SoutherDem
SoutherDem's JournalHistory Repeating Itself
While I certainly realize movies don’t alway tell the truth, even historical movies which are based on fact take literary license which at times will distort facts.
That said, I have just finished watching the mini series “Oppenheimer” a production by the BBC. I don’t wish to evaluate the life of Dr. Oppenheimer nor his work. But, rather the the tactics of the F.B.I. and the general attitude of the government in the 40’s and 50’s.
Within the movie it continuously referred to the worries that even being friends with a communist called into question one’s loyalty to the U.S., the F.B.I. freely tapped phones and bugged homes and offices, and exhibited that how during the trial to determine if Dr. Oppenheimer should keep his security clearance, his attorney wasn’t allowed security clearance to review the evidence, and there was evidence which was considered “classified” so it was entered into the trial but kept from Oppenheimer’s side. It seemed if it was in the name of national security there were no limits.
Apart from the movie, we all have heard of the Sen. McCarty hearings and the House Committee on UnAmerican Activity.
Basically, the U. S. Constitution was dismissed so often.
Now to present day, or at least within the last decade or so. If someone calls the actions of the government into question they are call unpatriotic and a socialist or communist. We may not have the formal committee but it seems the Republicans are attempting the keep the spirit of the committee alive and well, McCarty seems to have been reincarnated in several of the elected Republicans, and the tactics of the F.B.I. is going strong and the tactics of trials where evidence is kept from defendants sometimes occurs. It seemed if it is in the name of national security there are no limits.
Once again we hear people talk of the Constitution being dismissed by some.
Apparently, we have dismissed parts of our Constitution through-out history and this is nothing new.
I am only 45 years old, so I can only go by the history I read or see in movies and documentaries, and due to the revisionist I am troubled to believe what I read and see because it seems many authors/producers find fact to fit their opinion rather than form their opinion based on the facts.
Can someone shed light on the fact in this subject?
Two questions
I am not great on acronyms, to old I guess. I get LOL, IMHO, and ROFL but there are two I keep seeing and haven't caught on to. MIC and K&R. If any one can help that would be great.
Kind of on the same thought, I know DU stands for Democratic Underground, but I occasionally see DU2 and DU3. One again any help would be great.
Question on Doubt
For most of my life I was a Christian. I really believed, the Bible was the "word of God". Yet, at times I found myself doubting my faith. For a few seconds I really did not believe.
Now I am an Atheist. I really do not believe in God, the Bible or any aspect of religion. Yet, at times I find myself doubting my non-faith. For a few seconds I really believe in God.
Is this just part of human nature? To question what you believe or don't believe?
What will the U.S. be like in 2076
I at times don't recognized this country, not because of any specific thing, but the general attitude of some of the people.
What do you think the U.S. will be like in 2076;
Please have fun with this. Add comments, no comment too off the wall.
Has anyone crunch the numbers?
Rmoney continued to stress his record at Bain. He WAS claiming 100's of 1000's of jobs he "created". I think he has now lowered that to 10's of 1000's.
The Democrats point out the firings, closings and out sourcing after a business was purchased by Bain.
But, when the ultimate question is asked, when all is said and done, is Rmoney's record positive or negative. I haven't heard a clear answer.
Even on NPR which usually is not partial the answer is "who knows" it is too complicated to figure out because there are variables which are not measurable, e.g. if a business would not have been purchased would it have closed sooner, or even more lost their jobs, if Rmoney would have not fired, closed and out sourced like he did could he have still saved any businesses. What if someone else provided the capital without such demands for profit, what about allowing the employees to purchase the businesses?
Don't get me wrong, I feel Private Equity Firms are the leaches and vultures of the business world.
And, I personally feel Bain did more harm than good. Further more even if one feels Bain did some good, for that to be Rmoney's record which he is saying he can "fix" America's economy it won't work. You can't fire the state of Mississippi, and close the state of Alaska, out source Florida to the Caribbean.
That said.
Has anyone really crunched the numbers so that with empirical data, it is known once and for all, Bain did good or bad.
Has anyone crunched the numbers?
Rmoney continued to stress his record at Bain. He WAS claiming 100's of 1000's of jobs he "created". I think he has now lowered that to 10's of 1000's.
The Democrats point out the firings and closings after a business was purchased by Bain.
But, when the ultimate question is asked, when all is said and done is Rmoney's record positive or negative.
Even on NPR which usually is not partial the answer is "who knows" it is too complicated to figure out because there are variables which are not measurable, e.g. if a business would not have been purchased would it have closed sooner, or even more lost their jobs, if Rmoney would have accepted lower profit could more jobs be saves and fewer business closed.
Don't get me wrong, I feel Private Equity Firms are the leaches and vultures of the business world.
And, I personally feel Bain did more harm than good. Further more even if one feels Bain did some good, for that to be Rmoney's record which he is saying he can "fix" America's economy it won't work. You can't fire the state of Mississippi, and close the state of Alaska, out source Florida to the Caribbean.
That said.
Has anyone really crunched the numbers so that with empirical data, it is known once and for all, Bain did good or bad.
Debt Ceiling Prediction
I know Boehner is talking about the debt ceiling again. Also, last years ransom to the kidnappers was to hold us off to 2013. Now I am hearing everything from early January 2012 to early October 2012.
Does anyone know the correct answer?
Wait for it......
Just heard on Fresh Air that some of the chemicals in plastics mimic estrogen.
I know this falls under the subject of science so the Republicans won't hear about it or believe in it for years even decades. But when they do I can see the FOX headline.
Plastics cause homosexuality.
Polls vs. Elections
We are bombarded with polls. Each one usually spun to make each side happy or at least less sad and the side which isn't winning question if the poll was biased. It seems often polls are predictors to the election but sometimes the polls are totally off. Why? Often it isn't the poll but the turnout on election day.
I don't understand why every American doesn't vote but we often have elections which have less than 50% turnout. In some originations that isn't enough for a quorum and the vote can't be held, but we will accept allowing 25-40% to make the decision for everyone by not voting.
Voting should be easy, yet we have those who want to make it hard, adding I.D. requirements, just one day to vote, limited voting hours (is 12 hours enough in a 24 hour world), polling places which are not able to handle the turnout for the area (it shouldn't take 2 hours to vote), complicated ballots, some voting machines not friendly for the elderly or those with special needs, voting machine which don't have paper back-up or just simply hard to use.
How could we make voting easier?
If it were easier to vote would more people vote?
Is it time to consider on-line voting as an option?
Should we ever consider a requirement to vote?
Since we are allowing a small part of the electorate to "represent" the total electorate, should we go to a sampling system similar to the polls taken today except much larger,conducted by the same government office which conducts the election (not the media) and reviewed by an election commission just as our elections?
I don't know the answers. I just know it can be frustrating to see 37% of the people to make the decision for 100% of the people.
Any and all comments are welcomed.
Can history be revised to oblivion?
It seem history often gets revised for various reason, usually because of the current political or social direction of the moment.
What is bad become good and good becomes bad.
We often see FOX news take whatever the real news is and embellish it to sound good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats. In all fairness it can happen on the other side also.
I have seen this happen for events throughout all history. There are event which I was taught in school which I felt was fact, which now I have heard many other revision to the point I don't know what or who to believe. I am not talking about dates and places, but reasons, effects and the morality of events.
After numerous revision it is often difficult to know what really happen.
Can the facts ever be lost forever?
Does the internet make it more likely?
What about things which happened before the internet?
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jan 22, 2011, 01:32 PMNumber of posts: 2,307
