*Occupy Wall Street*

[movie zombie]

let us also not forget that history is written by the victors.....which means we get a very one-sided view of things unless we do our own research and read those graphs, studies, etc. a look at Zinn's research certainly shows a different early US history than i was taught in school and helps to explain a lot.

 

[zoebartlett]

I can't keep up anymore. I will say this though. I get that everyone has a right to be greedy, Breebrisk. Of course. It's just a shame when people's greed affects so many people in such a negative way.

 

[beebrisk]

I think it's wonderful that the rich are more likely to be generous w/their money to charities etc..but..just a thought here, isn't it *easier* to be generous when you *have*? I like to be generous. I like to help people out. If I gave my last $5 to a homeless guy, for me that really would BE my last $5. I could've gotten a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs w/that money, it's budgeted to feed my family. But nobody's going to crow about it and flatter me about my massive generosity and bottom less heart and my undying love for humanity. If I have millions in the bank and give a million, well shit I'm on the front page. If you have 10 apples and give 5 away, you still have 5 apples. If I have 1 apple and give 1/2 away, I only have 1/2 an apple left..even tho I gave the same percentage as you. I have way less, a fraction of what you have, and I *started out* w/a fraction of what you have *after* you gave 1/2 away...and so your gift is more worthy of note, b/c it's bigger? It's easy to sit back and smile and be "modest" about being a benefactor to those less fortunate (pshaw, I *wanted* to do it, it brings me such joy to make people happy) when you're sitting in a 10,000 square foot house and the money you gave will make not one dent in your life, you'll put on your suit that cost as much as some families bring home in a month, and feel good about yourself. It's a lot harder to part w/it when you're in a 1000 square foot house, mortgaged, driving a 15 year old broken down vehicle, keeping track of every penny...but you still have a caring heart and want to help in some way. Nobody thinks for a second about the people who give the small amounts b/c that's *all* they can do. Go ahead and donate $5million to the Make a Wish Foundation (for instance), it's a terrific cause. But there are people who still want to help that can't afford to give that much, or want to help but can't do it at all...they're busy working a couple jobs to make ends meet, or they're on unemployment.

Well, of course it's easier to give if you have it. Not quite sure what your point is?

I was trying to make a point that the wealthy aren't the problem here. Is your economic situation, or mine for that matter the fault of "the rich"? Are they to be demonized because they chose and excel in careers that pay exponentially more than what you and I may have chosen or because they may have inherited a bundle? Are they to be criticized yet again because they often choose to give so much away? Sounds like a "damned if they do and damned if they don't" argument to to me. And when it comes to the OWS crowd, a little like pathological jealousy.

No one is knocking those who can only give $5, or simply volunteer their time. Not at all. God bless them. But do you really think that charities would be better off by not seeking out and taking donations from wealthy individuals and corporate benefactors? And you realize that if they did, there'd be a whole lot of well paid, gainfully employed corporate fund-raisers who would suddenly find themselves unemployed and working a couple of jobs to make ends meet. Or is the goal here to make everyone struggle because, well, that's "fair"?

 

[beebrisk]

I can't even begin to tell you how much this post delights me. Thank you.

I'm bowing out at this point; I've said my piece and beebrisk has aptly summed up what I didn't say. The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

Nah, the conservatives on this board don't post anything mean, just the liberals...

Also, what is with the anti-intellectualism in this country? "NO! Don't show me articles, diagrams, or charts! Please, not DATA!! I refuse to look at it! I refuse to believe it!" Do as you wish, but I prefer to be informed before I put my opinions out there. No need to fear science and information.

I wasn't always Conservative...I became that way precisely because I became informed. I began reading both sides of the issues, not just the one I favored. I began to understand that "DATA!!" can be skewed and to look for information derived from empirical evidence, and impartial studies, not partisan poll takers.

And since you brought up "fear of science" which I imagine alludes to Global Warming (oops! I mean Climate Change) are you familiar with the 3000+ scientists that also dispute the issue? Are they "anti-intellectual"? Are they ignoring "DATA!!!" ??

 

[beebrisk]

I can't keep up anymore. I will say this though. I get that everyone has a right to be greedy, Breebrisk. Of course. It's just a shame when people's greed affects so many people in such a negative way.

Give me a list of actual greedy people. Their names. I can assure you I'd find evidence that they have given thousands, if not millions to those less fortunate. Exactly who are these phantom "greedy" people? Are you talking about "corporate greed"? Are corporations not entitled to earn and turn a profit? Can you tell me what large, profitable corporation hasn't also raised funds for a worthy cause?

And lets turn this around...Let's see what well meaning and very well deserving charity will stop relying on corporate donations. You won't find one. If you did, they might as well pack up their offices, get on the unemployment lines themselves and tell those depending on them that they are simply s--t out of luck.

