you're preaching to the choir here, i've campaigned independently for nader
for the past six months. how does he do it? everyone i talk with admits nader
represents their views, but they then go on to slap themselves with the
statement that the country just isn't ready for it.
nonetheless lets entertain the cells...
On Thursday 14 October 2004 11:29 am, patachon wrote:
> Wonder, Haruki...are Kerry or Bush really better when "defining
> meaningfully" the future of the .Us?
.us is defined by mapmakers/ or perhaps by large corporations not the
president, at least not now. people watch tv, no need for govt to watch the
people. so there's some wasted money.
so the president is elected and he says to merriam-websters... "here's the new
definition of the .Us"...
the US will always be the country that was founded on genocide, greed, money,
etc. Just like every other country. We just do it better/worse.
the presidential election is merely a spectacle, and with our bifocals on.
zonk.
>
> aren´t natural events (by instance) causing progressively so much trouble
> around , from a while, a visible deconstruction of our pseudo modern world
> centering our silly minds on $$$ ,greed ,physical comfort and material
> possession or control of what the masses are tought to blindly buy and
> consume (SUv, plastics, cellphones, a.s.o.?) ?
everybody secretly hates existence, most are passive aggressive about it. this
is a prison universe anyway.
still things could be better on the grounds. houses are prisons, these things
could change.
"that which has been built, can be destroyed"
so there is hope.
and hope's a bitch. and he makes it worth living. the carrot dangling in front
of you.
>
> At least third political party guys are changing the equilibrium of the
> fine tuned "clockwork arrangment" (NOT -YET- ORANGE ?) and trying to allow
> other un-established voices to be present in some public arena.
>
third party political guys are part of the finetuned orange that is life over
here in dot you ess. the media is a puppet, controlled by puppets, they've
got puppets who in turn control those puppets.... and THEY buy and sell
anyone, even Bill Gates... hahaha
> I still wonder why the .Us is still the only country (democratic...) using
> and admitting the "grand electeurs" electoral showcase,including
> conventions, well controlled "public" debates, money overspending like in a
> Barnum and Bailey's rock and roll horror show ,a.s.o., to elect their big
> leader .
>
why wonder why? here's the answer: the majority of the american populace is
stupid..
> I'm not authorized to comment much more on such, but consider such
> reminiscence of old autocratic political systems was justified when the
> -Us was a young country with relatively few educated people around, but now
> a "not so" presidential autocracy could be welcome.
>
.us has ALWAYS been a plutocratic institution. this will most likely never
change.
> The multiparty system (like in Belgium,GB, or Israel) obliges the leader of
> the executive to compromise in the legislative chambers to attain his seat
> (and become the president or first minister) , therefore a better
> representativity of minorities, even apostols of deconstructivism or any
> un-established philosophy or political idea can be presented to voters, and
> later disdained, forgotten , or eventually proclaimed as a victory for
> all the society showing then an established maturity in the process. The
> .Us political system seems, from outside, still a little immature. Indecise
> or non attributable .Us voters probably would love to have an option of
> choosing between more than two big chunks of the same system, but such
> option will never be authorized by the same politicial clique, to avoid
> others guys from those third parties to access power.
>
I'm an anarchist, so these systems seems overtly lame, to me.
> Who created or manages the electoral debates commission, btw? The
> legislative power ? I wonder if it should include neutral or third parties
> members, apart from " the Elephant men" or "monkeydonkeys", like Nader
> green guys ?
>
the debate commission is managed by dual corporate powers, dnc & rnc. the best
buddies of the twentyfirst century american mindcontrol game. they in turn
are owned by other, lager, multinational conglomerates.
> :-)
> :-)
>
> (Just a brick for a positive, constructivist tought...)
>
a brick through the window of the world. which nobody cares about anyway.
> Patrick
>
>
~haruki
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "haruki" <mujyo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject: Re: The Meaninglessness of Meaning. Jacques Derrida.
>
> > That photo was mislabeled, it was actually a shot of Ralph Nader.
> >
> > On Tuesday 12 October 2004 05:49 pm, Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
> > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005745
> > >
> > > ".. . .What is deconstruction? Mr. Derrida would never say. It
> > > was a question certain to spark his contempt and ire. He denied that
> > > deconstruction could be meaningfully defined. I think he was right
> > > about that, though not necessarily for the reasons he believed. . ."
