From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Tue Mar 3 00:51:15 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:51:15 -0600 Subject: [Goglog] What happens when the money supply _doubles_? Message-ID: This graph (from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis) http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBNS?cid=124 shows the aggregate "monetary base" of the U.S. It has been growing steadily for many years. Last fall, it exploded. Date Base ($Billions) 2004-01-01 760.044 2005-01-01 797.201 2006-01-01 828.686 2007-01-01 847.097 2008-01-01 855.079 2008-08-01 870.979 2008-09-01 936.138 2008-10-01 1135.820 2008-11-01 1481.943 2008-12-01 1692.511 2009-01-01 1735.316 1) What is this going to do? It seems impossible that it will not have immense effects. Yet so far it has not. 2) Why has it _not_ had major visible effects? Possible answer (perhaps insanely optimistic): the Fed's monetary actions have been pretty much the correct actions to compensate for the financial crunch resulting from the mortgage implosion. In 1970, Penn Central, the largest railroad in the U.S., defaulted on its commercial paper (unsecured unsecured short term debt). This could have triggered a financial crisis. Many other big corporations had large amounts of commercial paper outstanding; if investors dumped it all, these corporations could be forced into bankruptcy. The Fed responded by authorizing commercial banks to make whatever loans large indebted businesses needed, and to take in short-term deposits at higher interest rates. Investors left the commercial paper market, pulling out several $billion. Much of this money, however, went into high-interest deposits at commercial banks - which were loaning money to corporations unable to roll over their commercial paper. When the smoke cleared, the threatened crisis had been averted. The various debts and investments had been recycled into new forms, without anyone taking significant losses or being forced out of business. In other words, the system worked. Can it be that the system is working today? (at least in this respect) -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable | | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe | From mbcrui at gmail.com Tue Mar 3 06:30:18 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:30:18 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] What happens when the money supply _doubles_? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49AD22DA.9060302@gmail.com> Rich Rostrom wrote: > Possible answer (perhaps insanely optimistic): the Fed's > monetary actions have been pretty much the correct actions > to compensate for the financial crunch resulting from the > mortgage implosion. Or possibly the fallout from the mortgage bubble is bad enough that we just haven't noticed the effects of this as a separate entity yet. It's also possible that the effects are going to be more long term and haven't blipped on the radar yet. > > When the smoke cleared, the threatened crisis had been > averted. The various debts and investments had been > recycled into new forms, without anyone taking significant > losses or being forced out of business. > > In other words, the system worked. Until O(A)PEC screwed with the oil supply. I've seen mildly compelling evidence that this default would have had more significant long term effect if the world hadn't gone to hell a short time later. (of course there is mildly compelling evidence suggesting that the entire problem was the fault of the Nixon administration's monetary policies causing all of the inflation of the 70's. Like all economic theories, it's complicated and multifaceted and will suck you in like quicksand once you start looking at it.) > > Can it be that the system is working today? There are no bread lines (yet). People aren't starving (yet). And while an argument could be made that people on Wall Street SHOULD be jumping out(or be pushed out) of windows, none are. The system is working better than it did in 1929. -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 3 13:24:44 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:24:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Goglog] What happens when the money supply _doubles_? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <307221.24480.qm@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The thinking is that inflation is not a problem in a liquidity trap. If I follow it correctly, and I probably do not, cash is being holed up since many think it has no good place to be put to use. So the money supply is partially phantom money at this point, since it is not deployed into the economy, it does not cause inflation. Once things are liquid and money is moving around again, then that excess will either need to be destroyed, or it causes inflation. That latter part is not much talked about. I have to say, I am a computer scientist with no training in economics. It seems to me many of the models depend on simplifying assumptions and are provable true only when those assumptions hold. I smell a lot of if coming off the economic recovery plans. Anyway, since I have no input into this, I am just trying to be defensive and not get too badly burned. I have a job, I have a home in the condo association of the damned, and I have friends. Life is not too bad, I just need to relax and wait it all out. If you want to have some interesting reads on this subject, read Phil Krugamn's blog at the NYT, no subscription needed. I think it is called conscious of a liberal. Janet --- On Tue, 3/3/09, Rich Rostrom wrote: > From: Rich Rostrom > Subject: [Goglog] What happens when the money supply _doubles_? > To: goglog at zarquon.org > Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 1:51 AM > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the > To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > This graph (from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis) > > http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBNS?cid=124 > > shows the aggregate "monetary base" of the U.S. > > It has been growing steadily for many years. Last fall, > it exploded. > > Date Base ($Billions) > > 2004-01-01 760.044 > > 2005-01-01 797.201 > > 2006-01-01 828.686 > > 2007-01-01 847.097 > > 2008-01-01 855.079 > > 2008-08-01 870.979 > > 2008-09-01 936.138 > 2008-10-01 1135.820 > 2008-11-01 1481.943 > 2008-12-01 1692.511 > 2009-01-01 1735.316 > > 1) What is this going to do? It seems impossible that it > will not have immense effects. Yet so far it has not. > > 2) Why has it _not_ had major visible effects? > > Possible answer (perhaps insanely optimistic): the > Fed's > monetary actions have been pretty much the correct actions > to compensate for the financial crunch resulting from the > mortgage implosion. > > In 1970, Penn Central, the largest railroad in the U.S., > defaulted on its commercial paper (unsecured unsecured > short term debt). This could have triggered a financial > crisis. Many other big corporations had large amounts of > commercial paper outstanding; if investors dumped it all, > these corporations could be forced into bankruptcy. > > The Fed responded by authorizing commercial banks to make > whatever loans large indebted businesses needed, and to > take in short-term deposits at higher interest rates. > > Investors left the commercial paper market, pulling out > several $billion. Much of this money, however, went into > high-interest deposits at commercial banks - which were > loaning money to corporations unable to roll over their > commercial paper. > > When the smoke cleared, the threatened crisis had been > averted. The various debts and investments had been > recycled into new forms, without anyone taking significant > losses or being forced out of business. > > In other words, the system worked. > > Can it be that the system is working today? > > (at least in this respect) > > -- > | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com > | > | > | > | A lot of organic chemistry would be pretty unspeakable > | > | if molecules had feelings. -- Derek Lowe > | > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Mar 3 15:17:12 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:17:12 -0800 Subject: [Goglog] What happens when the money supply _doubles_? In-Reply-To: <307221.24480.qm@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <307221.24480.qm@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lemme speculate. I think the guys who have control of a lot of the old money get ticked, like Wall Street, and try to figure out where they're going to move their capital to so that they minimize the change in value internationally. We think there's going to be a lot more money added to the supply, so investors expect the value of the dollar to go lower. Money has in fact been exiting the markets and moving...somewhere else...? To the tune of 7000 Dow Jones points so far. The interesting thing about this has been that the dollar has not tanked, the volatility has been dropping and the price settling. http://www.dailyfx.com/charts/ChartStation.html is a page showing conversion rates of the dollar against the yen, frank, pound, and euro over the last couple of months. Does someone have a better site than this? Government doesn't appear to have a lot of sympathy for Wall Street right now, but Wall Street is the source of some kinds of operating capital for businesses. When the traders pull out of a stock in a big way, going from US$27 to US$0.60 in a few days, in a "take my ball and go home!" kind of tactic, that business better have had a cash is king policy for the last few years and have operating capital in a solvent bank or six. Smart companies don't lose those investors like that, tho. From Charis_Doula at worldnet.att.net Tue Mar 17 12:10:04 2009 From: Charis_Doula at worldnet.att.net (Ann Totusek) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... Message-ID: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090317/b7fed60a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Charis_Doula.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 212 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090317/b7fed60a/attachment.vcf From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 17 12:34:26 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <432495.37971.qm@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Ann, It's not just the pope, a lot of the US PEPFAR dollars were tied to not promoting condoms, and went to organizations that paid for signs saying "Condoms Kill" and evangelical preachers that burn condoms on stages. Including my dear friend Reverend Rick Warren. He gets cudos for his work on AIDS in Africa, but it seems to me he is simply stopping the effective condoms programs, and funneling money to evangelical groups in Africa that teach abstinence only programs, and as a result, AIDS is on the rise again, especially where the fundamentalists have the most support, Uganda and Kenya. He should be castigated for raising HIV infection rates, not encourages as some sort of good person. http://maxblumenthal.com/2009/01/rick-warrens-africa-problem/ http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/the_truth_about_rick_warren_an.php It takes time to properly document all this, but if you are so inclined spend a little time reading up on this, and post what you find. Janet --- On Tue, 3/17/09, Ann Totusek wrote: > From: Ann Totusek > Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... > To: "Goglog" > Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 1:10 PM > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the > To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ >
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > > > > > I don't know whether to think he's being willfully > ignorant, or if he > just hates those who don't follow the rules of his > institution.