Without corporations (large and small) being profitable, no one has a job, and certainly no one would own a computer on which they can type out their displeasure with "the greedy".

 

[HollyS]

I can't even begin to tell you how much this post delights me. Thank you.

I'm bowing out at this point; I've said my piece and beebrisk has aptly summed up what I didn't say. The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

Nah, the conservatives on this board don't post anything mean, just the liberals...

Also, what is with the anti-intellectualism in this country? "NO! Don't show me articles, diagrams, or charts! Please, not DATA!! I refuse to look at it! I refuse to believe it!" Do as you wish, but I prefer to be informed before I put my opinions out there. No need to fear science and information.

Honey, you can find anything you want to back up your position. Any position you may have. All you need is Google search and you're off. C'mon. Since when does that mean you've cornered the market on Truth?

 

[ksinger]

I can't keep up anymore. I will say this though. I get that everyone has a right to be greedy, Breebrisk. Of course. It's just a shame when people's greed affects so many people in such a negative way.

Give me a list of actual greedy people. Their names. I can assure you I'd find evidence that they have given thousands, if not millions to those less fortunate. Exactly who are these phantom "greedy" people? Are you talking about "corporate greed"? Are corporations not entitled to earn and turn a profit? Can you tell me what large, profitable corporation hasn't also raised funds for a worthy cause?

And lets turn this around...Let's see what well meaning and very well deserving charity will stop relying on corporate donations. You won't find one. If you did, they might as well pack up their offices, get on the unemployment lines themselves and tell those depending on them that they are simply s--t out of luck.

Without corporations (large and small) being profitable, no one has a job, and certainly no one would own a computer on which they can type out their displeasure with "the greedy".

Corporations are a LEGAL construct that exist at our (human) pleasure, and make profits or not, doing the things we (we the government) ALLOW or NOT, at our human will and pleasure, no other reasons. They are not PEOPLE. They have no natural rights, are "entitled" to nothing. When speaking of entitlement, a corporation should not even be in the same sentence.

The fact that corporations OWN US now, was one of the founders' great fears. They actually envisioned this country as comprised of self-sufficient land-owning farmers, beholden to no one, and corporations as short-term purpose constructs for large public works, to be dissolved upon completion of that work, not what we have today. They certainly would be horrified with what corporations have transmogrified into.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I think it's wonderful that the rich are more likely to be generous w/their money to charities etc..but..just a thought here, isn't it *easier* to be generous when you *have*? I like to be generous. I like to help people out. If I gave my last $5 to a homeless guy, for me that really would BE my last $5. I could've gotten a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs w/that money, it's budgeted to feed my family. But nobody's going to crow about it and flatter me about my massive generosity and bottom less heart and my undying love for humanity. If I have millions in the bank and give a million, well shit I'm on the front page. If you have 10 apples and give 5 away, you still have 5 apples. If I have 1 apple and give 1/2 away, I only have 1/2 an apple left..even tho I gave the same percentage as you. I have way less, a fraction of what you have, and I *started out* w/a fraction of what you have *after* you gave 1/2 away...and so your gift is more worthy of note, b/c it's bigger? It's easy to sit back and smile and be "modest" about being a benefactor to those less fortunate (pshaw, I *wanted* to do it, it brings me such joy to make people happy) when you're sitting in a 10,000 square foot house and the money you gave will make not one dent in your life, you'll put on your suit that cost as much as some families bring home in a month, and feel good about yourself. It's a lot harder to part w/it when you're in a 1000 square foot house, mortgaged, driving a 15 year old broken down vehicle, keeping track of every penny...but you still have a caring heart and want to help in some way. Nobody thinks for a second about the people who give the small amounts b/c that's *all* they can do. Go ahead and donate $5million to the Make a Wish Foundation (for instance), it's a terrific cause. But there are people who still want to help that can't afford to give that much, or want to help but can't do it at all...they're busy working a couple jobs to make ends meet, or they're on unemployment.

Well, of course it's easier to give if you have it. Not quite sure what your point is?

I was trying to make a point that the wealthy aren't the problem here. Is your economic situation, or mine for that matter the fault of "the rich"? Are they to be demonized because they chose and excel in careers that pay exponentially more than what you and I may have chosen or because they may have inherited a bundle? Are they to be criticized yet again because they often choose to give so much away? Sounds like a "damned if they do and damned if they don't" argument to to me. And when it comes to the OWS crowd, a little like pathological jealousy.

No one is knocking those who can only give $5, or simply volunteer their time. Not at all. God bless them. But do you really think that charities would be better off by not seeking out and taking donations from wealthy individuals and corporate benefactors? And you realize that if they did, there'd be a whole lot of well paid, gainfully employed corporate fund-raisers who would suddenly find themselves unemployed and working a couple of jobs to make ends meet. Or is the goal here to make everyone struggle because, well, that's "fair"?

