The premier who thought Hitler was a 'Joan of Arc'

This article's report of Mackenzie King's meeting with Adolph Hitler, quoting him as saying, "He (Hitler) smiled very pleasantly and indeed had a sort of appealing and affectionate look in his eyes. My sizing up of the man as I sat and talked with him was that he is really one who truly loves his fellow man."

And according to Churchill's son Randolph, Mackenzie King was, "one of the most delightful men I've ever known". 

Yet, this kindly Canadian Prime Minister harbored a deep fear and hatred for Jews. 

 

What troubles me most about myself and my fellow Americans, is how easily we are duped into believing the warm smile and kindly eyes of our Masters.  We have been led to believe that they are "just regular folk". 

But make no mistake about it, there are Adolph Hitler's lurking among them. 

How do we know them?  Look behind that friendly smile and ignore those warm words.  Follow them into their dark places where they watch as their underlings torture and rape and murder innocent men, women and children. 

Do not be taken in by the fact that these Monsters walk among us in human form, smiling and acting all buddy buddy. 

Do not turn your back and pretend that when they take away the freedom of other people, both around the world as well as within our own nation, that your turn will not come.  Read your history books.  Empires always destroy anyone or any group that they fear.  And Empires are paranoid by nature. 

 

Curious Carl

 

 

The premier who thought Hitler was a 'Joan of Arc'

Wartime diaries

by Robert Fisk:


The Independent & The Independent on Sunday



Saturday, 12 June 2010



http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-premier-who-thought-hitler--was-a-joan-of-arc-1998351.html



The date: 10 February 1937. The city: Ottawa. The man: William Lyon
Mackenzie King, prime minister of Canada, soon to be the trusted wartime
friend and confidant of Winston Churchill.



That frozen day in the Canadian capital, King recorded in his diary a
friendly encounter with an old man on Wilbrod Street, a Jewish Russian
immigrant called Cohen who had divided his possessions--a furniture and
clothing business on Rideau and Banks Streets--among his three sons and
daughter. He was now in retirement. As another former Canadian prime
minister, Brian Mulroney, said of the Cohens, "a true Canadian success
story".



Mulroney described to a Jewish meeting in Toronto last month how his
illustrious predecessor "listened to Mr Cohen thoughtfully, treated him
kindly" and then recorded the encounter in his diary. And this, dear reader,
is what the odious King wrote: "The only unfortunate part of the whole story
is that the Jews having acquired foothold of (sic) Sandy Hill, it will not
be long before this part of Ottawa will become more or less possessed by
them. I should not be surprised if, some time later, Laurier House (the
prime minister's residence) was left as about the only residence not
occupied by Jews in this part of the city."



Mulroney's devastating critique--it gets much worse--was published in last
Monday's edition of Canada's ever more lunatic National Post, a paper which
reads more and more like a right-wing Israeli settlers' house magazine in
its defamatory attacks on the dead Turks of last week's aid convoy to Gaza
and in its grovelling support for Israel's indisciplined army. Many Jews in
the 1930s--even those who survived the Holocaust while still living in Nazi
Germany--opposed the Zionist project for Palestine on the grounds that this
would deprive the Arabs of their land, the one and a half million
Palestinians now living in the prison of Gaza are part of the tragedy they
foresaw. I do not know if Mr Cohen shared their views. It doesn't matter.



What is important is that Mackenzie King--"one of the most delightful men I
have ever met" in the words of Churchill's rash son Randolph--set off, a few
months after his encounter with Mr Cohen, to meet Chancellor Adolf Hitler of
Germany. And here are the reflections of Canada's prime minister on the
Fuhrer who will launch the Second World War scarcely two years later.



"He (Hitler) smiled very pleasantly and indeed had a sort of appealing and
affectionate look in his eyes. My sizing up of the man as I sat and talked
with him was that he is really one who truly loves his fellow man. His face
is much more prepossessing than his pictures would give the impression of.
It is not that of a fiery overstrained nature but of a calm, passive man
deeply and thoughtfully in earnest... His eyes impressed me most of all.
There was a liquid quality about them which indicates keen perception and
profound sympathy. Calm, composed and one could see how particularly humble
folk would have come to have profound love for the man. As I talked with him
I could not but think of Joan of Arc..."



