So what's the difference

Posted by: DLC

So what's the difference - 12/06/07 10:52 AM

between bailing out people who made bad choices in over-extending what they could afford for a House and giving welfare to a needy mother [who may have made a bad choice about having a kid(s) ].<br><br>Don't get me wrong - I'm not against helping the true "needy". But conservaties hype the welfare mother stuff all the time, but now Bush offers bailouts for those who may lose their home. I understand it is voluntary (on the lending institution) which may make it totally useless. But I'm questioning the discrepancy in their philosophy (ie policy flip-flop). <br><br>And in the "house" case.. the lending institutions are as guilty as the home owners who made foolish decisions.<br>And in some cases the homeowners might have lost their jobs or had to take pay cuts... well again who promoted "Free trade" and NAFTA for the past 20 + years and shipped millions of our middle class jobs to India, Pakistan, and China ? the GOP ! <br>(don't give me "it was Clinton's fault". .. sure he foolishly signed the damm bill but it was Newt and the other GOP conservatives that had pushed this in Congress since Reagan!)<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: So what's the difference - 12/06/07 02:16 PM

Stupid people.... greedy mortgage brokers. Dangerous combination.<br><br>Not really a problem with the loans per se. But they should have been qualified on payment AFTER teaser period, not qualified on teaser rate. But then I've been watching mortgage offerings for years - housing market crashes, mortgage brokers get burnt and cut back on risk loans. Wait 5 years and the risk loans are back on the table and the whole market is once again primed for disaster. But then the borrowers need to stop having the memory span of a goldfish also.<br><br>Also the Bush solution only pushes this problem out another 5 years. So buy up on some stock option puts in about 5 years and rake in another windfall!!<br><br>But was is the solution, have the tax payers pay off those loans and just give those homes to the stupid buyers?<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/06/07 02:40 PM

<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/06/07 02:48 PM

Not enough American adults understand basic economic principles, and apparently that includes even greedy lenders. When I was in HS (and it wasn't that long ago, a semester of Economics 101 was required. But so were 4 years of English Lit, 2 years of foreign language and 3 years of science (that last one explains my near F experience in Organic Chemistry).<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: macbeemer

Re: So what's the difference - 12/06/07 02:59 PM

December 2, 2007: Washington , DC (AP) Congress today announced that the <br>office of President of the United States of America will be outsourced <br>to India as of September 1, 2008.<br><br>The move is being made in order to save the President's $500,000 <br>yearly salary, and also a record $521 Billion in deficit expenditures <br>and related overhead that his office has incurred during the last 5 <br>years. "We believe this is a wise financial move. The cost savings are <br>huge," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). "We cannot remain <br>competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," <br>Reynolds noted.<br><br>Mr. Bush was informed by e-mail this morning of his termination. <br>Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time.<br><br>Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India will assume the <br>office of President as of September 1, 2008. Mr. Singh was born in the <br><br>United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara <br>Falls, NY, thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a <br>salary of $320 (USD) a month, but no health coverage or other benefits.<br><br>It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job <br>responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference <br>between the US and India , he will be working primarily at night.<br><br>"Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the Dell Computer <br>call center," stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited <br>about this position. I always hoped I would be President." A <br>Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully <br>aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this <br>should not be a problem as President Bush had never been familiar with <br>the issues either.<br><br>Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond <br>effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he <br>can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying <br>issue at all. "We know these scripting tools work," stated the <br>spokesperson. "President Bush has used them successfully for years, <br>with the result that some people actually thought he knew what he was <br>talking about."<br><br>Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final <br>day of employment. Following a two week waiting period, he will be <br>eligible for $140 a week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately he <br>will not be eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will <br>exceed the allowed limit. Mr. Bush has been provided with the <br>outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and <br>prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Mr. <br>Bush may have difficulties in securing a new position due to a lack of <br>any successful work experience during his lifetime. A Greeter position <br>at Wal-Mart was suggested due to Bush's extensive experience at shaking <br>hands, as well as his special smile.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/06/07 04:49 PM