I completely agree with Beebrisk, but want to address another point that I feel you might be trying to make, Packrat. Which is that because a person has wealth, he/she has more of an obligation to give up that wealth than a person who does not have wealth. If you feel that people have a right to their property, then the amount of property is irrelevant. Regardless of how much money a person has, he/she has the right to decide WHAT to do with it, whether it's $5 million or $5.

 

[HollyS]

Karen, this is your post, November 22, 2008:


"... all historians are prisoners of their own experience. We bring to history the preconceptions of our personalities and of our age. We cannot
seize on ultimate and absolute truths. So the historian is committed to a doomed enterprise - the quest for an unattainable objectivity."

...and....

"...those who go beyond the lower levels of thought - and cease to want simple answers for complex situations - soon realize that facts are not history, interpretation is history. Just as a pile of 2X4''s, shingles and nails are not a house, so a pile of facts is not history. It is not until the materials are selected, shaped and assembled in a partiular order are they a house. Likewise, it is not until the historical data is sorted, organized and selected that the the most important of historical questions is addressed - "So what?". "Why is this set of facts important and how can I use them to understand how I got here and where I''m going?" All historical writing is based upon interpretation and a particular point of view, it is the responsiblility of the reader to cast a critical eye upon them and discern those biases and points of view. The author is not being deceitful in writing from a point of view (he''s being human) but he does demand that the reader be an active participant in the learning process by critically examining the author''s positions. This is the reader''s responsiblilty toward understanding history. As long as humans write history, as long as humans reading history want a story rather than a spreadsheet of facts, we will have interpretations based upon points of view."

Now, if you insist on believing that your viewpoint is THE One and Only True and Objective View of History, or worse, refuse to accept that you even have any bias, that''s your right. However, still don''t make it so...






I believe I fully understood what you said when you said it.

As I said before, there isn't much more for me to say on the subject, so I'll bow out of defending my position. I will, however, defend myself, if I feel the need. Posters should stop insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is an uneducated, backward, mouth breathing miscreant. Attacks won't win arguments. (This is not directed at you, Karen. You've always maintained civility, thanks.)

 

[beebrisk]

Corporations are a LEGAL construct that exist at our (human) pleasure, and make profits or not, doing the things we (we the government) ALLOW or NOT, at our human will and pleasure, no other reasons. They are not PEOPLE. They have no natural rights, are "entitled" to nothing. When speaking of entitlement, a corporation should not even be in the same sentence.

The fact that corporations OWN US now, was one of the founders' great fears. They actually envisioned this country as comprised of self-sufficient land-owning farmers, beholden to no one, and corporations as short-term purpose constructs for large public works, to be dissolved upon completion of that work, not what we have today. They certainly would be horrified with what corporations have transmogrified into.

I never stated that corporations were anything other than a LEGAL construct, have "natural rights" or that they are PEOPLE.
They are however, comprised of people. Real human beings trying to carve out a living...just like all of us. And real human beings who have the right to earn a profit by selling, making or offering a service of their choice.

Hey, I'll even go so far as to back up your your point that corporations are LEGAL constructs and not PEOPLE, by acknowledging that legal constructs cannot be inherently evil as many here would believe.

 

[Dancing Fire]

beebrisk for President in 2012 ....

 

[iheartscience]

I can't even begin to tell you how much this post delights me. Thank you.

I'm bowing out at this point; I've said my piece and beebrisk has aptly summed up what I didn't say. The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

Nah, the conservatives on this board don't post anything mean, just the liberals...

Also, what is with the anti-intellectualism in this country? "NO! Don't show me articles, diagrams, or charts! Please, not DATA!! I refuse to look at it! I refuse to believe it!" Do as you wish, but I prefer to be informed before I put my opinions out there. No need to fear science and information.

I wasn't always Conservative...I became that way precisely because I became informed. I began reading both sides of the issues, not just the one I favored. I began to understand that "DATA!!" can be skewed and to look for information derived from empirical evidence, and impartial studies, not partisan poll takers.

And since you brought up "fear of science" which I imagine alludes to Global Warming (oops! I mean Climate Change) are you familiar with the 3000+ scientists that also dispute the issue? Are they "anti-intellectual"? Are they ignoring "DATA!!!" ??

Funnily enough, a study done by one of the skeptics of climate change/global warming/whatever you want to call it was just published. Guess what he found? Climate change is real! I bet the Koch brothers wish they hadn't forked over ETA a quarter of the $600k to help fund the study only to be proven wrong. Not sure if this has too much data for you, but it was published in the Wall Street Journal, so perhaps you'll deem it worth a read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6594872796327348.html?KEYWORDS=richard+muller

So um, yeah-the "3000+ scientists disputing the issue" (would love to see some DATA on that figure, BTW) are anti-intellectual and they are ignoring data.

