“In 2011 Congress passed a law requiring the USPS to immediately fully fund their pension plan from revenues, something that no multinational corporations are required to do. That, and that alone, put the USPS in this situation. Ask the House of Representatives why they deliberately destroyed so many jobs (and therefore families) to eliminate a useful public service. Look at who benefits from that move. Do you really think America can't afford (sic) a public mail service?”
beekeeper on Feb 9, 2013 at 22:08:43
“It is part of our important history. Do your homework clown”
“The Democrats are owned by the same people who own the Republicans, so it is irrational to expect any different outcomes for any issues related to ownership of power, control, property or prosperity in America from either party. We are slaves to those owners as long as we pretend that these parties represent us (the many) in any way, they are simply the tools of the rentiers, and the figureheads such as Obama, Romney, and all the rest are merely the tools of the tools.”
“The results of my homework so far:
From Site Q&A:
Q: What's a "Moderator"? How can I become one?
A: To receive the CM badge, consistently and accurately flag abusive comments. You'll be trusted to remove inappropriate comments from the site as long as you handle the task responsibly.
From the badge:
A person has earned the Level 1 Community Moderator Badge! A person has flagged at least 20 comments that we deleted and has a high ratio of good flags to mistaken flags, so this person's flags carry five times the weight as standard flags.”
It seems to me that the "areas of life" that you describe are artificial distinctions, categories adopted for the sake of simplifying or focusing discussions about the psychology of various human relationships and endeavors. Do assert they exist as real isolating partitions of the cosmos? How is the biological area distinct from the recreational, or the financial separate from the vocational, etc? When two "spheres" produce completely different answers to the same question (e.g. how old is the earth?) which one should be considered true (meaning: most accurately describes reality)?
Please help us understand how this supports your initial assertion that Dr. Schweitzer is wrong.”
Stephen Stafford is a Level 1 Community Moderator!
Stephen Stafford has earned the Level 1 Community Moderator Badge! Stephen Stafford flagged at least 20 comments that we deleted and has a high ratio of good flags to mistaken flags, so Stephen Stafford's flags carry five times the weight as standard flags.
Also from FAQ III:
Community members who consistently and reliably flag comments that are removed by our moderators may be given additional tools that will allow them to hide or remove comments
Okay, please enlighten us. What are you talking about? What are "life spheres"? What makes them "different and separate"? How are they germane to the discussion if they have nothing to do with cognitive functions (thinking/feeling)? Which sphere is correct when they assert completely different answers to the same question?
Please present some information and explanation instead of dismissing attempts to understand your assertion with "you are not listening". I'm listening, there's just so little to listen to so far.”
That is a rough rendering of life spheres as I recall them, more or less. Each person has these areas of life that s/he attends to.
Science would function in the Biological realm for the most part. Religion operates in the spiritual.
When you are in a particular sphere, you are governed by the rules and guidelines of that area.
So, you would not be discussing religion when you are in the science lane.
That is the best I can do right now. It must have been 20 years or so since I worked with that stuff. It is really useful in looking at how to bring one's life into balance, and separate out what ought to be considered where and how.
All of them put together should constitute a whole person.”
I humbly apologize for incorrectly suspecting that as a moderator you could remove comments. I sincerely hope that any erroneous insinuations I may have caused will quickly evaporate.
Thank you for correcting me and in so doing reminding me how important it is for one to do their homework before reacting and to resist jumping to conclusions. I will also work to better understand the role of community moderator in this system.”
Stephen Stafford on Sep 6, 2013 at 17:21:14
“Thank you for sharing your enhanced understanding and gracing me with such a sincere and humble apology.
We all err, and I have made wrong assumptions, too. I am glad you have more useful information now.”
Your argument presumes the existence of "life spheres", which if I understand correctly are separate and independent aspects of human cognition. Your arguments rely on this premise, in particular on the assertion that these aspects are discreet and independent. Your arguments are invalid if this premise is not true.
Evidence to justify the assertion that the premises are valid is required for an argument to be valid. Your premises regarding the "basics of the human condition" might be in error; I for one feel that a person is a whole set of interacting processes and that distinctions drawn regarding separate "dimensions" are arbitrary and must be handled carefully when used as a basis for interpreting behaviors, as arbitrary distinctions are prone to introduce spurious (non-existent) results.
P.S.Whenever someone asserts that "evidence is not required" for something to be held as true (other than a pre-identified temporary suspension for the sake of simplification for a discussion), that the discussion has crossed over into the supernatural.”
Stephen Stafford on Sep 6, 2013 at 15:26:52
“You need to listen. I specifically told you this was not a parsing of cognitive functions. Yet, you persist in saying they are.
To grasp a concept, you have to hear and take in what is being explained to you. You cannot tell me what it is and how it goes when you do not have any idea of what I am talking about.”
As a HuffPost Community Moderator, do you have the ability to remove comments at your discretion? If so, is it not an ethical conflict of interest to also make your own comments such as these when you delete the responses that you don't like?”
