The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[CarmeloOrchards]

Allied Pictures from Inside Hitler's Bunker

http://life.time.com/history/inside-hitlers-bunker-rare-and-unpublished-photos/#1

there is a little arrow to the right in the picture to advance the slide show

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Very clever and funny cartoons!!!

More than that, your article is so true.

I have a strong distaste for liberalism emanating from the far left. I was a John F Kennedy type of Liberal as a young man but what JFK represented wouldn't fly as liberalism today - JFK would be looked at as a moderate or centrist today.

IMHO a key trait of those on the far left is an inability to learn the failings of the liberal system by observing it in action. Case in point, the State of California. California used to be the land of opportunity, a rich and bountiful state; people migrated here by the millions. As compared to world countries, this one USA state had something like the 7th largest economy in the world!

The state became dominated by the far left and look at it now. People moving out in droves to other states (Texas, Nevada, Idaho, et al) which allow them more freedoms and liberty than California and demand much less in state taxes. California state is virtually bankrupt and our day of reckoning is rapidly approaching.

Do people attribute this decline to far left policies and doctrine? Hell no!! They don't see it at all. Do the liberals sense that some reforms may be in order? Hell no!! So...what is their answer to all this failure? Their answer is that they have not applied liberalism hard enough and that they need to pass more laws and more regulations and spend yet more money to limit the freedom of greedy individuals and the rich. Though Calif. is swimming in debt, the far left is on the warpath to "double up" on spending. How about 100 billion for a high speed rail line from San Diego to the Bay area?

Education is failing. California used to rank among the highest in US states in education and now its among the lowest. Let's give more power to the Teacher's Union and spend more on each child in our system! What we've done so far in this area is not working so we need to "double down" and do even more.

That is their mantra and their modus operandi. The Socialist system in the EU is starting to deteriorate and fall apart. Their strongest economy, by far, is that of Germany, which is not as socialistic as the other countries. Simply observing this fact, you would think that the liberal left would see that some changes need to made and that they should take steps to emulate Germany. Is this process under way? Hell no! They just want Germany to step up and pay more to save the lagard countries in their system!

They follow a simple law - i.e., "We are applying the system we believe with diligence but things are not working therefore we have to step up and apply our system even harder1" Doing something and experiencing failure and then doing more of it and expecting success is a definition of insanity.

For a balance post, I will say that there are tenets in liberalism which have merit and that the Conservative movement in the US is not the total anecdote. The way it is currently being practiced is far from optimum. The problem is that our populace is not properly educated and properly schooled to evaluate situations objectively and vote intelligently. Most people who vote do not vote for the common good but vote instead for personal gain or to support a some sort of "hobby horse" belief which they have.

The bottom line is that if the far left crowd wins this next election, the USA is going to become very similar to EU countries. The EU is currently experiencing severe financial trouble and is sinking. That fact should be enough to rally US voters to not let go further in that direction but under current conditions, as remarkable as it may seem, the odds are about 50-50 that we will soon be following the EU's path.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Perhaps one of the most widely known " instant declares " was at the infamous Mission Holders Meeting where DM did a very public instant declare.

The arrogance of the C o $ is evident in the capricious way declares have been - and are - being done.

Hearings ? LOL ! Opportunity to defend oneself ? ROFL !

And " if it isn't written it isn't true " is just BS. Many of you have had an EO tell you " so & so is declared and you have to disconnect or be declared yourself ".

And many of us went along with it. We saw policy ignored. We saw policy "bent"..."twisted"...and wrongly applied ( more tha a few times )

Why all the denial of the way it really was?

The C o $ is going to control who their loyal members communicate with and who they can not communicate with. The only way out of that control is to get out of the group. Those who remain in the group will have their communication controlled.

Spouting "policy" is meaningless.

 

[Veda]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

-snip-

We saw policy ignored. We saw policy "bent"..."twisted"...and wrongly applied ( more tha a few times )

-snip-

There is policy and there is Policy and then there is POLICY.

It's supposed to be taken seriously, yet it's also a charade.

And it's been that way as long as there has been "policy."

