posted August 17, 2009 06:56 PM         

Interesting to me is that since I sobered up, I pretty much forgot about the band. I'd recall them for a short while when I'd see a CD of theirs for sale or someone mentioned them, but quickly forget them again. But even sober I love them, it's just I don't seem to remember them because I never got used to hearing them while sober.

But anyway, if you hadn't heard of them, I thought you'd like to. And a video for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urmKhAulBqM

posted August 17, 2009 08:42 PM         

resist not evil
turn the other cheek

WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET

oh and sorry, that was MY generation. you seem to be under the same delusion i was at the time, that older people have forgotten everything they did when they were younger. or perhaps you believe that phrase "if you can remember the 60's you weren't there"

t'ain necessarily so.

posted August 17, 2009 10:54 PM         

Are you still throwing this tantrum?
That's right, kat, I know everything.
Anyone who thinks they know anything
must think they know everything.
Brilliant conclusion, as usual.
Way to transmute the negativity.

It's not really about the 60's, is it Kat?
This one here may be after your time,
but I think the theme is eternal:

"What's so funny about peace,
love and understanding?"

Don't you?

Hey, isn't that thing in alberta what Yin responded to?

Doesnt it cost more than a thousand dollars?
Yeah, I dont have that, but thanks.
Maybe I'll write him a letter.

posted August 18, 2009 02:10 AM         

Valus, why do you determine those assets are not theirs? And why are assets of the less rich theirs?

The thing is your proposition does not make alot of sense to me. Speaking on terms of equality, nothing, no assets are really ours. We just acquire them.

The laws of the material universe are pretty twisted, as you have pointed out. Money, is only part of the equation. Why so partial against billionaires? Their assets are as much theirs as a TV set is to a middle income family.

Same as, if there are lots of orphans in the orphanages, would you say each family should adopt a child?

It does not make sense to make someone give up their assets, because they may not want to, and secondly, with money (and the laws of the material universe), they can do alot to protect their own rights to their assets.

Your ideals are freedom to match the bare necessities of all. But yet the real laissez faire economy does not work this way.. and you can't argue against true human nature.
You can't even say the billionaire lottery winners should part with their cash because they are entitled to it by name. It is up to them what they wish to do with their cash, but you cannot force them to part with it, as they probably got it by legal means.

posted August 18, 2009 03:26 AM         

Regardless of whether or not anyone is listening, I have to sing my song. Others may change, or they may stay the same, but I'll tell it like I see it, every time. Call it political activism or just call it what I have to say about that. As I see it, I'm not being political, controversial, idealistic, or whatever. I'm just being myself. And just because a billionaire isn't gonna give up his billions doesn't mean I shouldnt bother to express my opinion that he's an irresponsible oportunist. My views may be ahead of their time, or just out of place, but it doesnt mean I'm trying to be political. Everywhere I look, I see how things could change, but that doesnt mean I have to put everything I see into action. I'm just talking here. Can't a guy talk?

posted August 18, 2009 04:45 AM         

And, super rich keep the economy going. Only if there are sufficient investors can a place bloom, and people there can have higher living standards. They do alot for society, that's why they are rewarded with the billions.

If you talk about super rich celebrities, the money is paymen for the gossip, scandals, lack of privacy etc they have to withstand. Actually, super rich people become super rich because they are supported, especially those in the limelight.

They are not automatically b@stards by virtue of their being super rich - that is a personal reaction of yours towards them.

Legality does not mean morality, you are right, but then that is the fault of the legal system, not the super rich.

You may not know what goes on behind the scenes of the super rich; usually I believe they deserve their fortune because through them, the economy and science probably benefited in some great way - else how do they get their billions?

Also, alot of billionaires are self-made, that means they grew from rags to riches. And they're usually businessmen. They take loads of risks and hard work, and with their smarts, they make it to super rich status, why not?