Stephen Stafford on Sep 6, 2013 at 14:34:52
“I cannot remove any comments.
I am not responsible for your imaginings and fantasies.
You may go to the FAQs or wherever they spell out the community moderator business to see what that means.
I am accepting the apology you shall be issuing shortly, unless I credit you with more character than you possess.”
“Politicians filled the world with WMD's, not scientists. Scientists strive to figure out how nature works, politicians direct that knowledge to control the population. Politicians commission and direct the weapons development, usually at gunpoint or equivalent. A few scientists cross the line and become politicians.
Focus your blame for weapons and war on the actual responsible parties. Compare the politician's motives to the motives of scientists.”
You have proposed that people have separate cognitive "life spheres", one for rational investigation, and one for spiritual/religious faith, with the unstated supposition that they are independent from and unaffected by each other.
Its an interesting supposition, useful to defend faith from rational investigation.
You did not make your point, you provide zero evidence or justification for your supposition. We heard you, we my understand you better than you give us credit for.”
Stephen Stafford on Sep 5, 2013 at 17:10:03
“Not different cognitive life spheres. They cover different aspects of life: emotional, spiritual, volitional, and so forth. I don't remember all the aspects off hand as it has been some years since I used all of this.
Each sphere has its own interests, concerns, manner in which it operates.Fatith would be part of the spiritual dimension.
Think of it as the assorted things that make up the human experience across people. It is a basic construction, and pretty foundational.
I do not have to provide evidence for the basics of the human condition.”
“Point ten is the only one that matters (although as stated here it is just a fuzzy feel-good blab), the other nine are impossible vaporware until we reclaim our governments and governance from the ultra-rich corporations/banks. We need to establish a laser focus on who owns the government and how to reclaim it as our (we the people's) highest priority. Without these fixes the other fixes go nowhere because our current owners won't let them. Start with:
1. Daylight the shadow banking system, which overwhelms any sovereign control and renders all of these initiatives inconsequential. Outlaw credit default swaps, collatoralized debt obligations, and similar predatory financial instruments. Require registration of all dollar-denominated contracts over 100 million and corpoate ownership stakes of over 10% or 10 million traced fully back to the officer's names so the world knows who the "owners" are. Breakup all SDO banks and limit size to 5% of the market. Restore Glass-Steagal.
2. Get the money out of the legislature: Recognize conflict of interest as treason (after all, that's what it is), with mandatory jail terms, applicable to all elected and appointed officials and their staff, and prohibit them from working for any corporation or bank after having served (see Abramoff's revelations). Outlaw all campaign contributions except those from individual humans with full disclosure and low limits. Make the attempt to influence a public official with any tangible reward a capital offense.”
Oct 5, 2011 at 18:40:49
“Only a CEO member of the 1% would write an article like this.
There's nothing in this article that supports how 100 million of us can start 100 million businesses with no start-up cash, and do it right now before we starve. So the solution is 100 million web startups?
This post is talking to and about the bottom half of the top 1%. They don't put any "angel investing" money into the bottom 90%, you need to be in the top 10% to get an audience or even be considered.
This shows just how far the 1% are out there in their own fantasyland. This is just another argument to convince themselves that their fantasy world-view is okay and to keep the eyes of the 99% away from the root cause.”
“The financiers new exactly how they were stealing. The "moral hazard" argument in reference to the victims is pure hypocrisy, a red herring the looters are using to keep their loot. Anyone who mentions it without calling for prosecution of the accounting frauds is a shameless hypocrite.”
“The master is demonstrating how class warfare is conducted.”
bamboozled on Oct 1, 2011 at 21:58:50
“The Tea Party version of class warfare is to mount a sustained media blitz to convince the middle and lower classes to battle amongst themselves, while they sit back, steal more money and have a good laugh. Bash a few blacks and women for cheap laughs. A good ole boy party.”
“Need to daylight the shadow banking system, which overwhelms any sovereign control and renders all of these initiatives inconsequential.
Start with outlawing naked credit default swaps (outlaw buying insurance against something you don't own) to reduce predatory financial destruction for profit.
Require registration of all dollar-denominated contracts over 100 million so the world knows who the "owners" are.”
“All of this fuss will continue to seem puzzling as long as one clings to the myth of the two Parties.
It's like electricity and magnetism, the behavior of each on it's own is very confusing until you realize that they are just aspects of a single force (electromagnetism), then all of their behaviors suddenly make sense.
There is only one political party in America, The Party, comprised of two departments, like the two sides of a coin. The Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Multinational Corporation cartel. The net result of the two aspects together (the RepubliCrat force) produces the effects desired by the Owners. Obama is just an agent in one department of this system and he must do and say what he is told to, as do the rest of the middle managers like senators, congressmen, CFOs, senior editors, anchormen, underwriters, fund managers, etc. etc.
If you don't toe the line drawn by The Head Office, you find yourself on the outside. And the higher you are, the more you know about how ugly the outside is intended to become.”