 

[MissStepcut]

I think it's wonderful that the rich are more likely to be generous w/their money to charities etc..but..just a thought here, isn't it *easier* to be generous when you *have*? I like to be generous. I like to help people out. If I gave my last $5 to a homeless guy, for me that really would BE my last $5. I could've gotten a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs w/that money, it's budgeted to feed my family. But nobody's going to crow about it and flatter me about my massive generosity and bottom less heart and my undying love for humanity. If I have millions in the bank and give a million, well shit I'm on the front page. If you have 10 apples and give 5 away, you still have 5 apples. If I have 1 apple and give 1/2 away, I only have 1/2 an apple left..even tho I gave the same percentage as you. I have way less, a fraction of what you have, and I *started out* w/a fraction of what you have *after* you gave 1/2 away...and so your gift is more worthy of note, b/c it's bigger? It's easy to sit back and smile and be "modest" about being a benefactor to those less fortunate (pshaw, I *wanted* to do it, it brings me such joy to make people happy) when you're sitting in a 10,000 square foot house and the money you gave will make not one dent in your life, you'll put on your suit that cost as much as some families bring home in a month, and feel good about yourself. It's a lot harder to part w/it when you're in a 1000 square foot house, mortgaged, driving a 15 year old broken down vehicle, keeping track of every penny...but you still have a caring heart and want to help in some way. Nobody thinks for a second about the people who give the small amounts b/c that's *all* they can do. Go ahead and donate $5million to the Make a Wish Foundation (for instance), it's a terrific cause. But there are people who still want to help that can't afford to give that much, or want to help but can't do it at all...they're busy working a couple jobs to make ends meet, or they're on unemployment.

Well, of course it's easier to give if you have it. Not quite sure what your point is?

I was trying to make a point that the wealthy aren't the problem here. Is your economic situation, or mine for that matter the fault of "the rich"? Are they to be demonized because they chose and excel in careers that pay exponentially more than what you and I may have chosen or because they may have inherited a bundle? Are they to be criticized yet again because they often choose to give so much away? Sounds like a "damned if they do and damned if they don't" argument to to me. And when it comes to the OWS crowd, a little like pathological jealousy.

No one is knocking those who can only give $5, or simply volunteer their time. Not at all. God bless them. But do you really think that charities would be better off by not seeking out and taking donations from wealthy individuals and corporate benefactors? And you realize that if they did, there'd be a whole lot of well paid, gainfully employed corporate fund-raisers who would suddenly find themselves unemployed and working a couple of jobs to make ends meet. Or is the goal here to make everyone struggle because, well, that's "fair"?

I would have agreed with you 40 years ago, but the finance industry is a big ponzi scheme.

 

[beebrisk]

I think it's wonderful that the rich are more likely to be generous w/their money to charities etc..but..just a thought here, isn't it *easier* to be generous when you *have*? I like to be generous. I like to help people out. If I gave my last $5 to a homeless guy, for me that really would BE my last $5. I could've gotten a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs w/that money, it's budgeted to feed my family. But nobody's going to crow about it and flatter me about my massive generosity and bottom less heart and my undying love for humanity. If I have millions in the bank and give a million, well shit I'm on the front page. If you have 10 apples and give 5 away, you still have 5 apples. If I have 1 apple and give 1/2 away, I only have 1/2 an apple left..even tho I gave the same percentage as you. I have way less, a fraction of what you have, and I *started out* w/a fraction of what you have *after* you gave 1/2 away...and so your gift is more worthy of note, b/c it's bigger? It's easy to sit back and smile and be "modest" about being a benefactor to those less fortunate (pshaw, I *wanted* to do it, it brings me such joy to make people happy) when you're sitting in a 10,000 square foot house and the money you gave will make not one dent in your life, you'll put on your suit that cost as much as some families bring home in a month, and feel good about yourself. It's a lot harder to part w/it when you're in a 1000 square foot house, mortgaged, driving a 15 year old broken down vehicle, keeping track of every penny...but you still have a caring heart and want to help in some way. Nobody thinks for a second about the people who give the small amounts b/c that's *all* they can do. Go ahead and donate $5million to the Make a Wish Foundation (for instance), it's a terrific cause. But there are people who still want to help that can't afford to give that much, or want to help but can't do it at all...they're busy working a couple jobs to make ends meet, or they're on unemployment.

Well, of course it's easier to give if you have it. Not quite sure what your point is?

I was trying to make a point that the wealthy aren't the problem here. Is your economic situation, or mine for that matter the fault of "the rich"? Are they to be demonized because they chose and excel in careers that pay exponentially more than what you and I may have chosen or because they may have inherited a bundle? Are they to be criticized yet again because they often choose to give so much away? Sounds like a "damned if they do and damned if they don't" argument to to me. And when it comes to the OWS crowd, a little like pathological jealousy.