Also, alot of them donate to charity, which you may not be aware. But they cannot save the world; alot of charities, as you may know, siphon the money and only less than 50% go to the actually beneficiaries.

I dont think it is the billionaires' fault for skewing the poverty - richness graph... it is the glitches and loopholes in the system caused largely by human nature's greed as well as the auto functioning of the free market economy.

posted August 18, 2009 06:07 AM         

my only point is this, EVERYONE should do thier part to help suffering humanity. not just the super rich.

i think people who do mean things to other people should be ASHAMED, but to be ashamed because you have wealth? actors in particular...are only worth what someone is willing to pay them, ask any actor that isn't working, what they think they are worth now.

even when manifesting, you have to understand, currancy is not recognised, why? because it is not a thing, it is just a man made system to assess and create value.

i really really like what you wrote about thehole in aura thing, that was good if not exceptional poetry.

i understand what you are saying and how you feel to a point, but if you make a best sellers list someday, who will or should say, he didn't do a dam thing, he should be ashamed making so much money, of course you shouln't be ashamed, i will celebrate that day with you and raise my glass to a toast and say, HE DID IT! he did it. good for him.
but i will never say he should be ashamed for being very sucessful or rich. i dont set the monetary value and if you do really well, i will be happy for you.

so, you dont think everyone has a part to play to ease the suffering of humanity? that is all i am saying. well, i am also saying no one should be ASHAMED because of what someone else decides thier value is and pays them accordingly, no more than i am ashamed of what i have or dont have. we all have our part to play.

thw dollar amount is not significant to what i see someone is worth. my second husband had more money than sense, his money or possessions in my book did not give him a leg up on being a decent person and i would rather spend my life with a man whose wealth is on the inside, where i consider mine is. in fact, i said when we split, i dont want your things, it doesnt matter to me, what i have on the inside you will never own, no matter how hard you look for something real, it is only inside of you. i can aquire another tv, sofa, boat, whatever. and so i left thinking he was quite poor.

i still love you. i just dont think money defines worth, and having some or not excuses anyone from doing the right thing.

posted August 18, 2009 11:27 AM         

it appears that they will be getting information about how to do business in a more compassionate way, illustrating my point that a "spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down" much better than judgment and anger.

i wasn't suggesting you buy a ticket! lol, if you wait around till you have that kind of money it will be a very long time! i was saying you can use that as an excuse not to go, and blame the rich for it too, but ITS NOT ABOUT MONEY really at all. its about what people do with it. those who OVERvalue money and see themselves as unable to get it tend to resent those that have more than their "fair share". they also tend not to be very good at "enlightening" those whom they consider nasty and selfish.

i may have been here in the 60's but i have also been here since. there is no "after my time" since i am still very much alive. you're also right, its not about the 60s at all, but peace and love ARE never out of date.

i didn't put my two cents in to tear you down, love, but you took it as an opportunity to put me down. very loving and spiritual you are.

posted August 18, 2009 12:48 PM         

And so has everybody else on this thread.

I see a lot of bruised egos and hurt feeling here and it's really painful to watch.
It looks like all of you have similar if not the same values and ideals... but you all express them differently.

This is what happens with the written word - you can't un-write it so people fall in the trap of defending words that were a reflection of an idea or a feeling that has now changed or is changing.
It's like trying to freeze that proverbial river and not only go into it twice but also define it, box it up, label it and explain it.
One can never win. 70% of communication is non-verbal.

It would be fabulous if everybody just got along. (NN in Libra here) Oh, well...

I just wanted to address one thing - that Engage Today event.

$2000* to see how the "world geniuses" intend to change the world?

quote:

---

The whole goal of the conference is to bring together world geniuses under one roof to create a catalyst for economic, social, and environmental change.