<h2>Ask Yourself...</h2><br>[color:red]Would You Hire This Man?</font color=red><br><center><br></center><br><center><h2>RESUME of the EX- President of the United States</h2></center><br>George Walker Bush<br>1600 Pennsylvania Avenue<br>Washington, DC 20520<br><h3>Education and Experience</h3><br>Law Enforcement<br><br> * I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driverís license suspended for 30 days.<br> * My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.<br><br>Military<br><br> * I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.<br><br>College<br><br> * I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.<br> * I was given an Masters of Business Administration degree at Harvard.<br><br>Past Work Experience<br><br> * I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975.<br> * I bought an oil company, but couldnít find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. The bin Laden family gave me money to try again, and I bankrupted that company too.<br> * I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.<br> * With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.<br><h3>Accomplishments as Governor of Texas</h3><br> * I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.<br> * I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.<br> * I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.<br><h3>Accomplishments as President</h3><br> * I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.<br> * I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.<br> * I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.<br> * I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.<br> * I achieved negative job growth for the first time in over a century. I did this partly with my agressive job exporting/outsourcing program.<br> * I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.<br> * I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.<br> * I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.<br> * Iím proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.<br> * I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.<br> * I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.<br> * My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.<br> * My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.<br> * I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.<br> * I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.<br> * I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.<br> * I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.<br> * I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.<br> * Iíve broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.<br> * I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.<br> * I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.<br> * I refused to allow inspectorís access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.<br> * I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).<br> * I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.<br> * I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.<br> * I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.<br> * I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.<br> * I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families ó in wartime.<br> * I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.<br> * I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster", a WMD.<br> * I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.<br><br>Records and References<br><br> * All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my fatherís library, sealed and unavailable for public view.<br> * All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.<br> * All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: So what's the difference - 12/06/07 06:14 PM

<br>his photo would look better if he was wearing an orange Jump siut. <br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: DLC

Re: So what's the difference - 12/06/07 06:18 PM

That's the dilemma... but why do we keep bailing out the financial industry. Remember the S&L bailout under Reagan. <br><br>It just makes these crooks more greedy and bold.<br><br>My understanding is that it's voluntary with respect to the lenders. Wonder how many will be influenced... they have to cut the rate and lose potential profit. But anything is better thna $0.<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: macbeemer

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 05:25 AM

Don't forget the Chrysler bail out. I'm sure there's an academic term for this sort of leveraging/blackmail, but it seems in all these instances that the "big money" crooks use "we the people" as the fulcrum in this big national swindles. They, the leaders of the thrifts, Chrysler, mortgage lenders, fill in your blank, get so deep into so many that it actually is cheaper to the national economy to bail out the victim directly than to let the offending system crash and then repair the collateral damage for the next decade or so. I'll bet there's a bigger cycle of bad economics that we haven't yet recognized that these crime sessions are only a part of. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 09:03 AM

<br>Many GREAT Civilizations has fallen into the same trap.<br><br>Looks like OUR TURN is coming around.<br><br>Why do you think the BANKERS have been so frantic to <br>make sure that they come out on top this time around?<br><br>Stoopit stoopit stoopit people!<br>It's happening right under their very nose<br>yet they just larf when someone sez:"RUN FOR THE HILLS!"<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 09:06 AM

Add to the above BUSH ACCOMPLISHMENTS as PRESIDENT:<br><br>"Sold our arse down the river to enrich his friends."<br><br>LOL ...and they call US Traitors!<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 09:18 AM

Governments, yes, but civilizations? <br><br>War, political infighting, natural disasters (including plagues) are more far more likely to unravel a civilization. Badly flawed economic policies result in a change of government and laws, not a stampede for the hills.<br><br><br><br> <br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 10:36 AM

<br>Nope, Entire Civilizations.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 12:12 PM

What examples would you give of Entire Civilizations that failed because of bad economic policies? Not governments, or even countries, but Entire Civilizations. <br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 12:15 PM