No one is knocking those who can only give $5, or simply volunteer their time. Not at all. God bless them. But do you really think that charities would be better off by not seeking out and taking donations from wealthy individuals and corporate benefactors? And you realize that if they did, there'd be a whole lot of well paid, gainfully employed corporate fund-raisers who would suddenly find themselves unemployed and working a couple of jobs to make ends meet. Or is the goal here to make everyone struggle because, well, that's "fair"?

I would have agreed with you 40 years ago, but the finance industry is a big ponzi scheme.

Can you elaborate? A ponzi scheme? I'm sure if you have an IRA or 401K, it took a tumble, just as mine did. But did you withdraw your money and put it under your mattress?

What of the people that make fortunes outside of the finance industry?

Are sports stars greedy because they sign zillion-dollar contracts? Are movie stars greedy because they are offered 20million per picture?

Personally, I don't think sports or movie stars are worth a 10th of what they get paid, but who am I to say they shouldn't?

 

[MissStepcut]

Nah, I haven't lost any money. The issue I have is the finance industry's profits are totally put of whack with the services they provide, and they're protected through regulation from competition that would bring that back down to earth (unlike entertainers). But like I said, I am a hypocrite. I make my living the same way.

 

[beebrisk]

I can't even begin to tell you how much this post delights me. Thank you.

I'm bowing out at this point; I've said my piece and beebrisk has aptly summed up what I didn't say. The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

Nah, the conservatives on this board don't post anything mean, just the liberals...

Also, what is with the anti-intellectualism in this country? "NO! Don't show me articles, diagrams, or charts! Please, not DATA!! I refuse to look at it! I refuse to believe it!" Do as you wish, but I prefer to be informed before I put my opinions out there. No need to fear science and information.

I wasn't always Conservative...I became that way precisely because I became informed. I began reading both sides of the issues, not just the one I favored. I began to understand that "DATA!!" can be skewed and to look for information derived from empirical evidence, and impartial studies, not partisan poll takers.

And since you brought up "fear of science" which I imagine alludes to Global Warming (oops! I mean Climate Change) are you familiar with the 3000+ scientists that also dispute the issue? Are they "anti-intellectual"? Are they ignoring "DATA!!!" ??

Funnily enough, a study done by one of the skeptics of climate change/global warming/whatever you want to call it was just published. Guess what he found? Climate change is real! I bet the Koch brothers wish they hadn't forked over ETA a quarter of the $600k to help fund the study only to be proven wrong. Not sure if this has too much data for you, but it was published in the Wall Street Journal, so perhaps you'll deem it worth a read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6594872796327348.html?KEYWORDS=richard+muller

So um, yeah-the "3000+ scientists disputing the issue" (would love to see some DATA on that figure, BTW) are anti-intellectual and they are ignoring data.

Thing, this is a departure for me because lately I've taken to ignoring your posts as you are perhaps the most egregious proponent of snark, sneering and ugliness on all of PS. Since I'm of firm belief that ad hominem attacks are used only when one cannot defend one's position clearly and correctly, I see no point in wasting my time reading your posts or reacting to them.

Since you directed this one toward me however, I'll try to clarify (even though this has veered way off topic)

The figure of 3000 that I stated was actually a typo (my bad!). The number of scientists who disagree with the theory (and I say "theory" because it's not a proven fact) that warming is man made, runs closer to the 30,000 mark. One little "0" makes a big difference! Looking for that "DATA!!"? It's easily found, take a peek.

In fact, the article/study you sited and patronizingly suggested I might deem a worth read (presumably because it comes from a traditionally conservative source?) says exactly the same thing:

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Is the earth warming? Yeah, probably. Is this a natural weather trend that's likely to reverse itself? Yeah, probably. Is warming, ummm "climate change" about to cause our immediate demise? Rising sea levels? Yeah, probably not. Will it cause Al Gore to spontaneously combust in a fit of self righteous rage? Yeah, probably.

Like I said, since you responded to me, I've taken my "equal time" to respond and say my peace. I will now let you let it rip as I'm sure you're hesitant to disappoint anyone with thoughtful silence. (intentional snark)

 

[ksinger]

Karen, this is your post, November 22, 2008:


"... all historians are prisoners of their own experience. We bring to history the preconceptions of our personalities and of our age. We cannot
seize on ultimate and absolute truths. So the historian is committed to a doomed enterprise - the quest for an unattainable objectivity."

...and....