---

It is a really big amount of money - unjustifiably so IMO.

posted August 18, 2009 12:57 PM         

anyway as i said above i don't think it's really aimed at the poverty line audience, but at business people who CAN afford the ticket and make something of the information.

you're sweet, yin. and smart to see that there really was no argument. speaking only for myself i don't feel any bruises, but i feel it is counterproductive of valus to attack people who might want to add a little colour to his black and white view.

posted August 18, 2009 01:07 PM         

quote:

---

Why is everyone trying to "set Valus straight"?

---

It's interesting because I often wonder why Valus is constantly trying to set everyone else straight. On money, veganism, spiritual matters etc, etc.

posted August 18, 2009 05:44 PM         

Should I go on down to Alberta
and crash the party in an attempt
to set people straight...

Would that be less pushy than
voicing my opinion in this thread?

lol

This is all pretty funny,
when you think about it.

First, I have an opinion, -- second, I voice an opinion in no uncertain terms, -- third, I'm subjected to all kinds of judgements about ego, my unconscious frustrations, my hidden agendas, inadequacies, resentments, etc. lol... Slow down!!!

I've apologized for the name-calling. Not for nothing, but, I'm the only one who did. Nevertheless, people will continue to remember and reiterate those insults, and to ignore my apologies for them, -- just as they will overlook the numerous insults directed at me, and the fact that nobody else has apologized or taken any responsibility for getting personal. So be it. It's funny.

cpn,

quote:

---

anybody is only worth what someone else is willing to pay them... I just dont think money defines worth

---

posted August 18, 2009 05:54 PM         

I'm not interested in blaming anyone. I really have no desire to know who started it. The point is that we are adults and we all share the responsibility. Moreover, as you've heard, "with great power, comes great responsibility". If you have billions of dollars, and you know that this money can save thousands of lives, you have a responsibility to use that money for saving lives, not building dreamhouses in the Hamptons. It doesnt matter how it started, or how it will end. What matters is what you do with what you have. There are reputable charities out there and they are not difficult to find. No offense, but the rest of your objections are equally negligible. They're all minor considerations which would not prevent a socially conscious billionaire from shedding his billions and saving lives.

posted August 19, 2009 04:57 AM         

quote:

---

I apologize for the pea-brain comments, to you and to others. Peace to you.

---

Then I said:

quote:

---

Valus babe, you can't be calling people morons and peabrains. They don't be liking it. Then your thread becomes about you calling people peabrains and morons, not about the discussion at hand which is a shame.
Capiche?

---

Then you said:

quote:

---

I've apologized for the name-calling. Not for nothing, but, I'm the only one who did. Nevertheless, people will continue to remember and reiterate those insults, and to ignore my apologies for them

---

Whoops. You're quite right. You did apologise and for that you have my apologies. I didn't read it over properly.

posted August 19, 2009 11:06 AM         

quote:

---

you have a responsibility to use that money for saving lives, not building dreamhouses in the Hamptons.

---

No offense, as well Valus, I know you mean well, but I take the other side of the argument sometimes.
Building dream houses, again, as mentioned, helps economies to grow, etc. The curve of poverty is always skewed, but to think that the billionaires don't do their part may be a fallacy..

You may think that they just sit on their butt and enjoy a midas-filled life, but I would think it far from the truth.

Take for instance a world class resort - if there are no billionaires to visit or invest, that sector would not grow, and open up jobs for that area. in essence, I think it is necessary to have the super rich people because they tend not to hold on to their funds and instead, spend them. They are the shifters, and the keep the monetary economy going. Just like they say, consumers should spend, and not hoard their money.

I am not taking the side of billionaires, but I think they are necessary.

quote:

---

They're all minor considerations which would not prevent a socially conscious billionaire from shedding his billions and saving lives.

---

They do shed their billions, but probably gain them back. I think it's a flowing cash, not a stagnant one.... and when it flows, they do have the potential to benefit the world in a big way. For instance, Microsoft, etc etc.