Mayans<br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 12:25 PM

Failed crops, natural disasters and getting whacked repeatedly by Aztecs isn't a failed economic policy. Internal and external forces can destroy an economy, but economic failure doesn't destroy a civilization.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 12:41 PM

The failed crops were a direct result of an untenable economic policy.<br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;
Posted by: polymerase

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 01:06 PM

I would also list the Mayans. I would toss in quite a few city states to boot. Population explosion of the people into the city higher volume than the death rate can take care of. It would be an economic policy of the upper echelon to continue the practice because they are getting rich on taxing a small amount on everyone so the bigger the population the more taxes until it all implodes. <br><br>I would further argue that economic policy is hidden behind everything. It may look like religion or nationalism but it's all economic. The Japanese needed access to more oil and more resources to fuel the economic engine. Pearl Harbor. Economic policies created the Roman Empire, the British Empire and the American Empire. Misplayed economic policies, will end all three too.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 01:23 PM

Empires, yes. Countries, city states, governments, administrations, yes.<br><br>But Entire Civilizations? Come on. I'll try this without a dictionary ~ Civilization: a unique state / society of populations, with common bonds of culture, science, governments, industries, religions.<br><br>I take issue with the statement: Bad economic policies can destroy an entire civilization. I disagree.<br><br>I think it takes something along the lines of a Mars Attack.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 01:56 PM

You're right about the difficulty in defining "civilization" on the one hand, and of isolating "economic policies" as distinct from a whole bunch of other very closely connected issues. I mean, does the fall of the Roman Empire constitute the destruction of a civilization? I think it does, but then if Rome is the origin of "the west," then the destruction is historically limited in scope. And of course, the "civilization" doesn't simply disappear any more than the Mayans did, although the city states certainly reverted to jungle. 8th century Europe ain't a pretty sight, but it is "the west" nonetheless. And that leaves the question of what exactly "economic policies" might mean. Is that distinct from the increasing distance between the productive capacity of the Empire and the homeland of the Empire? I just finished rereading The Importance of Being Earnest, the last play we read in my comedy class--and I was really struck this time with just how keen Oscar Wilde's insight into the emptiness of British aristocratic culture at the end of the 19th century really is. You can almost see the inevitable decline and fall of that empire in the empty gestures of the class/economic system of the late Victorian period. The fall of Britain is not the end of a civilization--we in the US are the next iteration, aren't we?--but is it possible to tease out "economic policy" from the whole tangled mess of class and rank assumptions, imperial ambitions, and so on? Personally, I don't think so.<br><br>So I withdraw my original response. I agree with you that there's more to it than economic policy, and always is.<br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 02:25 PM

Mesopotamian<br>Egyptian<br>Babylonian<br>Greek<br>Roman<br><br>for starters<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 02:25 PM

Indus River Valley.<br><br>And adding to the above sticky wicket, it is hard to define "destroy" as well.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 02:31 PM

Sorry, sweetie<br><br>for all practical purposes, when<br>once mighty --->EMPIRES<--- not countries<br>are sitting on top of the world, and within 3 generations<br>don't have the proverbial pot to pee in, nor window to throw it out of<br>IMHO, that constitutes one defunct'in' CIVILIZATION! <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 02:35 PM

<br>Yup...<br><br>"TRUST ME!" "LET ME TAKE CARE OF YOUR MONEY FOR YOU!" <br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 03:12 PM

I was and am stuck on the definition of Civilization, thus the discussion. After a sudden failure here (the electricity went off, stayed off, the dogs drove me to early drink), I'm reduced to something like ~<br><br>Civilization is huge, huger than us ~ Our empires, countries and governments, our conceits and religions and, yes, our economies. <br><br>See. I told you I'm reduced. <br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 03:19 PM