This is not just OUCH! This is "Jesus, Joseph and Mary!" Several times over.
Next day, our Canadian hero was off to see Nazi foreign minister Konstantin
von Neurath. "He admitted that they (the Nazis) had taken some pretty rough
steps in cleaning up the situation... He said to me that I would have
loathed living in Berlin with the Jews, and the way in which they had
increased their numbers in the city, and were taking possession of its more
important part... Many of them were very coarse and vulgar and assertive...
I left him (von Neurath) feeling that I had met a man whose confidence I
would continue to enjoy through the rest of my days... He is, if there ever
was one, a genuinely kind, good man."



Little surprise, then, that when a passenger ship called St Louis--packed
with 700 Jews fleeing Europe, their faces alight with hope before the
cameras as it approached Canada on 17 June 1939--Mackenzie King's government
refused it entry. Canadians protested. So did journalists. And if you look
today at photographs of the ship, you'll see children, husbands and wives
with faces of smiling relief. They were safe. But they were not. They were
sent back to the gas chambers.



There's no doubt why the National Post carried Mulroney's terrible story
last week: to smother our condemnation of Israel's latest brutality. As
usual, we who speak out against the ruthlessness of Israel's army--as, of
course, we do against the Arabs--are anti-Semites. Remember the Holocaust.
Remember Our Guilt. But it was Rick Salutin of the Toronto Globe and Mail
who got it right this week. "It seems to me," he wrote, "that Israel's
leaders have grown mindlessly, habitually dependent on asserting their own
victimisation. This was often effective, based largely on sympathies rooted
in revulsion of the Holocaust and the story of Western anti-Semitism. But
this has gradually changed, due partly to the arrival of generations who, as
it were, knew not Hitler, and aren't inclined to feel even indirectly guilty
for him. The shift became evident during the 2008 Gaza invasion... Yet
Israel's leaders still automatically assume the victim position... Societies
that lose their internal dissent and self-criticism have a sad and scary
record, especially when combined with a sense of victimisation."



I was on a Turkish television show this week and two of the other speakers
were Jews from Israel. But both were outraged at the actions of their own
government. And I wonder, as I write this, whether the doomed Jews on the St
Louis might not agree with us, rather than the cruel regime that has laid
claim to their souls. As for Mackenzie King... Well, he knew how to turn a
boat away.

it will only become more violent

Friends,

While I would like to make something out of the destruction of the OWS library, I do not think it was the intent of the authorities to rid themselves of dangerous literature.  The books were merely part of the possessions of the OWS.  Empires know only one way to handle confrontation.  Smash it.  Destroy it.  Force these protesters to their knees and then beat them and mace them and arrest them. 

What we are witnessing is the smashing of Freedom of Expression. 

To criticize the Empire is to be judged disloyal.  Disloyal people are a threat to the Empire. 

All the talk coming from our nation's capitol can not cover up the fact that war has been declared on the Loyal Opposition.  Trust me, it will only become more violent. 

Curious Carl

 

if I were a rich man...

If I Were a Rich Man...

 

I've never been a member of the Ruling Class(darn), but if I were, I would say anything that came to my mind to put off the silly quacking of the investigative reporters.  Why should I care what the riff raff think?  They are merely jealous.  If they worked as hard as I, they'd be living the good life, too. 

But of course as a Rich Man, I don't even believe that.  We rich folk know that there are certain blood lines that bring forth the people with leadership qualities.  The Lower Life need us to lead and guide them, even though they resent us.  This is why we must keep a strong Army at the ready.  Like mongrel dogs, they must be dealt with a heavy hand from time to time in order to keep them in line. 

And that's what I would believe if I were a member of the Ruling Class. 

 

Curious Carl

----- Original Message -----

From: Claude Everett

To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 7:56 PM

Subject: RE: What Conservatives Really Want

If they agree that the top 5% hold the majority of the wealth in the country
then, how   can they assert that the other 95% have not suffered  and are in
a downward spiral.


Regards,
Claude Everett
Everyone has a disability, some are more aware of it than others.
"beyond what a man's own hands produce" was a gift which came to him simply
by living in society, and hence he owes on every principle of justice, of
gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to
society from whence the whole came."
Thomas Paine
1737 - 1809
English writer and American revolutionary

-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of ted chittenden
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 6:58 PM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: What Conservatives Really Want

I agree with everything in this commentary, but there is a glaring omission.
Conservatives do not believe, as liberals do, that 1% of the population has
95% of the wealth. Point that out to them and they will quote "facts"
showing that wealth has risen in all classes. I have written this before,
and I will write it again: When both sides of an argument disagree on basic
facts, it is hard to see how the argument can be peacefully resolved.

