Well, well, well, long live bigotry, Yer Lordship!

I fit your "stereotype" pretty well: I was a "Frat boy", wore clothes from Ralf Lauren (still do), and my parents have bought me some pretty nice guitars! You're a regular "profiler"!

Unfortunately, bigotry also has its limits: One of the "fraternities" I belonged to was Phi Beta Kappa, and as an undergraduate I actually got paid to write term papers for others. LOL, I can assure you that I would have never allowed a librarian write anything for me, let alone paid one to do it!

If someone in this forum had made disparaging generalizations about members of an ethnic, racial or religious group, the way you just did with "Frat boys", you would be horrified. What makes it ok in this case?

I would say that there's a world of difference between calling someone a "disgruntled liberal" and a "Frat boy jerk off", but maybe I'm being "overly sensitive"...

To answer your question: No, I don't necessarily have a low opinion of librarians. It was a cheap shot. I was riled. But in your initial post you had set up the dichotomy: THEY (the ignorant "Frat boy jerk offs" who can't write term papers) and YOURSELF (the learned librarian). Because I was irritated, I felt like pointing out that "cataloging" books isn't the same as writing them. It was an unfortunate remark. I shouldn't have made it.

Jim, I apologize for hijacking your thread. I'll shut up now!

I will, and please, go ahead, call me an angry conservative.


I don't hate rich people, i just want people to respect what they've got... Usually that comes with earning your wealth... There are rich kids whose parents raised them to respect the value of the dollar, and the work that goes into earning money... If only every rich family were like that, perhaps it could ease tensions between classes? I know rich people and poor people that don't hate each other, and middle class people that hate rich people in general... I prefer to get to know people before I make judgements unless their name is George Soros or Michael Moore. Those guys... just...

I refuse to discuss politics on a non-political thread.... Resist... Hijacking... Thread.... Resist.... Hijacking.............

YOU CANNOT HELP SMALL MEN BY TEARING DOWN BIG MEN
YOU CANNOT STRENGTHEN THE WEAK BY WEAKENING THE STRONG
YOU CANNOT LIFT THE WAGE EARNER BY PULLING DOWN THE WAGE PAYER
YOU CANNOT HELP THE POOR MAN BY DESTROYING THE RICH
YOU CANNOT FURTHER THE BROTHERHOOD OF MAN BY INCITING CLASS HATRED

NOW LEAVE THIS THREAD TO ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE!!!!!

The world is what you make of it ............

I clearly remember my DAD telling me the above at the age of 9 before embarking on my career as a paper delivery boy for the Herald Examiner.

I didn't start it, i just made a comment, which you found offensive enough to ask for an argument.

as for the guilt... what the hell are you talking about

Do you suggest that the conditions that the Jarrow Marchers had to endure were somehow caused by "the rich"? I'd like to hear you explain that one.

If there's no demand for what you're making, of course you're not going to have a job. The march really didn't do anything productive. "It was not until two years after the Jarrow March, in 1938, that a ship breaking yard and engineering works were established in Jarrow. The next year, a steelworks was established. However the depression continued in Jarrow until after the beginning of World War II in September 1939, when industrial production increased due to the nation's need for re-armament."

Sure, they had work, but there was still no demand for it, and the depression continued until there was a demand. Oh, and who should expect to have a job during the great depression? Are these people somehow entitled to something their neighbors are not? Those quotes I listed were an excerpt from something longer:

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative
and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves."

The great depression was caused by discouraging thrift, and people spending more than their income... Is that the fault of the rich? I don't see how the Jarrow Marchers had anything to do with tearing down big men, weakening the strong, pulling down the wage payer, destroying the rich, or inciting class hatred... but if you want to argue that they did, go ahead, i won't stop you.

At the end of the day the whole world revolves around the fact that ... It's not what you know but WHO you know that counts ...

It ain't right, it ain't fair but it's human nature and that's how it is!

Parents don't send their kid to public schools (that's private schools for those outside of the Uk) for the educationj they'll get (at least not once you get into the premier league schools) but for the contacts they'll make which will set them up for life.

Same reason people join the masons, the chamber of commerce, rotary club, linkedin, and a million other social and business networks; they hope by belonging to an aspired to peer group they will gain a competitive edge whether social, financial or political.

There will always be a 'class structure' because that's how we perceive the world and, in all probability, it harks back to the hierarchy of the hunting pack. If you take the US post Mayflower as an example (not picking you out for criticism because no criticsm implied but simply as an ideal example) - you effectively had a clean sheet. No inherited aristocracy and an egaliterian premise. It took you less than a couple of generations before you'd managed to set up a class system based on who'd arrived first and who'd followed. Even today you have that New England/New Hampshire 'aristocracy' of 'Old' money which looks down it's nose at the 'New Money'. And this is in a country which prides itself on being a meritocracy.

Human nature will always win through

The big difference this time is that it's not a case of the working class being screwed by the rich or the unions holding the middle classses to ransom but a relatively small group of people who have been incentivised to make as much money as possible, on as short term a basis a possible, at whatever risk involved that are the cause of this huge meltdown. A group which, as long as they maintained the perception of success, were lionised by our political leaders and whose lifestyle and ethical and moral code was aspired to and where possible emulated by the rest of the population.

In short the lunatics gained control of the asylum.

Question is - can we regain control and are we indeed fit to?

Sounds a lot like...dealers in student loans. Oh hang on, they're not stupid. When someone defaults it's Uncle Sam who picks up the tab. So a better question might be: who borrows money with no guarantee of seeing a return on their investment? Answer = students.

I truly regret going to college, and I truly regret going to graduate school with every ounce of my being. Is it smart to borrow over $60,000 to finally enter a profession (librarianship) where you'll be doing well to realize $40K a year? What kind of idiot would regard that as a sound investment?

If I had my time over again, I'd have dropped out of High School and gone to work at Taco Bell or something. I'd still be miserable and driving around in an old beater, but at least I wouldn't have student loan payments to make.

I agree with you that a huge proportion of the blame must lay with the Carter & Clinton administrations in the US, and to the Thatcher government in the UK (by selling off vast swathes of rented social housing they reduced the available housing stock for low income families, the private rented sector having declined dramatically since the 50's, forcing them into buying properties which ultimately they couldn't afford.)

Actually the bank CEO's new that these bad loans, which were unlikely to ever be repaid, could be very profitable if the banks were astute enough to manipulate the CDO and CMO markets to the benefit. This allied to the greed of the sales people at the sub prime end who were able to make huge incomes from churning these loans meant that, for a small group of people, lending to people who couldn't repay their loans was indeed very lucrative.

It's actually more complicated than that in reality as there are a large number of additional factors which helped to fuel the property bubble which allowed the sub prime market to flourish but overall it does pretty much prove that the expression "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a valid one as the ill thought out, possibly utopian idea, of home ownership for all ultimately brought down the world economy.