Certainly not clear cut that an economic policy kills a civilization. Jared Diamond in writing Guns, Germs, and Steel would argue it is all written in where you live that underlines how your civilization is going to make out and whether you have access to certain things like domesticatible animals etc.<br><br>But once something is built I could see economic decisions which drives every act of war I can think of to bring down a civilization. Yes, the definition of destroy can be a semantic argument. The Roman nose is alive and well throughout the Mediterranean. But the civilization really has vanished. As really has the British Empire although there are Brits living on an island somewhere. That one is debatable although Queen Victoria would not recognize her borders if she were alive today.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 04:51 PM

But the civilization is not the empire, is it? I mean, I don't really swallow the notion that Britain was founded by Brut, who was one of the survivors of the fall of Troy, as was Aeneas who founded Rome, so that Trojan "civilization" had its second flowering in Rome and its third flowering in Britain, and that the US is a continuation of Britain, so a fourth flowering of Troy. But the "civilization" we inhabit deploys the imagery of that historical myth pretty effectively, and in many ways sees itself as a continuation of Troy-Rome-Britain. A basis for the complaints about the wave of Latino immigrants is that we are destroying that lineage (ignoring the obvious irony that "Latino" means "Latin," means Roman--but the complaint is really about the native-American descendants who happen to speak Spanish by the spread of the Spanish branch of Roman "civilization").<br><br>Anyway, can you really assert that Roman "civilization" dies in the fifth century? Or that British "civilization," to the extent that it's distinct from the Roman, dies in the inter-war period last century? I just don't see it that way. Let me put it in a very silly, personal way: I can read Aristophanes, Virgil, the Chanson de Roland, the letters of Abelard and Eloise, the history by Geoffrfey of Monmouth . . . all the way up to Italo Calvin, Vaclav Havel, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and understand the fundamental issues that those authors raise in ways that I just cannot do with writers from Africa or the Islamic world or Asia. What I consider a continuous development from the 15th century BCE to the 21st Century CE in the Mediterranean Basin-Europe-North/South America-Australia is what I call "civilization." Incidentally, to the extent that African literature responds to the influence of European colonization, it becomes partially part of that civilization as well, so I can very easily read Chinua Achebe or Ngugi wa Thiongo, although there are elements of their writing that are completely alien to the "civilization" with which I'm familiar, and those elements are associated with a very different "civilization."<br><br>The problem in this kind of discussion, I think, is what Lea is getting at: what the heck is a "civilization." Since the 18th century, and increasingly so through the present, an equal problem is the hegemonic expansion of "the West" into the rest of the world, so that other civilizations have had to respond to it and, in some measure, become part of it. Postcolonial theory addresses those kinds of problems in interesting ways. Anyways, I'm not a historiographer, not by a long shot, but I do know something about the complications that historiography has elaborated in regards to all this kind of stuff, generally under the rubric of periodization, and am a real partisan of the ideas of Michel Foucault in this regard. Foucault pays attention to the continuation of and inventive interrelations among what he calls "discourses," which I can't define without making this not just a long but a hyperlong post.<br><br>So I'll stop here. <br><br>You're welcome. <br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 05:05 PM

Lovely<br><br>Another conversation gone through the floor<br>by splitting hairs over a simple statement<br>rather than exploring the core concept.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 05:23 PM

The concept has been explored, in spite of the simple statement.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 05:31 PM

That's what fora such as these are like, and that's what they are for. Someone brings up something, and someone else talks about what ever comes to his/her mind about it, off topic or on, or splitting hairs or whatever; and the thread gets longer and we keep reading and all is well.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 06:13 PM

No it hasn't<br><br>you'd entirely missed the point from the outset.<br><br> <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 06:27 PM

And you've had ample opportunity to engage in the discussion. To single me out as missing the point makes me wonder how much of this you've actually tuned in.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 07:12 PM

The original point was why are we bailing out homeowners who over extended themselves after all that stuff about "getting tough" on welfare. But the subject changed and that's okay.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 07:14 PM

Single YOU out?<br>I'm not the one that continually <br>challenges every post you make.<br><br>"Every opportunity" ?<br><br>Right... <br>I LIVE to argue with you<br>for your lurid amusement.<br><br>Try: I go about my business...<br>just now i was watching Olbermann<br>t alking with my friend that's going into<br>the hospital. Watching several dozen YouTUBEs.<br><br>Here... allow me to share a the one I found FOR you:<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOfBfjE56vQ<br><br>and then, rather than waste time bantering useless shyte<br>I did some research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Celandine on 12/07/07 10:20 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/07/07 07:15 PM