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... California used to be the land of opportunity, a rich and bountiful state; people migrated here by the millions. ...

... and despoiled the natural beauty & resources of the state out of unadulterated individual avarice & lust; something looked at by indigenous inhabitants as an hostile invasion by unwanted and barbarous immigrants.

Reminds me of something ...


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... and despoiled the natural beauty & resources of the state out of unadulterated individual avarice & lust; something looked at by indigenous inhabitants as an hostile invasion by unwanted and barbarous immigrants.

Reminds me of something ...


Mark A. Baker

It seems to me that the natural beauty & resources of California are still very much intact.

There seems to be a difference of opinion as to importances. What is more important, the richness of the lives of the people or the preservation of the natural beauty and resources of the environment?

Ideally it would be best for the government of the people to work out a solution as close to optimum as possible, where both objectives can be met.

If it comes to "push and shove" where either the people must give ground or the environment must give ground (no pun intended), I will always side with the people. To me the happiness and richness of human life will always trump maintaining the pristine beauty and natural resources of the environment. The two do go hand in hand to a large extent so humans have a vested interested in maintaining the environment.

Other people may hold the opposite view, that preserving the environment reigns supreme over the happiness of the people. That is just a matter of opinion and I respect those who hold the view opposite to mine.

One other thing, MAB, your post is deflecting the main issue which I raised in my post. The main point which I made had to do with the far left failing to notice that their policies are producing weak economies and bankrupt governments and instead of tweaking their beliefs so as to improve them. they are choosing instead to "double down" on them. I don't see where creating bankrupt economies with large numbers of unemployed people equates one to one to preserving the natural environment. Far left policies do lead to a reduction in the human population which aids the environment but I see no other correlation.
Lakey

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... and despoiled the natural beauty & resources of the state out of unadulterated individual avarice & lust; something looked at by indigenous inhabitants as an hostile invasion by unwanted and barbarous immigrants.

Reminds me of something ...


Mark A. Baker

The forests scream for mercy. Seals, sea otters, bears, wolves, owls, and other indigenous inhabitants... I can feel their consternation and disappointment in the human invaders.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

100 elephants are poached per day.

270,000 sharks per day are killed for cosmetics & shark fin soup.

So, ignore that nuclear waste is leaking into the water table and the government goes into decade long debates about where to move the waste to.

Hey, no problem, let man plunder the planet and ignore the consquences of an inhabitable earth.

Yeah man ! Who needs nature !

Sometimes I am truely stunned - and depressed - by the sheer ignorance & arrogance of some posters here on this thread.

Bye, I'm think I have to be done with this nonesense.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The forests scream for mercy. Seals, sea otters, bears, wolves, owls, and other indigenous inhabitants... I can feel their consternation and disappointment in the human invaders.

How do you propose this problem be approached? I'm being serious here, just wanting to get your opinions. Population reduction of humans is one way, revamping our sources of energy is another.

I once believed our space program might ultimately help solve some of the problems but that program has pretty much been dismantled.

You take something such as getting the world's energy needs away from petroleum based products. This is well and good but it can't be done overnight. It has to be taken on a gradient approach. Good positive government controls here can be effective. Government CAFE, mandating Corporate Average Fuel Economy for auto makers has worked fairly successfully.

You look at fuel economy figures back in the 50's and 60's, probably 10-12 mpg city and 13-15 highway and compare it with today's vehicles and the figures have more than doubled. What's more, while achieving these gains, the amount of power the cars have has not been reduced but has drastically increased.

Changes in fuel products has to start slowly because of economic conditions but could expand into the marketplace at a slow steady pace at first but them with technical breakthroughs that pace would accelerate rapidly and our national fleet could be weened off of petroleum fueled cars. The entire process could occur in 25 years or so if a concerted effort could be mounted to achieve this.

Some sort of major breakthroughs have to be made, particularly in battery technology. Not only do those cost huge sums of money doing research and development but often they are strongly opposed by those who have a vested interest in building and selling petroleum based vehicles. This is where bi-partisan government efforts could come into play. Private industry has too much invested in existing tech to ween itself off of it without a push from government.
Lakey

 

[Ted]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

How do you propose this problem be approached? I'm being serious here, just wanting to get your opinions. Population reduction of humans is one way, revamping our sources of energy is another.