>
> --
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
for the past six months. how does he do it? everyone i talk with admits nader
represents their views, but they then go on to slap themselves with the
statement that the country just isn't ready for it.
nonetheless lets entertain the cells...
On Thursday 14 October 2004 11:29 am, patachon wrote:
> Wonder, Haruki...are Kerry or Bush really better when "defining
> meaningfully" the future of the .Us?
.us is defined by mapmakers/ or perhaps by large corporations not the
president, at least not now. people watch tv, no need for govt to watch the
people. so there's some wasted money.
so the president is elected and he says to merriam-websters... "here's the new
definition of the .Us"...
the US will always be the country that was founded on genocide, greed, money,
etc. Just like every other country. We just do it better/worse.
the presidential election is merely a spectacle, and with our bifocals on.
zonk.
>
> aren´t natural events (by instance) causing progressively so much trouble
> around , from a while, a visible deconstruction of our pseudo modern world
> centering our silly minds on $$$ ,greed ,physical comfort and material
> possession or control of what the masses are tought to blindly buy and
> consume (SUv, plastics, cellphones, a.s.o.?) ?
everybody secretly hates existence, most are passive aggressive about it. this
is a prison universe anyway.
still things could be better on the grounds. houses are prisons, these things
could change.
"that which has been built, can be destroyed"
so there is hope.
and hope's a bitch. and he makes it worth living. the carrot dangling in front
of you.
>
> At least third political party guys are changing the equilibrium of the
> fine tuned "clockwork arrangment" (NOT -YET- ORANGE ?) and trying to allow
> other un-established voices to be present in some public arena.
>
third party political guys are part of the finetuned orange that is life over
here in dot you ess. the media is a puppet, controlled by puppets, they've
got puppets who in turn control those puppets.... and THEY buy and sell
anyone, even Bill Gates... hahaha
> I still wonder why the .Us is still the only country (democratic...) using
> and admitting the "grand electeurs" electoral showcase,including
> conventions, well controlled "public" debates, money overspending like in a
> Barnum and Bailey's rock and roll horror show ,a.s.o., to elect their big
> leader .
>
why wonder why? here's the answer: the majority of the american populace is
stupid..
> I'm not authorized to comment much more on such, but consider such
> reminiscence of old autocratic political systems was justified when the
> -Us was a young country with relatively few educated people around, but now
> a "not so" presidential autocracy could be welcome.
>
.us has ALWAYS been a plutocratic institution. this will most likely never
change.
> The multiparty system (like in Belgium,GB, or Israel) obliges the leader of
> the executive to compromise in the legislative chambers to attain his seat
> (and become the president or first minister) , therefore a better
> representativity of minorities, even apostols of deconstructivism or any
> un-established philosophy or political idea can be presented to voters, and
> later disdained, forgotten , or eventually proclaimed as a victory for
> all the society showing then an established maturity in the process. The
> .Us political system seems, from outside, still a little immature. Indecise
> or non attributable .Us voters probably would love to have an option of
> choosing between more than two big chunks of the same system, but such
> option will never be authorized by the same politicial clique, to avoid
> others guys from those third parties to access power.
>
I'm an anarchist, so these systems seems overtly lame, to me.
> Who created or manages the electoral debates commission, btw? The
> legislative power ? I wonder if it should include neutral or third parties
> members, apart from " the Elephant men" or "monkeydonkeys", like Nader
> green guys ?
>
the debate commission is managed by dual corporate powers, dnc & rnc. the best
buddies of the twentyfirst century american mindcontrol game. they in turn
are owned by other, lager, multinational conglomerates.
> :-)
> :-)
>
> (Just a brick for a positive, constructivist tought...)
>
a brick through the window of the world. which nobody cares about anyway.
> Patrick
>
>
~haruki
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "haruki" <mujyo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject: Re: The Meaninglessness of Meaning. Jacques Derrida.
>
> > That photo was mislabeled, it was actually a shot of Ralph Nader.
> >
> > On Tuesday 12 October 2004 05:49 pm, Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
> > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005745
> > >
> > > ".. . .What is deconstruction? Mr. Derrida would never say. It
> > > was a question certain to spark his contempt and ire. He denied that
> > > deconstruction could be meaningfully defined. I think he was right
> > > about that, though not necessarily for the reasons he believed. . ."
>
> --
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html