Thank you,<br>and I answered the question.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 10:14 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Anyway, can you really assert that Roman "civilization" dies in the fifth century? Or that British "civilization," to the extent that it's distinct from the Roman, dies in the inter-war period last century? I just don't see it that way. Let me put it in a very silly, personal way: I can read Aristophanes, Virgil, the Chanson de Roland, the letters of Abelard and Eloise, the history by Geoffrfey of Monmouth . . . all the way up to Italo Calvin, Vaclav Havel, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and understand the fundamental issues that those authors raise in ways that I just cannot do with writers from Africa or the Islamic world or Asia. What I consider a continuous development from the 15th century BCE to the 21st Century CE in the Mediterranean Basin-Europe-North/South America-Australia is what I call "civilization." Incidentally, to the extent that African literature responds to the influence of European colonization, it becomes partially part of that civilization as well, so I can very easily read Chinua Achebe or Ngugi wa Thiongo, although there are elements of their writing that are completely alien to the "civilization" with which I'm familiar, and those elements are associated with a very different "civilization."<p><hr></blockquote><p> Well shoot, put that way your argument sounds much more reasonable than mine. My education of these eras was pretty standard public school type. Some stuff I know better because it interested me or I visited a site which something historical happened and my OCD kicked in. That standard education liked to break things down to edible bites. One day the Roman Empire was humming along and the next moment some Caesar or another made a dumb decision and the dark ages started that weekend. Then someone found a paintbrush in the rubble and started the Renaissance one spring day. (I only exaggerate slightly up to my high school History classes.) You do make a good case and I remove those civilizations from contention for being ended by economic decisions.<br><br>Off the top of my hat I can think of three catastrophic endings of civilizations.<br><br>1) Mayans: might still fit an economic decision blundering by the high priests.<br>2) Mycean civilization ending possibly crippled by Santorini Caldera blowing up.<br>3) Aztec civilization ending quickly after the Spaniards showed up.<br><br>2 and 3 fit Lea's bill for "Mars attacking". Martians couldn't do the damage that volcano did to the eastern Mediterranean. And even then the Mycean civilization did not disappear but morphed into Greek and other cultures. The arrival of the Spaniards in Mexico was equivalent to a Martian attack. If martians wanted to control us they would certainly send a smallpox type disease to wipe out more than half the population before they even arrived to knock off the leaders.<br><br>So we are down to the Mayans. One could argue both sides that climate change and other forces not in the control of the decision makers were the root cause. It would be interesting to know the details (a little hard to do with the 9th century) because it might tell us what we need to do in the 21st so that we might avoid the same fate if in fact it is avoidable.<br><br>In that light what I was arguing as civilizations which were only long lasting Ponzi schemes. The house of cards built up quickly. The British Empire and the Roman Empire lasted a tad longer but now I agree they do not rank as stand alone civilizations. Certainly our 220 year old stack of cards here does not merit even the designation of empire.<br><br>The Chinese history books in 50 years might snigger when describing what happened to the United States as they describe their nine centuries of civilization give or take.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 01:25 PM

Yeah, the Mayans . . . but that might be cause I know nothing much about them.<br><br>There's a great chapter in Italo Calvino's Mr. Palomar in which Mr. Palomar goes to visit Toltec ruins in "Mexico" somewhere (I know . . . not Mayans, but close enough) and his very learned European friend keeps describing all of the stuff that they see in terms that make sense within the "western" tradition . . . caryatids, and pyramids, and eternity, and immortality, and blah blah blah. And as that's going on a descendant of those same Toltecs, a schoolteacher herding a group of kids also descended from the Toltecs, keeps saying "Eso es un chacmol. No se sabe lo que quiere decir." (That is a chacmol. It's not know what it means." (The Spanish is more germane to the context since it literally translates "it's not known what it wishes to say"). I love that book <br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 12/08/07 04:27 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Lea