Ted
---- Claude Everett <ceverett@dslextreme.com> wrote:
What Conservatives Really Want
Posted on February 19, 2011 by georgelakoff| 3 Comments -Dedicated to the
peaceful protestors in Wisconsin, February 19, 2011

The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is
the moral basis of American democracy.

The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public
employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting
rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting,
and on and on.
Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the Governor
turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then
used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but
seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement.

Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes,
putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways
the President has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to
conservatives.
Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make
America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of
life.


In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of
American democracy: Empathy - citizens caring for each other, both social
and personal responsibility-acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence.
From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of
government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes
safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with
education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without
a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social
responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That
is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government
they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world),
not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that
fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why?
Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict
father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in
the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the
family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace),
and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when
they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will
children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only
with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who
are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they
cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence
the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence
makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide"
assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural
(since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and
moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be
maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there
should be no power higher than the market that might go against market
values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and
promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1)
regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental
protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government
should not do public service. The market has service industries for that.
Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care,
education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on. The very idea of
these things is at odds with the conservative moral system. No one should be
paying for anyone else. It is individual responsibility in all arenas.
Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and
giving it to people who don't deserve it. Taxation cannot be seen as
providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for
business to prosper.

In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands
should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal
notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God
is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according
to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word.

Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The
country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are
seen as evil. Science should NOT have authority over the market, and so the
science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are
inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or
explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the
devil's own means can be used against conservatism's immoral enemies,
whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's
doctors.

Freedom is defined as being your own strict father - with individual not
social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what
you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of
course need a gun.

This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are
convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with
conservative rule in all areas of life.

What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.

Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and
arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working
within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what
conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in
America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial
assets is un-American - the top one percent has more financial assets than
the bottom 95 percent. Middle class wages have been flat for 30 years, while
the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life,
but not the American way of life.
Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud over and over that it
was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of
regulation and a greed-is-good ethic.

Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called Democratic
Communication Disorder. Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and
effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training
institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media, and
booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on tv are conservatives.
Talk matters because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats
have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively
clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths.

And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks -
talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies.
They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are
deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout.
Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money
for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative
officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the
people who have earned them.

Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like
"entitlements" instead of "earnings" and speak of government as providing
"services" instead of "necessities."

Is there hope?

I see it in Wisconsin, where tens of thousands citizens see through the
conservative frames and are willing to flood the streets of their capital to
stand up for their rights. They understand that democracy is about citizens
uniting to take care of each other, about social responsibility as well as
individual responsibility, and about work - not just for your own profit,
but to help create a civilized society. They appreciate their teachers,
nurses, firemen, police, and other public servants. They are flooding the
streets to demand real democracy - the democracy of caring, of social
responsibility, and of excellence, where prosperity is to be shared by those
who work and those who serve.

Regards,Claude Everett
Everyone has a disability, some are more aware of it than others.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our
freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
February 12, 1809-April 15, 1865

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

twisting the facts to suit our beliefs

Because religion is Faith Based, and because religion has been a major player in our civilization, we are pretty much locked into religion's influence. 

When I was a Christian, I picked my "facts" to support my Christian Beliefs.  And guess what?  As an Agnostic, I select my facts to support my beliefs. 

But as an Agnostic, I am not so driven to prove my beliefs.  Changing my mind is not going to threaten my entry into Heaven.  Any religion has as a basic premise the knowledge that it is the True Pathway to Life Eternal.  Any deviation could cost you your immortality. 

And so you must twist facts to fit your particular religion.  And you must defend it against all Heretics and Infidels. 

I must admit that I do not know what causes some Atheists to get so bull headed.  They're not going anywhere after this life.  But us Agnostics are mostly a laid back bunch of easy going folk(and good looking, too). 

Let the facts prove themselves.  We don't need to twist them, just watch them and learn. 

How does a religious person learn anything new?  They are so busy trying to prove an un-provable, that they shut out any hope of new experiences. 

 

Curious Carl

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: ted chittenden

To: Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 7:45 PM

Subject: Re: What Conservatives Really Want

Miriam,
If I am understanding your question correctly, the answer is "No". In fact, I think that the use of different "facts" by conservatives, whether knowingly or not, is designed to make the argument insoluble.