"...those who go beyond the lower levels of thought - and cease to want simple answers for complex situations - soon realize that facts are not history, interpretation is history. Just as a pile of 2X4''s, shingles and nails are not a house, so a pile of facts is not history. It is not until the materials are selected, shaped and assembled in a partiular order are they a house. Likewise, it is not until the historical data is sorted, organized and selected that the the most important of historical questions is addressed - "So what?". "Why is this set of facts important and how can I use them to understand how I got here and where I''m going?" All historical writing is based upon interpretation and a particular point of view, it is the responsiblility of the reader to cast a critical eye upon them and discern those biases and points of view. The author is not being deceitful in writing from a point of view (he''s being human) but he does demand that the reader be an active participant in the learning process by critically examining the author''s positions. This is the reader''s responsiblilty toward understanding history. As long as humans write history, as long as humans reading history want a story rather than a spreadsheet of facts, we will have interpretations based upon points of view."

Now, if you insist on believing that your viewpoint is THE One and Only True and Objective View of History, or worse, refuse to accept that you even have any bias, that''s your right. However, still don''t make it so...

I believe I fully understood what you said when you said it.

As I said before, there isn't much more for me to say on the subject, so I'll bow out of defending my position. I will, however, defend myself, if I feel the need. Posters should stop insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is an uneducated, backward, mouth breathing miscreant. Attacks won't win arguments. (This is not directed at you, Karen. You've always maintained civility, thanks.)

The first is Tuchman, as I recall, probably from "Practicing History", and the second is indeed my husband. I thought that thread (I never could find it again, and I looked long long ago) was pulled. I guess I was mistaken - but then I never used the subscription feature either, and (still) easily lost track of things. I'm glad you found some of it. But I do recall very well that you disagreed with it at the time. Maybe just the enthusiasm of team sports at the time...?

There is understanding you have bias - and you will note I never said I didn't have one of my very own, I'd be a pretty large fool to think otherwise - and then there is ignoring anything that disagrees with it, or as I said, twisting the interpretation, OR even the facts, to fit what you want to believe (for whatever reason), rather than changing your view to fit a greater body of facts. Granted, this can be difficult and makes things less clear-cut and bumper-sticker-y, but worth the effort I think.

DF is a perfect example of that in this very thread - when confronted with a person in OWS, who did not fit his view of all of them as lazy stoners, he either refused to read OR refused to accept. THAT is what I'm talking about, no pause, no thought, no doubt, just dogmatism. That isn't interpretation, that is just denial. But they ARE ALL lazy losers, said he, when one (and clearly MORE than one) are not. I have no use for that. Intepretation can be taken so far as to be fantasy - who could call the Inquisition of the middle ages, or the Holocaust, or American slavery, anything but bad? In that regard, no, historical interpretation - while inevitable - is NOT in the mind of the beholder, not up for debate. Certain historical things are very very clear, are they not? Maybe someone would have the right to believe that bad is good, but then the rest of society would also have the right and maybe even duty, to collectively call BS on it too...

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="ksinger|1320101317|
DF is a perfect example of that in this very thread - when confronted with a person in OWS, who did not fit his view of all of them as lazy stoners, he either refused to read OR refused to accept. THAT is what I'm talking about, no pause, no thought, no doubt, just dogmatism. That isn't interpretation, that is just denial. But they ARE ALL lazy losers, said he, when one (and clearly MORE than one) are not. I have no use for that. Intepretation can be taken so far as to be fantasy - who could call the Inquisition of the middle ages, or the Holocaust, or American slavery, anything but bad? In that regard, no, historical interpretation - while inevitable - is NOT in the mind of the beholder, not up for debate. Certain historical things are very very clear, are they not? Maybe someone would have the right to believe that bad is good, but then the rest of society would also have the right and maybe even duty, to collectively call BS on it too...[/quote]


i don't understand enough english...
not losers but lazy...they want everything handed to them on a silver platter for free.history taught us that socialism will never work..

 

[iheartscience]

I can't even begin to tell you how much this post delights me. Thank you.

I'm bowing out at this point; I've said my piece and beebrisk has aptly summed up what I didn't say. The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

Nah, the conservatives on this board don't post anything mean, just the liberals...

Also, what is with the anti-intellectualism in this country? "NO! Don't show me articles, diagrams, or charts! Please, not DATA!! I refuse to look at it! I refuse to believe it!" Do as you wish, but I prefer to be informed before I put my opinions out there. No need to fear science and information.

I wasn't always Conservative...I became that way precisely because I became informed. I began reading both sides of the issues, not just the one I favored. I began to understand that "DATA!!" can be skewed and to look for information derived from empirical evidence, and impartial studies, not partisan poll takers.

And since you brought up "fear of science" which I imagine alludes to Global Warming (oops! I mean Climate Change) are you familiar with the 3000+ scientists that also dispute the issue? Are they "anti-intellectual"? Are they ignoring "DATA!!!" ??

