Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
HELP WANTED ! Ditch Diggers (No Experience Necessary)
"we also need people who can work with their hands"
Yes, and some of those jobs pay rather well, too. My wife taught in the SF public schools for 35 years and she is in total agreement. Once again, a nonsense label: "left wing do-gooders". Sure thing, Rush.
What a great video clip! Thanks much, Scott. I have always had huge respect for the folks who work with their hands, and keep the whole thing from coming unglued.
If you are able to "fix" anything in the U.S. you will never be out of work, how many college grads can depend on their "education" ? check out the student debt rolls
True to a point. So much repair anymore is just replacing modules or parts that the whole process is not what it was thirty years ago let alone even further back. A lot of stuff is just throwaway now.
That "left wing do-gooders" crack has been kinda sticking in my craw. Personally, I'm completely agnostic, but there's no denying, from a purely historical standpoint, that a man called Jesus Christ did in fact live some 2000 years ago, and that many of his ideas and suggestions are pretty well documented.
If he were alive today, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that he too would be labelled a "left wing do-gooder" by Rush and his followers.
That "left wing do-gooders" crack has been kinda sticking in my craw. Personally, I'm completely agnostic, but there's no denying, from a purely historical standpoint, that a man called Jesus Christ did in fact live some 2000 years ago, and that many of his ideas and suggestions are pretty well documented.
If he were alive today, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that he too would be labelled a "left wing do-gooder" by Rush and his followers.
I'm in the queue right behind you. Although it's pretty clear that in the gospels, there wouldn't be much meat to hang on the bones if the writers depended only on what could be remembered verbatim from Jesus, since those were written ca. 70-110 into the Common Era. A great deal of what's in there is already fleshed-out interpretations.
Max- yes, I'm quite aware of the historical transcription issues, but I'm betting that the written records got the gist of the situation down pretty well. Christ's ideas and remarks as presented in the records may not be 100% individually accurate as attributed speech, but the general philosophy was certainly contemporary with the times, and undeniably a great many people of the era, calling themselves Christians, believed accordingly.
I'm in the queue right behind you. Although it's pretty clear that in the gospels, there wouldn't be much meat to hang on the bones if the writers depended only on what could be remembered verbatim from Jesus, since those were written ca. 70-110 into the Common Era. A great deal of what's in there is already fleshed-out interpretations.
What I got from my nonsensical university education was that a lot of this depends on how you choose to see Q, M, and L source material, as well as the role of oral tradition. It's also entirely possible Mark dates to as early as 55 CE, and the Pauline corpus even earlier. Something happened people chose to remember.
@MFO Board Members: Here's a little secret that I use to draw in viewers and comments. I use left winger do gooders and godless communists to draw flies to the honey, and guess what, it works. Regards Ted
Ted said something about "left wing do-gooders." Ted's Ted. Is it worth stressing about? Or put that energy of upset towards something more positive. Start a hobby, perhaps. Don't you live in CA? It's beautiful there, go outside.
Honestly, I lost a relative to cancer about a year and a half ago and part of the cause (as they didn't smoke or have other risk factors - hereditary, etc) that I and anyone else could think of was the fact that they were consistently very stressed.
I dunno, I used to get upset by little things posted online. I don't anymore, especially the political nonsense. People get so angry/upset when someone disagrees with them online - it's just not worth the stress.
"I like my blood pressure, I'd like to keep my blood pressure." (where it is.) It's quality of life considerations, and as a younger person, I really realize that the idea of having a good quality of life in my older years where I'm not taking 50 pills for various things is not just physical activity, but good mental/emotional health (controlling stress.)
@Scott Well said. I was told a story about Buddha a while back, which is simple but illustrative. When asked about how Buddha can be completely undisturbed after an angry man kept throwing insults at him every day, Buddha said -- I choose not to accept it, so those stay with him.
It can be hard at times, but we do have that choice.
@Scott Well said. I was told a story about Buddha a while back, which is simple but illustrative. When asked about how Buddha can be completely undisturbed after an angry man kept throwing insults at him every day, Buddha said -- I choose not to accept it, so those stay with him.
It can be hard at times, but we do have that choice.
Thank you for the comment, I appreciate it. Have a good weekend.
Well sir, I'm not at all sure that I'm "stressed" by Ted or others very much like him, but I do have difficulty understanding why these folks seem to believe that they have a right to introduce intentionally derogatory labels into an otherwise civilized conversation. I've long noticed that they also seem to have difficulty understanding why anyone would take exception to the practice.
Specifically in Ted's case, by his own statement he does it just to attract attention. If I were to initiate a similar ploy by commenting on "right-wing evil-doers" it would accomplish the same end, undoubtedly stoking up lots of responses. So, is that the rule that we wish to encourage here: say anything you want, as long as it attracts attention?
With respect to your suggestion that I "start a hobby", I'm happy to inform you that I have more than enough projects under way to keep me busy far past my guaranteed shelf life. And a number of those projects do indeed involve going outside in beautiful California.
A good weekend to everyone... here in SF we're starting it off with a nice parade for our Giants.
" but I do have difficulty understanding why these folks seem to believe that they have a right to introduce intentionally derogatory labels into an otherwise civilized conversation. I've long noticed that they also seem to have difficulty understanding why anyone would take exception to the practice."
Because it's the internet. Because, maybe it's a mixture of attention-grabbing and maybe it's part the idea that you have had national media on both sides who have tried as hard as politicians to "play to their bases" and who frequently use many of the same terms.
I mean, look at any comments section on Huffington Post or Fox News and you'll find way more aggressively angry political discussions. The level of hatred that people have for their fellow man because of something as ridiculous as a political party in the comments section on these websites and others is dismaying at best and horrifying at worst. Makes the worst political discussions on here look mild by comparison.