>
> class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > target="_blank" > href="http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=12530298&ch=4226714&src=news">http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=12530298&ch=4226714&src=news
>
>
> Ann
>
>
>
--
> > > > > > >

Ann Totusek

>

Vice Chair

>

DucKon 18

>

rel="nofollow" > class="moz-txt-link-freetext" > target="_blank" > href="http://www.duckon.org">http://www.duckon.org

>
> > >
_______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog From steveg at swhi.net Tue Mar 17 22:31:48 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:31:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> References: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Ann Totusek wrote: > I don't know whether to think he's being willfully ignorant, or if he > just hates those who don't follow the rules of his institution. So what did he say? - Steve G From par at richinn.com Tue Mar 17 22:38:39 2009 From: par at richinn.com (Peter Richardson) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:38:39 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223735.03e879c0@richinn.com> At 10:31 PM 3/17/2009, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Ann Totusek wrote: > > > I don't know whether to think he's being willfully ignorant, or if he > > just hates those who don't follow the rules of his institution. > >So what did he say? Absinance only to prevent the spread of aids. Church continues to oppose the use of condoms. Peter Richardson From par at richinn.com Tue Mar 17 22:39:51 2009 From: par at richinn.com (Peter Richardson) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223735.03e879c0@richinn.com> References: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223735.03e879c0@richinn.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223921.03e874a0@richinn.com> At 10:38 PM 3/17/2009, Peter Richardson wrote: >At 10:31 PM 3/17/2009, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > >Ann Totusek wrote: > > > > > I don't know whether to think he's being willfully ignorant, or if he > > > just hates those who don't follow the rules of his institution. > > > >So what did he say? >Absinance only to prevent the spread of aids. Church continues to >oppose the use of condoms. I hit send too fast. He was talking about Africa. >Peter Richardson From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Mar 17 22:43:29 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:43:29 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: >So what did he say? > > - Steve G Follow the url in her original note? I just followed all the links. It is amazing what happens whenever people think that their belief systems trump human life. -Mike From steveg at swhi.net Wed Mar 18 07:30:09 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:30:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223921.03e874a0@richinn.com> References: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223735.03e879c0@richinn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223921.03e874a0@richinn.com> Message-ID: <1606.38.96.206.211.1237379409.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Ann Totusek wrote: > I don't know whether to think he's being willfully ignorant, or if he > just hates those who don't follow the rules of his institution. Huh? There is something new and shocking about the Pope reiterating the long-held beliefs of his church about sexual activity and birth control? Obviously others disagree, but "OMG" and the rest of this reaction makes no sense. Have you never heard of the concept that sex is supposed to be within marriage and primarily for purposes of reproduction? Are you totally unaware that not only the major Christian churches but other world religions have *always* said this? What does "hate" have to do with this? Abstinence may not be the choice a lot of people are likely to make, but it *would* solve a lot of problems and is the solution a lot of people besides the Pope argue for. Mike Bentley says: > Follow the url in her original note? Yes, it was to a video and nothing but a video, with no explanation whatsoever. Sometimes it is not convenient to watch a video online just to find out what someone said. (Thanks for translating, Peter.) - Steve G From Charis_Doula at worldnet.att.net Wed Mar 18 08:24:52 2009 From: Charis_Doula at worldnet.att.net (Ann Totusek) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:24:52 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <1606.38.96.206.211.1237379409.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223735.03e879c0@richinn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223921.03e874a0@richinn.com> <1606.38.96.206.211.1237379409.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <49C0F624.5090202@worldnet.att.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090318/0bb63ff1/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Charis_Doula.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 212 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20090318/0bb63ff1/attachment.vcf From steveg at swhi.net Thu Mar 19 00:34:48 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:34:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <49C0F624.5090202@worldnet.att.net> References: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223735.03e879c0@richinn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223921.03e874a0@richinn.com> <1606.38.96.206.211.1237379409.