And I'll add a third point made very clear in the Chris Hedges commentary: many people now believe that truth is based upon on how they feel about any given subject, no matter what the factual information may be. And I am afraid that some religions, particularly those that rely upon spiritual witness for information, are leading people down the road of believing more in what they feel than in on-the-ground facts.

Ted
---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
Are those two assertions mutually exclusive?
Miriam
----- Original Message -----
From: "ted chittenden" <tchittenden@cox.net>
To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: What Conservatives Really Want


I agree with everything in this commentary, but there is a glaring omission.
Conservatives do not believe, as liberals do, that 1% of the population has
95% of the wealth. Point that out to them and they will quote "facts"
showing that wealth has risen in all classes. I have written this before,
and I will write it again: When both sides of an argument disagree on basic
facts, it is hard to see how the argument can be peacefully resolved.

Ted
---- Claude Everett <ceverett@dslextreme.com> wrote:
What Conservatives Really Want
Posted on February 19, 2011 by georgelakoff| 3 Comments
-Dedicated to the peaceful protestors in Wisconsin, February 19, 2011

The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is
the moral basis of American democracy.

The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public
employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting
rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting,
and on and on.
Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the Governor
turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then
used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but
seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement.

Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes,
putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways
the President has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to
conservatives.
Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make
America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of
life.


In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of
American democracy: Empathy - citizens caring for each other, both social
and personal responsibility-acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence.
From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of
government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes
safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with
education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without
a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social
responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That
is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government
they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world),
not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that
fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why?
Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict
father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in
the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the
family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace),
and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when
they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will
children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only
with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who
are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they
cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence
the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence
makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide"
assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural
(since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and
moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be
maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there
should be no power higher than the market that might go against market
values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and
promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1)
regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental
protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government
should not do public service. The market has service industries for that.
Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care,
education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on. The very idea of
these things is at odds with the conservative moral system. No one should be
paying for anyone else. It is individual responsibility in all arenas.
Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and
giving it to people who don't deserve it. Taxation cannot be seen as
providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for
business to prosper.

In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands
should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal
notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God
is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according
to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word.

Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The
country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are
seen as evil. Science should NOT have authority over the market, and so the
science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are
inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or
explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the
devil's own means can be used against conservatism's immoral enemies,
whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's
doctors.

Freedom is defined as being your own strict father - with individual not
social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what
you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of
course need a gun.

This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are
convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with
conservative rule in all areas of life.

What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.

Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and
arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working
within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what
conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in
America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial
assets is un-American - the top one percent has more financial assets than
the bottom 95 percent. Middle class wages have been flat for 30 years, while
the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life,
but not the American way of life.
Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud over and over that it
was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of
regulation and a greed-is-good ethic.

Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called Democratic
Communication Disorder. Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and
effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training
institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media, and
booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on tv are conservatives.
Talk matters because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats
have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively
clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths.

And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks -
talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies.
They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are
deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout.
Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money
for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative
officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the
people who have earned them.

Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like
"entitlements" instead of "earnings" and speak of government as providing
"services" instead of "necessities."

Is there hope?

I see it in Wisconsin, where tens of thousands citizens see through the
conservative frames and are willing to flood the streets of their capital to
stand up for their rights. They understand that democracy is about citizens
uniting to take care of each other, about social responsibility as well as
individual responsibility, and about work - not just for your own profit,
but to help create a civilized society. They appreciate their teachers,
nurses, firemen, police, and other public servants. They are flooding the
streets to demand real democracy - the democracy of caring, of social
responsibility, and of excellence, where prosperity is to be shared by those
who work and those who serve.

Regards,Claude Everett
Everyone has a disability, some are more aware of it than others.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our
freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
February 12, 1809-April 15, 1865

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

Newt Gingrich on Campaigning

Subject: Re: Newt Gingrich on Campaigning

The Bible teaches us that we will know them by their works. 

Leroy "Newt" Gingrich has left a broad trail of works behind himself.  Are his current mouthing's any different than his wife hopping?  Just an opportunist looking for a new bed partner. 

Newt will say whatever he needs to say in order to get his hand in a new pair of panties. 

Curious Carl

Is Newt Gingrich About to Gamble on His History? - TalkLeft: The ...