It's the national thing to hate the other party and not ask yours why they're not really accomplishing anything.
"Specifically in Ted's case, by his own statement he does it just to attract attention."
Did he? That's funny.
I mentioned that it's "because of the internet", but I - despite my love of my phone - think all of the things that have changed how people act because of the internet will be worse because of phones.
Louis CK offers a rather brilliant explanation of social media and society (lack of empathy as a result of social media and the internet - which is discussed in regards to kids in the clip but I think extends heavily to adults, etc) - couldn't have said it any better - myself.
As for national media using terms, Jon Stewart trying to explain to Rachel Maddow why it might be a good idea to elevate the national discussion beyond using these sorts of terms.
"look at any comments section on Huffington Post or Fox News"
I'm sure that you're right, and that's the reason that I don't bother with any "news" source that's notably at either end of the spectrum. I do use The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, the Guardian, the New York Times, NPR, and the Washington Post for primary news sources. Quite a mix, some leaning one way, some the other. Put it all together and you probably come pretty close to reality.
With respect to the "because of the internet" theory, I would submit that the internet has not in any meaningful way changed the belief systems or personalities of these so-called "contributors", but merely provided a platform for the bitterness and prejudice which has always been latent. Just observing the spelling, grammar, and logic (or lack of) of these "contributors" reveals quite a bit. Without the internet we would be mercifully isolated from these people.
Comments
Yes, and some of those jobs pay rather well, too. My wife taught in the SF public schools for 35 years and she is in total agreement. Once again, a nonsense label: "left wing do-gooders". Sure thing, Rush.
Derf
If he were alive today, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that he too would be labelled a "left wing do-gooder" by Rush and his followers.
Thanks for standing up, Old Joe!
It may be that a few still do.
And Jesus definitely worked with his hands!
Regards
Ted
He was @Ted.
Regards,
Ted
Caddy Shack:
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Leftorium
But so what? I don't care either way.
Ted said something about "left wing do-gooders." Ted's Ted. Is it worth stressing about? Or put that energy of upset towards something more positive. Start a hobby, perhaps. Don't you live in CA? It's beautiful there, go outside.
Honestly, I lost a relative to cancer about a year and a half ago and part of the cause (as they didn't smoke or have other risk factors - hereditary, etc) that I and anyone else could think of was the fact that they were consistently very stressed.
I dunno, I used to get upset by little things posted online. I don't anymore, especially the political nonsense. People get so angry/upset when someone disagrees with them online - it's just not worth the stress.
"I like my blood pressure, I'd like to keep my blood pressure." (where it is.) It's quality of life considerations, and as a younger person, I really realize that the idea of having a good quality of life in my older years where I'm not taking 50 pills for various things is not just physical activity, but good mental/emotional health (controlling stress.)
angry man kept throwing insults at him every day, Buddha said -- I choose not to
accept it, so those stay with him.
It can be hard at times, but we do have that choice.
Well sir, I'm not at all sure that I'm "stressed" by Ted or others very much like him, but I do have difficulty understanding why these folks seem to believe that they have a right to introduce intentionally derogatory labels into an otherwise civilized conversation. I've long noticed that they also seem to have difficulty understanding why anyone would take exception to the practice.
Specifically in Ted's case, by his own statement he does it just to attract attention. If I were to initiate a similar ploy by commenting on "right-wing evil-doers" it would accomplish the same end, undoubtedly stoking up lots of responses. So, is that the rule that we wish to encourage here: say anything you want, as long as it attracts attention?
With respect to your suggestion that I "start a hobby", I'm happy to inform you that I have more than enough projects under way to keep me busy far past my guaranteed shelf life. And a number of those projects do indeed involve going outside in beautiful California.
A good weekend to everyone... here in SF we're starting it off with a nice parade for our Giants.
Because it's the internet. Because, maybe it's a mixture of attention-grabbing and maybe it's part the idea that you have had national media on both sides who have tried as hard as politicians to "play to their bases" and who frequently use many of the same terms.
I mean, look at any comments section on Huffington Post or Fox News and you'll find way more aggressively angry political discussions. The level of hatred that people have for their fellow man because of something as ridiculous as a political party in the comments section on these websites and others is dismaying at best and horrifying at worst. Makes the worst political discussions on here look mild by comparison.
It's the national thing to hate the other party and not ask yours why they're not really accomplishing anything.
"Specifically in Ted's case, by his own statement he does it just to attract attention."
Did he? That's funny.
I mentioned that it's "because of the internet", but I - despite my love of my phone - think all of the things that have changed how people act because of the internet will be worse because of phones.
Louis CK offers a rather brilliant explanation of social media and society (lack of empathy as a result of social media and the internet - which is discussed in regards to kids in the clip but I think extends heavily to adults, etc) - couldn't have said it any better - myself.
As for national media using terms, Jon Stewart trying to explain to Rachel Maddow why it might be a good idea to elevate the national discussion beyond using these sorts of terms.
Congratulation on the Giants win, and when comes to a parade, San Francisco sure knows how to have one.
Regards,
Ted
I'm sure that you're right, and that's the reason that I don't bother with any "news" source that's notably at either end of the spectrum. I do use The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, the Guardian, the New York Times, NPR, and the Washington Post for primary news sources. Quite a mix, some leaning one way, some the other. Put it all together and you probably come pretty close to reality.
With respect to the "because of the internet" theory, I would submit that the internet has not in any meaningful way changed the belief systems or personalities of these so-called "contributors", but merely provided a platform for the bitterness and prejudice which has always been latent. Just observing the spelling, grammar, and logic (or lack of) of these "contributors" reveals quite a bit. Without the internet we would be mercifully isolated from these people.
Regards,
Ted