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 01:35 PM

One thing we know about the Mayans is that we don't really know what happened to them. There are several theories, but I like Mars Attack best. Why anthropologists and archeologists don't go with this one is beyond me.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 01:40 PM

The Aztecs seem to have claimed them, along with all the other Mesoamerican antecedents, as their ancestors, much like the Romans claimed the Greeks. I have no idea if there's any reality to that.<br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 05:03 PM

<br>So what's the outcome?<br><br>Did the Egyptians never constitute having been considered a "Civilization" in it's own rite<br>or that their "civilization" never really ended in spite of them not having 2 camels to rub together?<br><br>AND JESIS KRYSTE! <br><br>PLEASE DON'T START an argument about rubbing camels together!!!! <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 05:12 PM

I'll ask my wife if there are any Egyptians in Egypt when she gets back from Cairo tomorrow night. As for the camels, I got an e-mail of her sitting on a camel and I don't think it was the only one left. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 05:44 PM

AH! But did she rub 2 (or more) together?<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 05:49 PM

My point (again) was to stop taking my <br>illustrative shorthand metaphors literally.<br><br>YES! THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO CAMELS IN EGYPT<br>What I MEANT was that; although they may still have a country<br>it is by no stretch of the imagination, the world power (GREAT CIVILIZATION)it once was.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 07:34 PM

"PLEASE DON'T START an argument about rubbing camels together!!!! "<br><br>A friend of mine that was a Boy Scout tried that !!<br><br>He couldn't get either cigarette to light !! <br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 09:48 PM

Yes, of course, Egyptians had a civilization, as did the Hittites and the Sumerians, and so on and so on. But I would argue that the same thing happened to the Egyptian civilization that happened to the Aztecs. In their case the "Mars" that attacked was Alexander, and Egypt simply merged into the syncretistic Hellenism of the eastern Mediterranean. Obviously Greek culture defined Egypt from Alexander onwards, but it's also absolutely true that Egyptian culture affected Greece tremendously, not just in art, although all you have to do is look at one of the very early Greek kouros, like this one, to see the Egyptian influence:<br><br><br><br>The same kind of thing happens in Mexico, by the way. Aztec culture doesn't disappear, but rather is incorporated into the new culture that is produced as the native and the Spanish population merge.<br><br>Anyway, my sense is that the whole of the levant in ancient times (3rd and 2nd millenniums BCE) is one constantly changing single "civilization," with different nations taking the lead at different times. That comes to an apparent end with the rise of the Greek city states, in large part because they want to distinguish themselves from the barbaroi around them and so create a myth of the fundamental difference of their "civilization" from everything else in the area. But then there also is some evidence that the Danaans, the "original" founders of Hellenic Greece (interestingly, the name comes from Danaus, the legendary founder of Argos in the Peloponnese; his brother was the equally legendary Aegyptus, founder of Egypt . . . at least as far as the Greeks were concerned; the Egyptians themselves had different myths of origins)--anyway, the peoples who are associated with the Danaans seem to come into the Balkans and so into Greece from the steppes of what's now the ex-Soviet republics, including Russia itself--the same areas from where, in the 1st millennium CE the Germanic "invaders" also come. But while they bring some very important innovations, the Danaans also absorb the culture that already existed in the eastern Mediterranean, as is easy to see from Greek mythology, which takes up the general mythology of the area, giving new names to old gods and goddesses.<br><br>So does Egyptian civilization disappear? I would say absolutely maybe <br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 09:56 PM

Not to drag this on (but what the heck . . . I'm very interested in this stuff), a lot of people do not consider it a coincidence of nomenclature that the legendary founders of Ireland are called the Tuatha dť Dannan, the Children of the goddess Danu. I guess an extreme version of the identity of the Celtic and the Hellenic tribes is Robert Graves's The White Goddess.<br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 10:46 PM