Jun 3, 2011 at 00:27:13
Next bogus assumption: "Science" can't terrorize anything, it's just a method for trying to understand how things work. The choices of what we do with the knowledge are political (emotional/"spiritual") and therefore often terrifying. Mother Nature can’t be scared, she can deal with asteroids and eons, she doesn't care what we do or if we snuff ourselves. Our lack of harmony with nature and over-use of chemisty is due to rampant greed and arrogance, not a better technical understanding of nature (science).
Next: There has never been a "widespread belief" that "genes control our lives". Genes control our biology, but our minds control our lives. It is an intentionally fraudulent misrepresentation of biological science to use genes as an excuse for irrational behavior. And of course gene expression is affected by the environment, that’s what genes are for.
Next: It is disingenuous to arbitrarily associate our continuing (scientific!) progress in discovering more about the complicated ways our biology interacts with its ever-changing environments and the delicately interacting biosphere with some contrived external choreography, or to arbitrarily discount the awesome power of chance when coupled with immensely huge amounts of time and material. It is egregiously disingenuous to attempt to misdirect the blame for the problems we face from their real sources – the massive human political misbehavior many are so desperately trying to hide – onto those who simply and sincerely want to understand how nature works – through such gross misrepresentation as was presented here.”
Jun 3, 2011 at 00:26:52
Next bogus assumption: The "spiritual" is not a "realm", it's just an aspect of the human mental processes that we don't understand yet.
Next: Society has been preoccupied with dominating and controlling nature since the dawn of civilization, way-way-way before Newton, Hand of God notwithstanding.
Next: An underlying purpose for human existence is not necessary, it's just a need, a feeling some humans have when afraid to take responsibility for their own motivations. God and Spirit are a result of human experience (mental processes), not external or linked to it.
Next: Darwin (and scientific inquiry in general) has nothing to do with any "moral compass". We together make our own choices as to how to behave and treat each other. Blaming external sources for our lack of empathy, foresight and self-control is a childish misdirection.
Next: We have always been at "war for material accumulation" (pharoes, emperors, etc), there's been no recent "shift from spiritual aspirations". Science has simply made us better at handling the material. Darwin’s explanations of how the natural world works connects us (those who listen) to nature. It is religion that disconnects us from nature and politics that exploits and degrades fellow humans and the environment, Darwin has nothing to do with that.
OneFish on Jun 3, 2011 at 04:45:20
“Excellent post. Religion degrades the human experience with knowledge based on control not curiosity. I suppose some folks plateau early and something that masquerades as knowledge but is still accessible fills some need.”
Jun 3, 2011 at 00:26:31
“The Einstien quote is right on- we won't solve our problems using our two-thousand year old way of thinking that perpetuates them.
Otherwise this piece is a truckload of baloney, full of sleight-of-hand assertions made-up to create a fantasy picture and a fog to hide the real source of the problems.
As to one of the first bogus assertions: the planet needs no salvation, DNA-based life will be just fine no matter what we humans do, even asteroids couldn't destroy it. Our surviving the results of our own behavior is another matter.
Next: The "four fundamental beliefs" cited didn't and don't shape civilization, and nobody holds them as fundamental or beliefs, they are just current-best explanations for how things work. What's that got to do with shaping civilization? It's religion, greed and power-lust that have been and remain the prime shapers of our civilization.
As presented the four citations are misrepresentations: 1) the universe is what it is, "primacy" of one scale of observation is meaningless. 2) genes are a manifestation of biology, they don't "control" it. 3) Genetic mutations cause variations, evolution results from changing environmental conditions selecting over time the variations that survive better. 4) Same as 3, using words like struggle and fittest just make people emotional.
Calling out these misrepresentations as "failed beliefs" is another misrepresentation, labeling them as "Four assumptions of the Apocalypse" is shameless aggrandizement, and purporting they are driving civilization anywhere is ludicrous.
“You sound as if you think money exists as a tangible material. It doesn't. Money is created as debt. Dollars come into existence when the Federal Reserve is authorized to to increase a number in their computer. That increase is then issued as loans of dollars to our government and to banks and corporations. These loans must be paid back with interest. The interest is not created when the initial increase to the number in the computer is made, so a future increase in the number will be required to make the extra intrest dollars, ad infinitum. Additional extra dollars are needed to cover the national trade deficit since those dollars are outside the nation's control. It is the Federal Reserve that wants the debt ceiling raised. The more debt, the more control the world's largest banks have over us. The owners of the Federal Reserve banks direct our "leaders" to make insane policy decisions to keep the ponzi scheme going.”
“I had my car washed at a station where they hand-dry and also clean the interior. Two men workded hard paying close attention to detail and did a nice job. I tried to talk to them as they finished but they spoke no english. I gave each a small tip as I got in the car. As I got ready to pull out I watched both men go back to the waiting manager and hand him their tips.
Since then I only take my car to a machine-only wash and do the drying and interior myself.
The greed and cold-blooded exploitation that is now tolerated in this country is appalling and disgusting.”