Shifting funds from the billionaires to the poor is a one off solution that will deplete again after a while.

posted August 19, 2009 11:47 AM         

I'm not arguing against using the money for the sake of the corporation, to the extent that it is ethical. Microsoft is great. My issue is with the routing of that money -- or any more than ten million per individual -- into channels for personal use. If that money were donated, I'm sure it would provide (noble) work, but, more importantly, it would provide food and water. I dont see it as a one-off. If they can continue to build swimming pools, summer houses, indoor movie theaters, jet planes and runways, then why can't they continue to make donations? You say that it will deplete, but I dont understand your reasons for this. I think of the poor as the roots of civilization. If you water the roots, it feeds the fruit. Yes, the roots will need to be watered again, but that is natural. And it is not a problem, unless the fruit (the rich) intend on sucking the whole tree dry. Its like if I tell you to eat healthy and exercise, and you say, "That's a one-off. I'll just have to eat healthy and exercise again tomorrow, if I want to maintain the benefits." Well.. yes. I'm not suggesting a one time only charitable donation on impulse. I'm suggesting a lifestyle change. And it will pay off. It will begin to pay off overnight -- in saving lives -- but it will continue to pay off only if it is continually practiced. Like healthy eating and excercise.

quote:

---

Also, contrary to popular belief, alot of super rich live by very modest means, as in they do not use the money on luxury.

---

Thats a contradiction in terms. If they are "super rich", according to my definition, then they have private capital in excess of ten million dollars. That means, in addition to whatever they contribute to social and charitable institutions, they are retaining more than ten million for their personal use. It is impossible to live "by very modest means" and still appropriate more than ten million dollars for personal use. If you are living modestly, you are not super rich. Unless the money is just sitting in a vault somewhere, in which case, it is going to waste, just as it would be if it were invested in a private jet or summer home.

posted August 19, 2009 12:37 PM         

I don't play devil's advocate for fun. I just feel that you cannot shame them into parting with their cash, it does not work that way.

" Unless the money is just sitting in a vault somewhere, in which case, it is going to waste"

Yes, it is going to waste, just as the money of the less rich are going to waste growing in banks, and being invested.

There are alot of things going to waste in the world. As people use air conditioning, or watch TV for their personal enjoyment, they are also wasting cash that could go into poverty lines.

I just don't agree with your statement that super rich should be ashamed of themselves. They actually worked hard to get where they are and are anything but ashamed..

" My issue is with the routing of that money -- or any more than ten million per individual -- into channels for personal use. If that money were donated, I'm sure it would provide (noble) work, but, more importantly, it would provide food and water."

Firstly, why do you put a cap onto how much a person has before they should donate? Secondly, although I agree with you they should, but they are still entitled to whether they actually want to.

" If you water the roots, it feeds the fruit. Yes, the roots will need to be watered again, but that is natural. And it is not a problem, unless the fruit (the rich) intend on sucking the whole tree dry."

you are making the rich and the poor different. speaking in spiritual terms, they are the same. So why one the root and one the fruit? it brings to mind that the poor (root) actually work hard to support the rich (fruit), when actually both are working for ther own means, and not for the subsistence of the other (free market). It is, also, I feel a fallacy that the rich suck the poor dry. In broad terms, it may seem so, but the rich were once poor, or vice versa. but to put the responsibility of the poor upon the rich is a tall order, because ideally, one works for themselves.

I would even go insofar to say that richness/ poorness is a choice. People choose the way they live. Of course, not for those born with fewer opportunities - that is the fault of the system they live wihin, and not the rich among them. For instance, you choose the way you live - the house, the clothes on your back. Your lifestyle and your job. You actually choose to be poor or be rich. Those who are rich have long set their goals to do so. It does not happen by chance.

You are saying that the super rich should be forced to donate.. I have no problem with what you say, except the part where you insist they should transfer their funds. Also, as was mentioned before, how do you know they don't actually donate anything? What you see the summer houses, etc, are mostly the socialites in the paparazzi.. they are shallow to begin with. Or, the royals who are entitled by virtue of birth. The thing is there are many systems of governance, and this even traverses countries. So, if lets say a billionaire agrees to transfer their funds, they still need to get over the governmental legislations of their countries, etc.