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <49C0F624.5090202@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <1927.38.96.206.211.1237440888.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Ann Totusek wrote: > However, he (and the Catholic church) included > the use of condoms in a marriage when one partner is HIV positive. Again, what is the problem with preaching abstinence? > Also, due to African culture a good > many women have no legal or practical right to refuse their husbands And I would confidently assume he would not support that proposition either. Was his guidance only directed at the women? > I call not caring about the long term consequences of unprotected sex > (with regard to someone other than yourself) functional hate. I'm not sure the term "functional hate" has any meaning, but what you would "call not caring about the long term consequences of unprotected sex" is totally irrelevant to someone who is preaching abstinence rather than unprotected sex. > Given > that he has chosen a life of abstinence and will NEVER have to deal > with the complexities of marriage, he's not in a position to judge. He is in a position to say what his religion says is moral. > He's certainly entitled to offer advice based on his best understanding > and education, but he speaks from theological authority, not practical > authority. Of course. What does "practical authority" mean? > So if you hadn't bothered to watch the source material, No, not "hadn't bothered." I am away from home and have limited Internet access. I asked what he said, got an answer, and then responded. I have seen nothing here to suggest that I need to see a video in order to know what he said. > why did you > feel free to suggest that I had no understanding of what the Catholic > or other churches teach regarding birth control and safer sex > practices? I responded to what you said, based on what I am told he said. I have seen nothing so far to change my perception. You seem to find it shocking that the Pope preaches sexual abstinence as a means of preventing AIDS far preferable to unprotected *or* protected sex. I don't, in view of the fact that the Catholic church always has. > You had insufficient understanding of what I was referring > to. Not once I asked, AFAICT. > If you want to participate in a conversation, it seems to me that > you should take the time to find out what the other party is talking > about, convenient or not. Exactly as I did. - Steve G From mbcrui at gmail.com Thu Mar 19 06:30:31 2009 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <1927.38.96.206.211.1237440888.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223735.03e879c0@richinn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223921.03e874a0@richinn.com> <1606.38.96.206.211.1237379409.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <49C0F624.5090202@worldnet.att.net> <1927.38.96.206.211.1237440888.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <49C22CD7.1050806@gmail.com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: >> However, he (and the Catholic church) included >> the use of condoms in a marriage when one partner is HIV positive. > > Again, what is the problem with preaching abstinence? I think my problem with it is that the Catholic church doesn't assume that you can live sin-free. And the Pope is saying the only way to control the spread of AIDS is to live as a celibate, which is fine for the people who choose that but not fine for the rest of us. Catholics have confessional. They know that humans can only try to live a perfect life, but that they're going to fall back into sin. And so adding the use of a condom as sin on TOP of the 'sin of sex' is stupid and irresponsible and his human compassion (if nothing else) should say 'The best answer is abstinence. But if you must sin, don't add the sin of KILLING YOUR PARTNER ON TOP OF THAT." (deep breath) I'm not surprised, however. As you point out, The Catholic Church has been stupid about sex since at least St. Augustine. I need more coffee. Mary -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From steveg at swhi.net Thu Mar 19 18:21:39 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:21:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... In-Reply-To: <49C22CD7.1050806@gmail.com> References: <49BFD96C.80108@worldnet.att.net> <1449.38.96.206.211.1237347108.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223735.03e879c0@richinn.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090317223921.03e874a0@richinn.com> <1606.38.96.206.211.1237379409.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <49C0F624.5090202@worldnet.att.net> <1927.38.96.206.211.1237440888.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <49C22CD7.1050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1170.38.96.206.211.1237504899.