Hey guys,
You did get the context of Ed's statement right?
I've been giving Ed a lot of guff about his economic
theories effecting how he reads history apart from the
facts but I would never see him as an arch-conservative
neo-fascist. Or a Clintonian political thermometer.
Ed, you were not speaking for yourself but for the
workfare folks right? If that is the case I agree with
you about them. They belong to the same people
that Brad spoke about in the African village except
they were the ones who wanted to keep the mutilation
"because it is traditional, builds strength in the women
and keeps down their hyper sexuality leaving we men
time to tell our stories and drink beer."*
*Shakespeare In The Bush" by Laura Bohanan NY Mus. of
Nat Hist. pub.
See Ed, how much more fun it is when you have a reference for
your statement. It takes away the damned simplicity of this
typewriter and allows you once more to get credit for
something other than the "brain of a sheep."**
**Heyomist Storm: Sheep are "beings who know only one place
at a time." from "Song of the Heyoka" Harper& Row
REH
"All the world's a Synergy, you just have to be willing to
get out on the Supra-Limbic." Ilana Rubenfeld
(in case anyone wants to know, this is the way we
Cherokees talk to one another, REH)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
> Richard Mochelle wrote:
> >
> > >The day of letting those snotty little welfare cheats take our hard earned
> > tax dollars without pretending to work is over.
> >
> > >Ed Weick
> >
> > Don't we loathe the freeriders!! Racehorse breeders, stockmarket jockeys,
> > golf champions, boardroom junkies, etc. a vast army of snotty little
> > welfare cheats (if we read welfare as meaning the immeasurable benefits of
> > global cooperation, technological heritage and ecological providence).
> >
> > Let's not kid ourselves that all moneymakers and taxpayers are 'in truth'
> > working, let alone working 'hard'.
> [snip]
>
> This reminds me of a little vignette from my child-rearing (which,
> by now, you all surely have tired of hearing me elaborate on how
> "bad" it was...).
>
> One day, when I was in the back seat of
> our 195x Ford middle-of-the-line model 4 door sedan, driving
> somewhere, I referred to something as being: "lousy". My
> parents in the front seat
> immediately instructed me that I was never to use
> that word.
>
> Over the years, I increasingly came to appreciate
> that the reason my calling some indifferent external object
> "lousy" upset them so much was that, "subconsciously", they
> all too well knew how easy it would be to change the
> referent of that word from that indifferent external object
> to their whole form of life: indeed, they may have even
> intuited that the "indifferent external object" was
> really a stand-in for *them*, already --> that, like the
> chicken pecking at the ground, I was calling [whatever
> indifferent external object] "lousy" BECAUSE I was not
> free to call them and their whole "world": lousy.
>
> \brad mccormick
>
> --
> Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
>
> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
> -------------------------------------------------------
> <![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