LOL You're getting better at this! <br>Now that was VERY Clever AND FUNNY!<br><br>Now aren't U glad U didn't settle 4 silly?<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: So what's the difference - 12/08/07 11:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>So does Egyptian civilization disappear? I would say absolutely maybe <p><hr></blockquote><p>Well my daughter and I spent the day at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and she (being 12) was more than willing to show me what she had learned on her school trip to the museum last week. It was an eye opener. I always thought the wings that had the Egyptian stuff was just all mummies but she explained all the assyrian and mesopotamian and all these people who lived in the area. <br><br>One thing she showed me was the oldest artifact in the museum. In the corner is this cup made to look like a rabbit. Looks like anyone could have made it recently but it was carved from stone in Egypt 6,500 years ago. <br><br>That civilization did not disappear. But I will check tonight to make sure. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 01:35 AM

Gee, and here I was thinking that 'the MARS ATTACK' <br>was like 'raining frogs'... ...er' sumpthin'<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 08:25 AM

Just started reading this book. As soon as I have all the answers y'all will be the second to know.<br><br><A target="_blank"HREF=http://www.pbs.org/previews/gunsgermssteel/>book</A><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 08:37 AM

SOUNDS GREAT!!!<br><br>ummm speaking of "sounds"<br>... I wonder if it's available in Audio Books?<br><br>I'd really be interested!<br><br><h1>BINGO!</h1><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Celandine on 12/09/07 11:43 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 08:43 AM

Check with your local library. If they don't have it, perhaps they could bring it in for you.<br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 08:45 AM

There ya go!<br>I'm always a day late and a dollar short. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 08:50 AM

I just finished <h2>A Short History of Nearly Everything</h2><br>It was fascinating if you're into that kinda stuff (and I am)<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 08:52 AM

<br>naaa... you beat ME to it!<br>would never have heard of it had you not mentioned it thanx<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 08:59 AM

Welcome, of course.<br>The Bryson book sounds good also. <br>Will see how this one goes down first and if there is anything left <br>for me to learn. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 09:23 AM

<br>I recommend the audio-book. It's not presented as cold-hard-facts, but rather <br>a series of conversations and observations that lends itself to relating a story.<br>Having the author read it allows you certain an insight via his inflections<br>during the narrative making it easier to pick up on a joke, or wordplay<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 09:26 AM

Good point. Will keep that in mind. Maybe on our next trip to AZ.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 09:30 AM

Guns, Germs and Steel is one of my top ten favorite books. Your link is the the PBS presentation of the book. I think I watched about 30 minutes of one and gagged. As always, the movie sucks, the book is better.<br><br>His 2005 book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed " might be more germane to the thread but I haven't read it yet.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 09:37 AM

Yea, I'm enjoying the book so far.<br><br>Interesting title for the one you mentioned. Would a society actually choose to fail?<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 09:42 AM

Depends on your definition of "choice"<br>"what 'IS' IS" <br>Choose to fail... as in what we are doing?<br>Making Bad Choices, or more to the point<br>ALLOWING People to make bad choices for us?<br><br>One might argue that "we CHOSE the leaders"<br>...but I could counter "Did WE Really?"<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 09:57 AM

That's a great book, Lester. Enjoy!<br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;
Posted by: lanovami

Re: So what's the difference - 12/09/07 01:35 PM

I have read some Bryson. Like him. He is from Iowa, apparently. I only know this because I was talking to an Austrian guy some time back and when I said, "I'm from Iowa" he answered "Bill Bryson!" Makes me wonder how he would have answered if I'd said "Arnold!" when he told me he was from little Austria, but oh well. The same guy also joked that it's always nice to meet an American with a passport.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: Inverted_Flag

Re: So what's the difference - 12/11/07 06:06 PM

ah, the ever changing tides<br><br>never forget<br><br>when it's us versus them<br>you can always count on me<br>when it's us versus them<br>it's a global unity<br><br>[color:green]I'll never forget the day I saw THE GREAT DIVIDE on Willy Nelson's guitar.</font color=green>