Sep 24, 2007 ... Gingrich asked Marianne for the divorce by phoning her on Mother's Day, 1999. [
Source: New York Post, July 18, 2000, Newt's Ex Wife Aiming ...

www.talkleft.com/story/2007/9/24/19310/8747 - Cached - Similar

Cheating On Your Sick Wife An Old Political Tradition

Jul 23, 2008 ... And also, wouldn't you know it, Villaraigosa's wife Corina was ... Newt Gingrich
has garnered even less sympathy for his treatment of Jackie Battley ... of affairs
and insisted on working out his divorce from Battley while she was ...

gawker.com/.../cheating-on-your-sick-wife-an-old-political-tradition - Cached - Similar

Newt Gingrich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spouse(s), Jackie Battley (1962–1981) ... Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich ( play
...... In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from second wife ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich - Cached - Similar

11 11 11

Subject: 11 11 11

Is 11 11 11 a magical date?  Probably about as magical as 6 6 6, but we do tend to hang our superstitions on times and dates. 

If my feeble figuring abilities are correct, next year 12 12 12 will be the last of its kind until the year 2101.  I doubt anyone on this list will be around. 

But our keeping of dates does mark that time when a young man roamed the Earth...or what was known of the Earth at the time. 

Whether you believe, as I do, that Jesus was a mere mortal man or whether you believe him to be the son of God, we can probably agree on one thing.  Jesus stood on his convictions.  He never waivered, even as they nailed him to the cross. 

He could have paid lip service to the Establishment, as many of us do, and gone about organizing his movement in back rooms and in the dark of night. 

But he chose to face the Greedy Empire and attempt to teach them of the error of their ways. 

I got to thinking about this.  Isn't this the thing we admire in others the most?  The people who stand their ground against all odds. 

I wonder what sort of world it would be if we all were able to follow the example Jesus set? 

When I attended church, we sang wonderful songs about, "Jesus is the sweetest name I know", but not many songs about this young, brave man who stood his ground against the mightiest Empire that ever existed.  No songs about, "Jesus thumbed His nose at Caesar". 

Anyway, I tip my hat to the brave young men and women who right now are standing in public squares and on street corners, thumbing their noses. 

In that sense, Jesus really does live. 

 

Curious Carl

 

Reassess

For so many years we have labored to change the system in order that the Working Class and Middle Class might enjoy a measure of prosperity.  For a time it appeared that we were on the road to achieving our American Dream; a house, a job and a family.  But it is sort of like that fellow pushing the rock up the hill.  Every time we get close, down we go again.  Now we are rolling backward, even as many of our people begin to stir and demand a better way of life.  But too many of us are merely trying to "level the playing field". 

It is time that we face the fact that our long established system is broke.  It will always favor the powerful and the Greedy. 

World-wide we need a new system.  "Leveling" the playing field will only be a temporary fix.  And we will have wasted all of our energies only to have to do it over and over again. 

Think about this system we are held captive to.  It is built on the ability of one person to take possession of property.  If that person is strong or cunning enough, he/she can take possession of property that someone else thinks they own. 

This entire system is corrupt.  As long as we base our success in life on the possessions we gather, we will have wars, hatred, envy, and Greed. 

 

Curious Carl

Assertiveness

Darla,

Regarding your post. 

How did I get where I am.  We are talking about how I became self reliant. 

I did two things.  first, being dissatisfied with the person looking back at me from my mental mirror, I began building a mental picture of who I wanted to be.  That image was not well defined at first, but it did point me to the direction I wanted to go. 

Secondly, I began picking my mentors.  I was fortunate to have my dad as my number one mentor.  But I also picked people I did not personally know.  Paul Robeson was one man who stood tall in my Mentor Book.  A fellow named Al Fisher was a man I worked closely with during my early days in the Blind Movement.  Al was sighted, and he never played a visible role as one of our leaders, but he was a leader...a visionary...and I learned so much from him.  Howard Zinn came later, as did Michael Moore.  But you get the idea.  I picked the people who had characteristics that I felt would fit my mental image of whom I wanted to be. 

I actually used to project an image of what I would look like, how I would carry myself, in my mind. 

Of course it is a process in work.  Never ending.  Always reaching for some new change in who I am. 

But I have moved so far from the shy, uncertain victim that used to stare out at me, that it is hard to believe I was ever so easily manipulated. 

