Mastering the game.

[dbphoenix]

One can have the best minders or spin doctors and all, but it still takes the people to tango along, at least initially while they still have a choice.

Or, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Db

 

[BSD]

45 years is a long time to wait . . .

Ummmm

Or, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Db

Normally I'd say that sounds very ,very true. But sometimes I'm really not sure if we really can alter things much through being against something.

 

[Rhody Trader]

Normally I'd say that sounds very ,very true. But sometimes I'm really not sure if we really can alter things much through being against something.

Exactly. Being for something is usually the more powerful action stance.

 

[BSD]

Being for something is usually the more powerful action stance.

Rhody, I entirely agree with that, but I suppose what I actually meant was that action will inevitably be met with an equal reaction as long as you're doing it with good old hard work and in the framework of believing in a competitive, zero sum world where there is only one cake for all.

Simply set an objective on the other hand and then let go within a framework of there being no limits to possibilities and believing in a cake that can actually grow, and hey presto, that's when things happen.

Sounds corny, I know, lol, but think of it in terms of desperately wanting something and working your ass off to get there, in most cases you won't get it or even if you do eventually someone will wrest it away from you.

Think Afghanistan etc, be it under the Soviets, or NATO now etc.

Doesn't work, does it.

Contrast that with setting a positive, non-interfering goal with positive energy and a carefree spirit, and things will happen to you in a much easier way and stay with you with a much longer half life.

Think sports. Most athletes have pretty much the same physical abilities, it's the ability to set goals and then let go that differentiates the champions fom their lesser brethren.

Not anything that can be proven or not, obviously, just one of those things one does or doesn't believe in and act upon. ;-)

Strange world...

 

[dbphoenix]

Normally I'd say that sounds very ,very true. But sometimes I'm really not sure if we really can alter things much through being against something.

Depends on what one is willing to accept as "alter" and "much". If one believes that humanity is doomed regardless, then what's the point of acting at all? But many (most?) people are satisfied with the effort, even though the results might be only temporary, e.g., Germany at the end of WWI, and even WWII (both the result of extraordinary mismanagement on the part of the "conquerors"). As for Viet Nam, we got us out of there eventually, but Congress had more of a spine back then.

So it depends on whether one is talking about a free-floating againstness, or whether one is working toward its opposite, e.g., for peace, against war.

Db

 

[nine]

No, gullibility is not an exclusively American trait. But that doesn't make our situation any less frustrating.

Db

Db,

If you have not read the book "The Wisdom of Crowds" (Surowiecki) you might enjoy it. The final chapters which look at democracy are particularly interesting.

In fact I recommend it to everyone interested in mastering the game. Almost as interesting as tipping point.

 

[BSD]

Depends on what one is willing to accept as "alter" and "much". If one believes that humanity is doomed regardless, then what's the point of acting at all?
Db

Hi DB, I certainly hope we're not doomed. ;-)

I think the world is dualistic, that is all the good and bad out there are simply two sides of one coin and couldn't exist without each other, and it's a constant backing and forthing between the two without one side ever being able to gain an upperhand over the other as that's just the way the system's set up to give us something to do and overcome ;-)

That's why something like a "war against drugs" imho is a venture that's doomed to failure from the outset, just like trying once and for all to eliminate crime in all it's guises including Bush's "war against terrorism".

I don't want to take this here entirely off track, but you can either keep focusing on processes whilst repeating the same mistakes over and over while expecting different outcomes, which by most definitions isn't a big indicator of wisdom, or you can try and focus on results instead and set an objective without caring how you're going to get there.

For example I really believe that all this "war on drugs" nonsense at this stage really isn't primarily about ridding societies of drugs any more, it's rather a desperate attempt to be proven right in ones view of life that unfortunately simply is not reflected by reality, the war on drugs comes from a narrow worldview where being right has become far more important than doing the right thing.

Something all sects / religions / societies / extremists share whose main aim in life is, umm, wanting to tell others how to live their lives, methinks.

When you want to be right without caring about results it makes sense to spend one heck of a lot of resources on a huge police force, dreaming up draconian penalties and maintaining an enormous prison infrastructure to lock up all the pot smokers (only slight exaggeration here, at least for certain states I think, lol) and still self-righteously wake up feeling good.

If by contrast you're about the doing the right thing all you see as a result of enormous amounts of wasted resources is watching drug consumption steadily rising while drug related crimes are exploding to finance the habit and drug producers and pushers are becoming ever more powerful and wealthy.

Results aren't measuring up to what should be the objectives, so as any good trader or, for that matter, anyone with an IQ north of his age in any walk of life should realize, you probably need to change tack to bring results in line with expectations and try something different.

Legalize soft drugs - what else is alcohol anyway -, and take the profits away from organized crime by keeping hard drugs illegal, but distributing them or substitutes like eg methadon under medical supervision to real addicts. Effects will be a marked reduction in crimes that people commit to feed their habbits while simultaneously removing one of the biggest cash cows and thus sources of power for organized crime.

I believe you have states in the USA where soft drugs are de facto legal for private consumption, same like in many European countries, don't know if you also have what some of us have over here, ie programmes doing said medical distribution of hard drugs / substitutes to real addicts, but they are showing some real promise as measured against objectives.

Far less effort / fight, far more bang for the buck ;-)

 

[Crap Buddist]

Good people and fellow citizens ......

"organized crime."

Todays governments would seem to fit that description ,more so than actual organized crime itself does. Genius aint they??

Now surely that is mastering the game ?

 

[BSD]

"organized crime."

Todays governments would seem to fit that description

Oui Oui ;-)