I once believed our space program might ultimately help solve some of the problems but that program has pretty much been dismantled.

You take something such as getting the world's energy needs away from petroleum based products. This is well and good but it can't be done overnight. It has to be taken on a gradient approach. Good positive government controls here can be effective. Government CAFE, mandating Corporate Average Fuel Economy for auto makers has worked fairly successfully.

You look at fuel economy figures back in the 50's and 60's, probably 10-12 mpg city and 13-15 highway and compare it with today's vehicles and the figures have more than doubled. What's more, while achieving these gains, the amount of power the cars have has not been reduced but has drastically increased.

Changes in fuel products has to start slowly because of economic conditions but could expand into the marketplace at a slow steady pace at first but them with technical breakthroughs that pace would accelerate rapidly and our national fleet could be weened off of petroleum fueled cars. The entire process could occur in 25 years or so if a concerted effort could be mounted to achieve this.

Some sort of major breakthroughs have to be made, particularly in battery technology. Not only do those cost huge sums of money doing research and development but often they are strongly opposed by those who have a vested interest in building and selling petroleum based vehicles. This is where bi-partisan government efforts could come into play. Private industry has too much invested in existing tech to ween itself off of it without a push from government.
Lakey

The problem is always framed as "too many people, too few resources." This gives us but two possible solutions: cut way back on the numbers of people or cut way back on their use of resources. It appears that both solutions are unacceptable. As LRH said in the Data Series, when you get a right WHY there is a ton of cooperation. Not much cooperation now so some factions of the population affect their own solutions including war, disease, and starvation.

I see that we have a management problem. The world is like a bunch of musicians arriving in the concert hall from different locations around the city. We are at the stage where some are still arriving, pulling instruments out of cases, chatting with fellow musicians in the orchestra, while others are seated and tuning up. It is noisy but if you know what to listen for you can hear some playing scales or snippets of a favored warmup piece. So within the noise there is some music forming.

Beethoven is God. The score exist. Where is the conductor?

That's the management problem.

That's the stage we are at.

A police force could take away the instruments to cut back on noise. Musicians could be physically extracted from the concert hall thus cutting back on their numbers. But a quartet is not a symphony orchestra. We are here to create and hear a symphony.

The analogy can be extended back to music teachers, disciplinarians, visionaries, politicians, philanthropists, patrons, and so on, all necessary, to one degree or another, to the concert.

We have a management problem.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Inside the Situation Room on 30 Rock Tonight on NBC

Tonight at 9 (8 Central Time), Brian Williams on NBC's 30 Rock takes us into the photo above. He spends an hour interviewing all of the people in the photo, takes is into that room, which has been there for 50 years, and hasn't been seen by the public.

I just watched a segment on Morning Joe. It is 4:43 AM on the left coast. It looks fascinating.

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-1-2012/victory-lapse[/video]

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The problem is always framed as "too many people, too few resources." This gives us but two possible solutions: cut way back on the numbers of people or cut way back on their use of resources. It appears that both solutions are unacceptable. As LRH said in the Data Series, when you get a right WHY there is a ton of cooperation. Not much cooperation now so some factions of the population affect their own solutions including war, disease, and starvation.

I see that we have a management problem. The world is like a bunch of musicians arriving in the concert hall from different locations around the city. We are at the stage where some are still arriving, pulling instruments out of cases, chatting with fellow musicians in the orchestra, while others are seated and tuning up. It is noisy but if you know what to listen for you can hear some playing scales or snippets of a favored warmup piece. So within the noise there is some music forming.

Beethoven is God. The score exist. Where is the conductor?

That's the management problem.

That's the stage we are at.

A police force could take away the instruments to cut back on noise. Musicians could be physically extracted from the concert hall thus cutting back on their numbers. But a quartet is not a symphony orchestra. We are here to create and hear a symphony.

The analogy can be extended back to music teachers, disciplinarians, visionaries, politicians, philanthropists, patrons, and so on, all necessary, to one degree or another, to the concert.