 

Curious Carl

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Darla J. Rogers

To: Carl Jarvis ; acb-l@acb.org

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:46 PM

Subject: Re: [acb-l] Assertiveness

Dear Carl,

 

How did you get to that point?  Maybe assertiveness training isn't what is needed but what then?

 

Or are most of our positions about what is needed valid?

 

Darla

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Carl Jarvis

To: Darla J. Rogers ; acb-l@acb.org

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 7:37 PM

Subject: Re: [acb-l] Assertiveness

Darla,

Over my career in rehab, I have seen many attempts by some very professional folks to teach blind clients to be assertive.  But this is not a stand alone class.  How do we teach assertiveness to someone when we have to keep pulling his face up out of the mire in order to get his attention? 

I could get into a real tirade on this subject, except my soap box is being over hauled. 

Suffice it to say, once I learned to stand on my own two feet and to trust and believe in Carl, and to take charge of my life and refuse to be a victim, at that point I really didn't need a class on assertiveness.  I was too busy living life. 

 

Carl Jarvis

----- Original Message -----

From: Darla J. Rogers

To: acb-l@acb.org

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:28 PM

Subject: [acb-l] Assertiveness

Dear List,

 

Do you believe the ability to be assertive is a pretty major part in gaining or retaining employment?  If so, who should make sure people have this ability, to the best of their ability.

 

Darla

 

Darla J. Rogers
Gladstone, MO

 

djrogers0628@gmail.com

 

 

---

_______________________________________________
acb-l mailing list
acb-l@acb.org
http://www.acb.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l

 

Darla, I'm not certain what you are asking when you say, "Or are most of our positions about what is needed valid?" 

But that never stopped me from babbling. 

Here's what I've been attempting to get at.  Assertiveness in and of itself is worthless unless we know who we are and what our Life's Goals are. 

If I do not have an understanding of me, and where I am in the scheme of things, and where I would like to see me be, then assertiveness is worthless. 

For example, you might put your hand on my arm in order to warn me not to take the next step that will result in my going over the 500 foot cliff.  I can assert myself by yanking my arm away and stepping forward just to show you that I am independent.  Oops! 

I recall standing in line at a registration desk at a hotel.  The person in front of me was also blind.  The clerk said, "You'll need to wait until we have a room on the ground floor ready for you." 

The blind person went ballistic, shouting that just because they were blind was no reason to put them on the ground floor.  The clerk responded as you might expect.  She raised her voice to match the blind person's, telling him that if he didn't calm down she would call the manager.  He did not calm down and she did call out the manager, all the time I was standing there waiting my turn to register. 

The manager, in true manager fashion, calmed the situation down by apologizing to the blind person and offering him a different room on any floor he wished.  He claimed that the understanding was that the blind people in this particular conference would find it more convenient for going to and from the meetings, if they were on the ground level. 

 

Later I overheard this blind man telling a group of folks how he'd "put them in their place". 

I often wonder what this fellow saw, if, and when, he looked into his mental mirror. 

I am almost certain what the clerk and other hotel staff saw. 

I wish I could say that before I assert myself, I always look into my mental mirror to check just what it is I'm trying to achieve.  But I would be schmoozing you. 

Many times I "assert" myself, only to find out that what I really did was to shove my big foot into my mouth. 

But I always go back and see just what I can learn from the situation. 

Carl Jarvis

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Darla J. Rogers

To: Carl Jarvis ; acb-l@acb.org

Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:46 PM

Subject: Re: [acb-l] Assertiveness

Dear Carl,

 

How did you get to that point?  Maybe assertiveness training isn't what is needed but what then?

 

Or are most of our positions about what is needed valid?

 

Darla

 

Police Force Wall Street Protesters Off Sidewalks

I pledge obedience to the Flag

 

Of the invincible corporate America 

 

And to the power for which it stands. 

 

One Empire, indestructible,

 

With total control over all. 

 

 

For a few crumbs off the Master's table, the sons and daughters of working men and woman take up bully clubs and pepper spray and tear gas, turning on their brothers and sisters, doing the will of the Overseer. 

And before the People can deal with the Masters, they must first drive back their own. 

 

But if they succeed, and this they must do, they will discover that the rich and powerful are not powerful at all.  Just rich. 

When they no longer have anyone left to fight for them, they will fade away. 

Like bullies down through the ages, they do not have the belly to fight their own battles. 

 

Curious Carl