Hello, Sinclairs,
I usually lurk on this list, but today I feel obliged to comment on
three points:
> At 05:46 PM 11/12/2000 -0500, Rebecca Snody wrote:
>
> >Richard,
> >
> >I never implied that the CIA had anything to do with the elections.
I
> >just stated a fact that a candidate's father was once head of the
CIA. It
> >is well known in the USA that the principles of the founding
fathers are
> >hanging by a thread, and it is not what you stand for anymore, but
who you
> >know, your connections, and how much money you or the
special/corporate
> >interests that back you have.
I think what some of us are reacting to--and I would hope that they
are Democrats as well as Republicans--is that making a statement like
the above about "the candidate's father was once head of the CIA" does
a great disservice to more reasoned examination of the situation,
because it plants the suggestion that some kind of connection or cause
and effect exists--which certainly was not your intention. (Or I hope
it was not!) From such beginnings spring Conspiracy Theories--which
is not to say that there are never conspiracies, but real conspiracies
are really difficult to make work--and conspiring on the level
necessary for corrupting the American election system, with all its
checks and balances, is highly, highly unlikely. (Remember Occam's
Razor.)
This is the kind of innuendo that can escalate into some of the really
preposterous leaps of logic and really wild and wooly theories (often
presented as gospel-truth) that we run into in some of the more
sensational speculations about history that have come to light in
recent years. (Parts of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and other books
springing from that genre come to mind.) The discerning reader can
filter out the good and useful information from the wild leaps of
logic--and hey, this is where I get some of my best inspiration for
some of the fantasy that I write--but it can be dangerous to simply
accept what was originally presented as a "what-if" and build a new
case on such shaky foundations. I know there's a lot of emotion
wrapped around the current confusion over the American presidential
election--we see amazing speculations from European observers trying
to figure out what's going on in that crazy American republic (Sky
News is one of the more astonishing examples of not understanding the
American ground-suppositions). But the American system, warts and
all, works a whole lot better (most of the time) than anything else
around. (You don't want to know about the proportional voting they
have here in Ireland!)
Anyway, enough said on this. The American Fat Lady will sing when
she's good and ready. In my opinion, there wasn't a great deal of
difference between the two candidates themselves (and yes, I made the
effort to get my absentee ballot and vote, from the wilds of Dublin),
so I cast my vote on the basis of the cabinets both candidates were
proposing--which, in retrospect, was probably a particularly good
move, since such a close election result means that whoever is
inaugurated in January is likely to be a one-term President, while the
American people sort out where they want to go next, and the
Department Heads are going to have a lot of influence, this time
around.
Second comment--and I'll keep the rest short, because I hadn't planned
to go on so much on my first point. Could list members please check
their e-mail settings and figure out how to keep their messages from
being sent in two formats--which simply doubles the volume of each
message; and the second message isn't even easily readable. Full of
odd characters and equal signs at the end of lines and other such.
Related to this, please--when you've hit the reply button and all that
material from what you're answering comes up--highlight and delete
everything that is not germane to what you're commenting on.
Otherwise, every reply repeats the ENTIRE digest that contains what
you're answering. (And if your setting is also doubling up your
reply....)
Finally, an Atta-boy for Bill Buehler: Bill, I'm not sure I buy or
even always understand some of your speculations about sacred geometry
and grids and such, but your observations on symbolism really
resonante for me sometimes. (Have you thought about the cup marks
found on many stones in Scotland?) I really liked your computer
analogy for downloading new Grail paradigms. Incidentally, there is a
Tristan and Isolde connection here in the Dublin area in an area
called Chapelizod, which is a corruption of Chapel Isolde--so the
legends got here, as well.
Enough for today. One must accomplish SOME work in the course of the
day!
Regards,
Katherine Kurtz
(who is Sir Adam Sinclair's "mother")
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html