We have a management problem.

Yes, this is correct. It is a management problem.

As a human species we are in actuality failing to manage correctly or optimumly our dealings with our environment and each other as the peoples on the planet.

here is an example. The idiocy of burning oil as fuel. The stuff is now too valuable as a raw material for plastics and petrochemicals, to be burned!

I know of three struggling companies trying to get funding and to scale up their technical discoveries to produce fuels from other materials.

One (Carbon Sciences, Inc)actually can produce "synfuels" (jet fuel, diesel and gasoline) from CO2! Another (Syntroleum Inc) does the same from natural gas . . , and has already proven the success of its jet fuel with the US Air Force (the Air Force tested the fuel in their various jets for several hundreds of hours and all is OK. This at about 3 years ago.) . . .

Now you would think Delta Airlines, instead of buying the oil refinery it recently bought would have/should have spent far less money to invest in a plant to produce synfuel! But hell no!

You'd have thought the managers in government (or at least the US military) would have funded production of these fuels in the US for their own use? Hell no!

We should be using thorium, not uranium, for nuclear energy . . . it's safer and does not have the waste problems of uranium reactors . . . . but NOooooo! the dunces keep reverting to the old shit . . .

R

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

politics

When was the last time the Republicans won the White House without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket?


1928

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The problem is always framed as "too many people, too few resources." This gives us but two possible solutions: cut way back on the numbers of people or cut way back on their use of resources. It appears that both solutions are unacceptable. As LRH said in the Data Series, when you get a right WHY there is a ton of cooperation. Not much cooperation now so some factions of the population affect their own solutions including war, disease, and starvation.

I see that we have a management problem. The world is like a bunch of musicians arriving in the concert hall from different locations around the city. We are at the stage where some are still arriving, pulling instruments out of cases, chatting with fellow musicians in the orchestra, while others are seated and tuning up. It is noisy but if you know what to listen for you can hear some playing scales or snippets of a favored warmup piece. So within the noise there is some music forming.

Beethoven is God. The score exist. Where is the conductor?

That's the management problem.

That's the stage we are at.

A police force could take away the instruments to cut back on noise. Musicians could be physically extracted from the concert hall thus cutting back on their numbers. But a quartet is not a symphony orchestra. We are here to create and hear a symphony.

The analogy can be extended back to music teachers, disciplinarians, visionaries, politicians, philanthropists, patrons, and so on, all necessary, to one degree or another, to the concert.

We have a management problem.

I believe that if too much noise was a problem, the best solution would involve bringing in a new technology.

Perhaps a sound proofed chamber linked to headphones could be devised. The musicians could play in the chamber and the audience could listen via the headphones and adjust the volume as they saw fit.

My point is that new approaches must be taken to manage the types of problems which we are discussing and almost always these approaches must include the development of new technologies. Doing a good fix using existing resources is the best possible management but is usually not possible when addressing environmental issues.

As I said in my earlier post, in profit motivated societies there are usually large and powerful interests dispensing the current products which the public is using. The public is very dependent upon these products so both producers and consumers want the status quo to continue.

The users are more than willing to shift to newer products which are more environmentally friendly but they will not do so voluntarily unless the pricing of the newer products is competitive. The producers are not so willing to shift. They are entrenched with the products they are currently selling. They often ignore or even hinder or destroy people who come up with newer technologies. They will sometimes buy the rights to a revolutionary product from its inventor and then just bury the product and not bring it to market.

That is what society is up against. This is where an enlightened government could step in and make its presence felt. Strong effective management is required. Probably the Obama administration and its behind the scenes backers sees themselves in this role. The problem with that crowd is that they are not sufficiently enlightened.

To me, they have three main flaws. First, as I said in my last post, they do not learn from history nor their own mistakes. When their tenets have been put into play in the past, the results have generally been poor but they don't go back to the drawing board to tweak and improve their tenets. Instead, they push harder and spend more money on the same types of things believing that the added funding will produce the desired results.