It is easy to say, just transfer them over, but it is complicated when it comes down to it.

posted August 19, 2009 06:53 PM         

I admire your interest in the brass tacks, but its not my job to walk us through the nuts and bolts of how this could be done. I expect to find red tape lining the roads and tied to the lampposts around every corner. But what I don't expect to find is a lack of worthwhile places to put the money. Schools need books, and teachers, and ceilings. Food, medicine, infrastucture,... These are not bad places to start, and I see no reason to expect them to cause real problems. The kinks will be worked out along the way, by the kinky people who specialize in this or that brand of kink. That's how it works. If you're asking me to write you up an elaborate economic blueprint of how we're gonna get this sudden and unrelenting, or else inconsistent, influx of billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars (which would never come in all at once, anyway) into the third-world communities and slums where it is needed, taking into account the myriad of ways it may be used, and the thousands of obstacles/opportunities that will arise along the way.... If you are asking me to do all that, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. While I would encourage anyone who thinks they might be able to do all that, or to organize a group of specialists who could do all that, to try their best, I would rather encourage you to support this idea on faith and principle; because it is possible, beautiful, and right. Because, when it works, lives are saved, and lives are the most precious resources we have. By all means, focus on the nuts and bolts, but not to the point of diversion; we don't want to miss the forest for the trees; or be turned aside by every stone along the path, before we've even begun to set out. Besides, it may be true what they say: that when you commit to something fully, the universe speeds your way.

posted August 19, 2009 07:26 PM         

I agree that wealth is a choice, to some extent, though many people struggle all their lives just to support a small family, while many others are blessed with talent, luck, intelligence, connections, etc. But the issue here is that, just because a person chooses not to spend their life in pursuit of money, power, and ease, does not mean they should not be able to live decently.

Let's face it, in most walks of life, the ability to advance in one's profession requires a certain single-mindedness of purpose which, while it may be conducive to success in one's career, suggests a very narrow conception of values. Think about it. One man advances over another -- why? Because he is the better man? Of course not. More committed to humanity? Don't make me laugh. More intelligent or capable? Not likely. The reason he advances is simple. He has no social life (no intimate relationship, no real friends, no family life), no intellectual life, no aesthetic life, no spiritual life, etc. He is parsed down to the narrowest form of existence, like a rat in a maze. Nothing can distract him from his choice; to succeed in business at any cost, thereby filling his own pockets - the end. Will he allow ethical considerations to sway his judgements? Not if he wants to keep his job, and certainly not if he wants to get promoted. In fact, it would appear that, on average, the ones who rise quickest and highest in this sphere of life are very likely to be the most narrow-minded, narrow-souled, and narrow-hearted people in society. It is their total lack of interests external to the corporation which suits them for positions of the highest "responsibility". With multi-billion-dollar corporations at their disposal, they're playing king of the mountain, -- which they refer to as "staying competitive". They have no ceiling.. they just grow and grow and grow, swallowing up more modest companies and everything else that lies in their path. They lay people off, relocate overseas, and find cheap labor. They lobby corrupt politicians, using their leverage to plunder and devastate environmental and human resources. They put cheaper ingredients in everything, and even go so far as to poison us, for the sake of a buck. This is the choice they've made.

Meanwhile, the people who choose to read classic literature, spend time with their families, and explore their innerspace -- to have ethics and interests beyond the corporation's; to have soul; to have souls, -- these people are at the mercy of the narrow b@stards at the top, whose only interest is in making money, and who see the middle and lower classes only as resources to be exploited for their own insatiable, personal gain.

Does that seem fair to you?
Does it seem necessary?

posted August 31, 2009 03:01 PM         

Harpyr, wherever you are, know that I am thinking of you, Earth Goddess!