Funnily enough, a study done by one of the skeptics of climate change/global warming/whatever you want to call it was just published. Guess what he found? Climate change is real! I bet the Koch brothers wish they hadn't forked over ETA a quarter of the $600k to help fund the study only to be proven wrong. Not sure if this has too much data for you, but it was published in the Wall Street Journal, so perhaps you'll deem it worth a read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6594872796327348.html?KEYWORDS=richard+muller

So um, yeah-the "3000+ scientists disputing the issue" (would love to see some DATA on that figure, BTW) are anti-intellectual and they are ignoring data.

Thing, this is a departure for me because lately I've taken to ignoring your posts as you are perhaps the most egregious proponent of snark, sneering and ugliness on all of PS. Since I'm of firm belief that ad hominem attacks are used only when one cannot defend one's position clearly and correctly, I see no point in wasting my time reading your posts or reacting to them.

Since you directed this one toward me however, I'll try to clarify (even though this has veered way off topic)

The figure of 3000 that I stated was actually a typo (my bad!). The number of scientists who disagree with the theory (and I say "theory" because it's not a proven fact) that warming is man made, runs closer to the 30,000 mark. One little "0" makes a big difference! Looking for that "DATA!!"? It's easily found, take a peek.

In fact, the article/study you sited and patronizingly suggested I might deem a worth read (presumably because it comes from a traditionally conservative source?) says exactly the same thing:

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Is the earth warming? Yeah, probably. Is this a natural weather trend that's likely to reverse itself? Yeah, probably. Is warming, ummm "climate change" about to cause our immediate demise? Rising sea levels? Yeah, probably not. Will it cause Al Gore to spontaneously combust in a fit of self righteous rage? Yeah, probably.

Like I said, since you responded to me, I've taken my "equal time" to respond and say my peace. I will now let you let it rip as I'm sure you're hesitant to disappoint anyone with thoughtful silence. (intentional snark)

Oh beebrisk, do you really think so? That's a strange comment coming from someone who only posts when there's a fight, but I'm honored nonetheless! And I'll be happy to give you thoughtful silence just as soon as you post something worth thinking about!

As to the 30,000 figure, are you referring to this petition: http://petitionproject.org/? That site appears to be where the super convincing number you cited is coming from. According to the site itself, the "scientists" who signed the petition are people who have achieved "forrmal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields." Meaning, anyone with a degree, regardless of training or research background. Very convincing!

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="thing2of2|

As to the 30,000 figure, are you referring to this petition: http://petitionproject.org/? That site appears to be where the super convincing number you cited is coming from. According to the site itself, the "scientists" who signed the petition are people who have achieved "forrmal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields." Meaning, anyone with a degree, regardless of training or research background. Very convincing![/quote]


one of them scientist is Al Gore...

 

[movie zombie]

[quote="Dancing Fire|1320106193|3051338 not losers but lazy...they want everything handed to them on a silver platter for free.history taught us that socialism will never work.. [/quote]


not true, DF, not true at all. some are working, some have worked, some had to return to work because their retirement got wiped out by wall street crime.

wanting to end wall street crime does not make one a socialist. enron should have been a warning.....and what few regulations were put into place after that fiasco are now being talked about being eliminated by some candidates for pres. in other words socialism AND unregulated commerce so more wall street crime can be commited and more of the middle class slip into poverty.

the least of your worries is socialism....it will never trickle down to us. the real worry is corporate/business/wall street/banker power brokers who are actually ruling this country for their own benefit.

 

[ksinger]

[quote="ksinger|1320101317|
DF is a perfect example of that in this very thread - when confronted with a person in OWS, who did not fit his view of all of them as lazy stoners, he either refused to read OR refused to accept. THAT is what I'm talking about, no pause, no thought, no doubt, just dogmatism. That isn't interpretation, that is just denial. But they ARE ALL lazy losers, said he, when one (and clearly MORE than one) are not. I have no use for that. Intepretation can be taken so far as to be fantasy - who could call the Inquisition of the middle ages, or the Holocaust, or American slavery, anything but bad? In that regard, no, historical interpretation - while inevitable - is NOT in the mind of the beholder, not up for debate. Certain historical things are very very clear, are they not? Maybe someone would have the right to believe that bad is good, but then the rest of society would also have the right and maybe even duty, to collectively call BS on it too...

i don't understand enough english...
not losers but lazy...they want everything handed to them on a silver platter for free.history taught us that socialism will never work.. [/quote]

(pleasantly I call a big hearty hi-ho BS. You understand perfectly well. Even your favorite goddess thinks you're as full of crap as a Christmas goose, DF. Stated as much earlier in the thread. We don't agree on quite a few things, but we're in perfect accord on THAT one.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Dancing Fire|1320106193|3051338 not losers but lazy...they want everything handed to them on a silver platter for free.history taught us that socialism will never work..

not true, DF, not true at all. some are working, some have worked, some had to return to work because their retirement got wiped out by wall street crime.

wanting to end wall street crime does not make one a socialist. enron should have been a warning.....and what few regulations were put into place after that fiasco are now being talked about being eliminated by some candidates for pres. in other words socialism AND unregulated commerce so more wall street crime can be commited and more of the middle class slip into poverty.

the least of your worries is socialism....it will never trickle down to us. the real worry is corporate/business/wall street/banker power brokers who are actually ruling this country for their own benefit.[/quote]


then they shouldn't have gamble with their retirement $$$.