Second, they are similar to C of S, believing that if they tell the public what they really believe, they will be booted out so they engage in concealment, lies and heavy PR campaigns to trick the public into backing them. Third, also similar to C of S, they believe that only they have the correct answers and all other viewpoints are destructive and need to be eradicated. Open discourse where they might pick up a new idea or two is not something which they believe in.

SUMMARY - When profit is the main motive driving a society, it is going to be very difficult to solve environmental problems. The vested interests will fight new R & D to protect their power and their profits. A motivation other than profit is required. New tech either needs to be developed or as Roger suggests, some of it already exists. Probably, the role of bringing new tech to market and getting the public to use it falls, by default, to government. To succeed the government must be enlightened and be capable of good management. Actually Obama has the right look and charisma to lead such a movement. Romney also looks the part but doesn't have Obama's charisma but he does have vastly more business experience.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Purple Haze going leaving town to collaborate on story about Yvonne!

A poster by the screen name of San Diego Member is planning to do a website and possible book about Yvonne Gillham Jentzsch. He contacted me and wanted to be able to use the info about Yvonne which I have posted here.

He also contacted Yvonne's two daughters and Purple Haze. Purple Haze is driving across the state line to meet with Yvonne's daughters and their families and go over all their notes regarding Yvonne. Purple's prime period of focus will be from 1967 to 1972 which was the period when she was working closely with Yvonne. Purple was the tutor for Yvonne's kids at sea on board the Royal Scotsman way back in the 1967 period.
Lakey

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: politics

When was the last time the Republicans won the White House without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket?


1928

Let's hope the weathervane doesn't choose Julie or Tricia for his veep.


Mark A. Baker

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Re: politics

Let's hope the weathervane doesn't choose Julie or Tricia for his veep.


Mark A. Baker

Jed or Barbara is OK with you?

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: politics

Jed or Barbara is OK with you?

Forget Barbara, How about Laura Bush? She would probably be an effective candidate. What's the point of making it look as if the Republicans never win without Nixon or a Bush on their ticket. Since WWII ended the outcomes have been pretty evenly distributed.

The Democrats won in 1948, 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008 - a total of 7 victories. Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton twice, Obama - a total of 6 presidents.

The Republicans won in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 - a total of 9 victories. Eisenhower twice, Nixon twice, Reagan twice, Bush Sr. once and Bush Jr. twice - a total of 5 presidents.

Its seems pretty even-Steven. The way in which you present it makes it seems as if Republicans rarely win but that is only because Nixon and Bush Sr. both ran as VP's twice and also ran successfully for President. Take that and add Bush Jr, and you get results that are a bit misleading.

Nixon was on the ticket in 1952, 1956, 1960 (losing by a whisker), 1968 and 1972 - a total of 5 times. A Bush was on the ticket in 1980, 1984,1988, 1992 (losing), 2000. and 2004. a total of 6 times.

Did you know an Adams was on 7 tickets between 1788 and 1828 and won 3 elections for president and 2 for vice president?
Lakey

 

[JackStraw]

Re: politics

When was the last time the Republicans won the White House without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket?


1928

Umm, apropos of what, exactly?

Are you suggesting Reagan wouldn't have won without GHW Bush on the ticket?

I would suggest, in the immortal words of the Jefferson Airplane: "Doesn't mean shit to a tree."

Jack

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: politics

Jed or Barbara is OK with you?

A. You meant Jeb.

B. No.

I'd rather see David Cameron holding the office despite his legal ineligibility and the fact that he's nothing but a corporate stooge & total twit. Still he's better than the ignorant, bigoted, stupid, and corrupt politicos leading the contemporary republican party.

The irony is the current crop make Nixon look absolutely marvelous as a u.s. leader in comparison despite his criminal abuse of power. RMN did accomplish some important policy initiatives. He was genuinely intelligent. He was not an ignorant man. He understood the need for compromise. Despite his cynical appeal to middle class mores, he did not wrap himself in jesus. He was not ideologically driven to a point of irrationality, nor was he unwilling to regulate corporate interests. And he was well apprised of realpolitik. In all, altogether different from latter day republicans.


Mark A. Baker