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote: >> Again, what is the problem with preaching abstinence? > > I think my problem with it is that the Catholic church doesn't assume > that you can live sin-free. AFAIK it does. The doctrine is that it is improbable and very difficult, but not impossible. (Original sin is a side issue, not relevant to how people choose to live.) > And the Pope is saying the only way to > control the spread of AIDS is to live as a celibate, which is fine for > the people who choose that but not fine for the rest of us. Well, of course. Most religions have as a basic premise that they are right. Most adherents of any one faith, OTOH, have as a basic premise that the others are wrong in some small or large way. If you disagree, you will not be a Roman Catholic, but that's no reason for *him* to say "oh, then I guess what I think is sin isn't one for you." > Catholics have confessional. They know that humans can only try to live > a perfect life, but that they're going to fall back into sin. Are likely to, but don't have to. There is an important distinction. Confession is not an excuse for committing the sin. And yes, I know they still believe in plenary indulgences. I can't make sense of that. > And so > adding the use of a condom as sin on TOP of the 'sin of sex' I *suspect* you are oversimplifying. *As a general rule* sex within marriage is not a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church, provided the possibility of procreation as a result is accepted as a possibility and as a responsibility. However, I strongly suspect that if you asked him, Benedict would say that if sex within marriage means endangering the partner, then it becomes sinful too. The modern Vatican takes a firm stand against spouse abuse, for instance. Don't get me wrong; I'm not Catholic, of course, and don't happen to agree that God did or would lay down most of these rules. But I do think there is a good deal of internal consistency here, and serious moral philosophy, not just "sex is bad" and certainly not indifference to human suffering. Most unfortunately, it seems many Catholic priests in Africa are unlikely to convey the complete message, or at least to do so forcefully. They tend to look the other way as to some of the local cultural mores that actual Church doctrine does *not* condone. > is stupid > and irresponsible and his human compassion (if nothing else) should say > 'The best answer is abstinence. But if you must sin, don't add the sin > of KILLING YOUR PARTNER ON TOP OF THAT." Of course I agree with that, given the premise "if you must sin." But this Pope is a strong opponent of moral relativism. He would, I suspect, say "that may be the lesser sin, but I cannot give anyone my approval or a handy rationale for committing one sin instead of another." - Steve G From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 20 10:47:43 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] OMG....I _almost_ can't believe the Pope said this... Message-ID: <911317.41499.qm@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I find the catholic church largely consistent intellectually, and I can respect them for that. EG, Pope JP II condemned killing in almost all ways, not just abortion. I disagree with much of church doctrine, but I can understand and respect their point of view, and I can discuss with them honestly many issues. Unlike the neo-conservatives and much of the american religious right. I don't find any of these statements particularly surprising. There are some things I find intellectually disingenuine, but I am not certain if that is merely human foible injecting itself into thought process, which would be folly not intellectual dishonesty, or my projecting dark motives onto someone else, which would be my dishonesty not their's, or something else entirely. I am not sure if people have interest in these issues, so I am somewhat reluctant to bring them up when I find them. Also, people tend to be fixed in their views, and so I wonder if there is any gain to be had in those sorts of discussions. Janet From Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Fri Mar 20 11:35:29 2009 From: Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com (John G. Lussmyer) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:35:29 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] WA State - poor/homeless can't get drivers license In-Reply-To: References: <4999D17F.2080205@CasaDelGato.Com> <98871.62624.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com><09D7520DAE9F4F60B8B53966EF304 B18@StevePC> <499A18F0.1080305@CasaDelGato.Com> <499A225D.6090206@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <49C3C5D1.90703@CasaDelGato.Com> As a followup on this. Steve had a hearing on this. The judge stated that the States compelling interest in having your residence address is so they know where to find you to arrest you. That just seems wrong to me. -- -- John G. Lussmyer mailto:Cougar at CasaDelGato.Com Electric Vehicle Battery Monitoring Systems, http://www.CasaDelGato.com From SteveG at swhi.net Fri Mar 20 21:35:07 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] WA State - poor/homeless can't get drivers license In-Reply-To: <49C3C5D1.90703@CasaDelGato.Com> References: <4999D17F.2080205@CasaDelGato.Com> <98871.62624.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com><09D7520DAE9F4F60B8B53966EF304 B18@StevePC> <499A18F0.1080305@CasaDelGato.Com> <499A225D.6090206@CasaDelGato.Com> <49C3C5D1.90703@CasaDelGato.Com> Message-ID: <9BF6D54DB35545BE8B6F6026EE516508@StevePC> John G. Lussmyer says: > The judge stated that the States compelling interest in having your > residence address is so they know where to find you to arrest you. > That just seems wrong to me. It does. I wonder if it's ever been challenged properly. No, I do not have time to research it or even think hard about it. I just got back from Texas an hour ago (business) and am leaving in the morning for Disney World (not business). - Steve G