 

[Karl_K]

Funnily enough, a study done by one of the skeptics of climate change/global warming/whatever you want to call it was just published. Guess what he found? Climate change is real! I bet the Koch brothers wish they hadn't forked over ETA a quarter of the $600k to help fund the study only to be proven wrong. Not sure if this has too much data for you, but it was published in the Wall Street Journal, so perhaps you'll deem it worth a read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6594872796327348.html?KEYWORDS=richard+muller

Climate changes DUH! The earth just exited an ice age not to long ago of course it changes......
From the article:
"How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."
That is the issue.
First it was global cooling then it was global warming and geez that study said they messed with the numbers and now they say.. 1/3 cooling and 2/3 warming .. trust us we messed with the numbers in just the right way. WOW they discovered that climate changes! Well if you believe they messed with the numbers right anyway..... but they didn't even try and study if it was caused by humans......

 

[beebrisk]

[quote="Dancing Fire|1320106193|3051338 not losers but lazy...they want everything handed to them on a silver platter for free.history taught us that socialism will never work..

not true, DF, not true at all. some are working, some have worked, some had to return to work because their retirement got wiped out by wall street crime.

wanting to end wall street crime does not make one a socialist. enron should have been a warning.....and what few regulations were put into place after that fiasco are now being talked about being eliminated by some candidates for pres. in other words socialism AND unregulated commerce so more wall street crime can be commited and more of the middle class slip into poverty.

the least of your worries is socialism....it will never trickle down to us. the real worry is corporate/business/wall street/banker power brokers who are actually ruling this country for their own benefit.[/quote]

If Enron should have been a warning, Solyndra should be the final straw. But ahhh, yes...that deal was brokered by the guy everyone here worshipped just 3 short years ago, so we'll just give it a pass.

 

[movie zombie]

both equally bad and both show that no matter who is elected, the power brokers will have our money one way or another. enron bad because they broke law that cheated investors and employees while the upper rung employees made hand over fist of $. solyndra is bad in the same way that the wall street bailout was bad. again, doesn't matter who is president the power brokers run this government and they make sure the only candidates we have paraded before us are ones they can manipulate and bring around to do them more favors. not a partisan issue, bee, but one that crosses party lines and leaves us at each others throats rather than demanding an end to the corruption, prosecution of the culprits, responsible representation by elected officials, etc.

yes, enron should have been a wakeup call that things were going to get worse.....a lot worse....and they did. solyndra being an example of that but not the only example.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="beebrisk|1320116243|
If Enron should have been a warning, Solyndra should be the final straw. But ahhh, yes...that deal was brokered by the guy everyone here worshipped just 3 short years ago, so we'll just give it a pass. [/quote]


why not blame Solyndra on Bush ??...

 

[HollyS]

[quote="ksinger|1320101317|
DF is a perfect example of that in this very thread - when confronted with a person in OWS, who did not fit his view of all of them as lazy stoners, he either refused to read OR refused to accept. THAT is what I'm talking about, no pause, no thought, no doubt, just dogmatism. That isn't interpretation, that is just denial. But they ARE ALL lazy losers, said he, when one (and clearly MORE than one) are not. I have no use for that. Intepretation can be taken so far as to be fantasy - who could call the Inquisition of the middle ages, or the Holocaust, or American slavery, anything but bad? In that regard, no, historical interpretation - while inevitable - is NOT in the mind of the beholder, not up for debate. Certain historical things are very very clear, are they not? Maybe someone would have the right to believe that bad is good, but then the rest of society would also have the right and maybe even duty, to collectively call BS on it too...

i don't understand enough english...
not losers but lazy...they want everything handed to them on a silver platter for free.history taught us that socialism will never work..

(pleasantly I call a big hearty hi-ho BS. You understand perfectly well. Even your favorite goddess thinks you're as full of crap as a Christmas goose, DF. Stated as much earlier in the thread. We don't agree on quite a few things, but we're in perfect accord on THAT one.[/quote]


Me? A goddess?

 

[Karl_K]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33rnpSyOPwk&feature=player_embedded#at=69

 

[HollyS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33rnpSyOPwk&feature=player_embedded#at=69

Golly gee whiz. Imagine that. Who'da thunk it? Didn't see this coming.

Anyone want to defend these "Occupiers"? Was their action warranted? Was it a wise move, well considered, thought out, helpful to their cause? Or merely stupid?

My money's on stupid.