the not quite intermediate position that under
some
circumstances and with the right effort some fundamental permanent
change
is
possible.

The LeChatelier Principle is a combination of the First and Second Laws
of
Thermodynamics but it has a very general validity on a wide range of
issues:

"If the external constraints under which an equilibrium is established
are
changed, the equilibrium will shift in such a way as to moderate the
effects of
the change."

Free speech is the secret to changing the internal constraints of a
political
situation.

Thomas Paine was always credited at being in the right place at the
right
time
but Paine's early personal success, however, may have resulted in some
later
miscalculations. Paine later said the revolution was betrayed but
shouldn't
Paine have better known what would happen?

Bret Cahill


"To throw statues into the mud and salt into the ocean are among the
greatest
of follies."

-- Nietzsche "On Great Events"









All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill











All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

Message-id: <vuer2b3hkc67b0@corp.supernews.com> writes:

"BretCahill" <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031221142153.12131.00001430@mb-m05.aol.com...
"Immortalist" Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com in
Message-id: <vubl05h0vqo832@corp.supernews.com> writes:


"BretCahill" <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote in message

I don't believe they fall in two camps except for the convenience of
media.

I've never seen the media even broach the
issue. If anything the corp. media want
above all else to keep the public from
getting any ideas about the possibility of
bringing about real change.

Just dumb 'em down any way possible.

The media has been lately noting how much more polorized positions are
against each other, especially with the last decades' emergence of AM talk
radio.

Some political theorists believe that the higher the degree of
polarization or distance between views then the less people are really
interested in politics

at the times leaving extremists to call whatever
shots can be called. I don't think the recent polorization is of that type.

People's ideas about the rate of change probably cluster all over your
graph

The rate of change isn't really the issue
here.

But in any conversation about conservative or liberal things boil down to
how fast they think we should change based on how fast things should change
to support the planks of their matrix.

The issue is, if you asked most people if
it was possible to bring about change --
fast or slow -- the answers would either be:

1. it's very very difficult, or,

2. it's very very easy.

The first group are conservatives, not
activists by definition and the second
group is merely a bunch of shallow
incompetents.

The successful activist has few useful
allies.

"ta" ta33@bellsouth.net in
Message-id: <tY0Fb.4238$n01.3536@bignews5.bellsouth.net> writes:

. . .

There is no such thing as "fundamental permanent change"

What about FDR introducing Social
Security?

That was a change from before and it's
pretty permanent. Even controlling all
three branchs of government the
Republicans dare not touch it.

(consider the
meaning of the words "permanent" and "change").

In the sense that the change is to keep on
changing, well that is the essence of
democratic freedom.

As soon as the change is from change to
stagnation as it is now, that ain't freedom.

Permanence is an illusion of
the mind; there is only change.

Go to some of those backwards places in
Asia and report back to us about any
substantial changes in the past 2,000
years.

"Immortalist" Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com in
Message-id: <vuer2b3hkc67b0@corp.supernews.com> writes:

"BretCahill" <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031221142153.12131.00001430@mb-m05.aol.com...
"Immortalist" Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com in
Message-id: <vubl05h0vqo832@corp.supernews.com> writes:


"BretCahill" <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote in message

. . .

I don't believe they fall in two camps except for the convenience of
media.

I've never seen the media even broach the
issue. If anything the corp. media want
above all else to keep the public from
getting any ideas about the possibility of
bringing about real change.

Just dumb 'em down any way possible.

The media has been lately noting how much more polorized positions are
against each other, especially with the last decades' emergence of AM
talk
radio.

AM talk radio is the effect not the root
cause.

Some political theorists believe that the higher the degree of
polarization or distance between views then the less people are really
interested in politics

It's not merely a correlation. It's cause
and effect:

After the corp. whore media ostracizes
"Joe Sixpack" from any meaningful
political participation, the people are free
to wander [daydream] in any crazy
political direction.

Rush Limbaugh openly admits he's just
entertainment.

at the times leaving extremists to call whatever
shots can be called. I don't think the recent polorization is of that
type.

What do you think is the cause?

People's ideas about the rate of change probably cluster all over your
graph

The rate of change isn't really the issue
here.

But in any conversation about conservative or liberal things boil down to
how fast they think we should change based on how fast things should
change
to support the planks of their matrix.

You must be in some lofty chat group. I
agree speed can make or break anything
but I never seem to get that far with the
pseudoactivists.

Most are stuck on stupid.

The issue is, if you asked most people if
it was possible to bring about change --
fast or slow -- the answers would either be:

1. it's very very difficult, or,

2. it's very very easy.

The first group are conservatives, not
activists by definition and the second
group is merely a bunch of shallow
incompetents.

The successful activist has few useful
allies.


Bret Cahill



All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

Message-id: <vuha04atrdm1cc@corp.supernews.com> writes:

AM talk radio is the effect not the root
cause.

There must be some distributed "rooting" goin' on here. The rise of AM radio
has greatly infuenza political participation in editorial commentary.

This
has put editorializing on the front page now

but opinionating used to be in
another section of the paper. The AM revolution has made it harder to tell
opinions from facts.

Does this negate the possibility that more people got sick of FM radio and
turned on AM cause a freind told them about this highly entertaining...

So do editorialists properly on their page and section.

but its like saying the internet was a symptom not a root cause

I think what you say can be sufficient as a cause but not necessary since
their are many roads leading to political polarization.

Most are stuck on stupid.

Can you get them to admit that there are preferred rates change for each
party since this is how their ideas unfold best at that rate?

Message-id: <59b8bc96.0312231156.7a52ad02@posting.google.com> writes:

Indeed.

Look.

We are a free people.

We don't
want to be forced to kneel down and pray
to creationism science.

What part of "no" do you Repugs NOT
understand?