No House resolution honoring SEAL's bin Laden mission

[monster]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

The Congressional Record provide an incredible snapshot of the perspective of the nation's highest legislative body on important national events of the day for any time in the last 200+ years that you cant find anywhere else.

Fascinating reading if you like that kind of stuff.

As a citizen of an old, old country.....
official records mean fuckshit. History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by monster

As a citizen of an old, old country.....
official records mean fuckshit. History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time.

Its not written by the party of the time, but reflects the actual words and actions of members of both parties, unfiltered and unedited.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Its not written by the party of the time, but reflects the actual words and actions of members of both parties, unfiltered and unedited.

Now that is some important bullshit right there!

[monster]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Its not written by the party of the time, but reflects the actual words and actions of members of both parties, unfiltered and unedited.

OK

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by monster

As a citizen of an old, old country.....
official records mean fuckshit. History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time.

Historians do. They also draw on other evidence, but that official record is invaluable. Not just because of what it says, but because of what can be inferred from it. I regularly consult the parliamentary record fro the period I study. I look at eveything from house debates to committee minutes. What's said and done in the House can tell historians a great deal. Not least because it is a public record of the political preoccupations of the day. When I was researching attitudes to desertion in the 18th century, my research took me all over the place, from the personal letters and memoirs of soldiers, through the debates on military finance, to the in-letters of the Secretary at War.

If the business of Congress is not routinely recorded in the way parliamentary business, without a special effort to do so, then speaking as a historian, I'd really rather they took the time to do so.



[eta] sorry, hadn't seen your previous post

But to answer it: one source is not necessarily more or less useful than another. They each bring certain benefits and also bear certain dangers. The best kind of evidence for a historian is a multiplicity of sources *smiles*. Preferably of such variety as to allow a glimpse into many aspects of the subject. That includes popular response and official record.

[classicman]

Merc "It draws attention to the unit, the missions, and the people. And they do not want or need that. Now every reporter out to get a stringer on the front page will be out head hunting these people.

Valid point - I don't like thinking about this, however its already happening & this isn't going to change that.

Merc What should have happened is for the government to state what happened in the mission, never mentioned any details about anything, never told anyone what they did with the body, never told anyone they took pictures, and never told anyone what units were involved."

Again, I agree. I think those days are gone though. Gotta deal with what is.

F&B "Its for the historical record as it has always been for 200+ years and does not ruin any careers."

Monster " I sorta feel like it's already there in the history books"
" History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time."

True, but the passing of info via word of mouth is not all that accurate and the writings of people is biased by those who did the writing and the info the had at the time. "whisper down the lane" sorta.

From what I understand this is a "no brainer." We've spent more time discussing it than they would have if they just did it.

The R's don't want to sign onto this for political reasons. Its a really tough pill to swallow for them. They've been painting Obama as weak since before the last election and were certainly planning to use that issue in the next election (not like they have a chance anyway). All this time he has been plotting, planning and working on this. They look like fools right now. They've lost another plank in an already weak campaign. If anyone here is playing politics with this issue, its the R's.

Dana One source is not necessarily more or less useful than another. They each bring certain benefits and also bear certain dangers. The best kind of evidence for a historian is a multiplicity of sources. Preferably of such variety as to allow a glimpse into many aspects of the subject. That includes popular response and official record.

Well said - The differing perspectives is also a big plus. Varied accounts from varied sources all add to get a clearer picture of the event as possible.

[Aliantha]

Anyway, I think I'll go do some gardening. Not sure why I've been feeling so defensive of merc today, but it doesn't seem to be helping at all. lol

[Aliantha]

Oh, and I can't believe no one cares about my stinky armpits!

[monster]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Oh, and I can't believe no one cares about my stinky armpits!

Too busy worrying about my own

[TheMercenary]

Oh!!! and this other time, when we were in Boy Scouts! We went to see Congress in action! and they recognized us in The Congressional Record! It was so awesome! They even put all of our names in the record! And our scout master too! And my Mom who came with us got her name in it too! How awesome was that!

[monster]

F&B.... I have read all (or at least most) of your posts to date and have generally, internally said "oh yeah!' But I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. It's never going to be forgotten. Why does it need this seal of approval? Or is the issue more that people are refusing the seal of approval just to show the size of their balls? (which sucks, i get that)

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by monster

F&B.... I have read all (or at least most) of your posts to date and have generally, internally said "oh yeah!' But I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. It's never going to be forgotten. Why does it need this seal of approval? Or is the issue more that people are refusing the seal of approval just to show the size of their balls? (which sucks, i get that)

It is the size of the balls thing.

This was a no-brainer and a standard practice. The Senate, which is much more coliegial than the House, passed it in a heartbeat. The House Republicans are playing politics with it.

Classicman had it right:

Originally Posted by classicman

...

The R's don't want to sign onto this for political reasons. Its a really tough pill to swallow for them. They've been painting Obama as weak since before the last election and were certainly planning to use that issue in the next election (not like they have a chance anyway). All this time he has been plotting, planning and working on this. They look like fools right now. They've lost another plank in an already weak campaign. If anyone here is playing politics with this issue, its the R's.

[monster]

har. fair point (to the "speaking as a historian" post). As I said in my last post (maybe less eloquently) -I do agree that debating it for the political sake of it is a bigger waste of time. And I still contend that in this day and age there will be plenty of record or what happened without this -I can see how that wan't always the case -the masses used to be illiterate, never mind having unfettered acccess to the internet- but I get why some people want it done and it's no biggie to me if it gets ratified.

[footfootfoot]

Do the SEALs need a pat on the back or are they ok with 'the satisfaction of a job well done'?

[monster]

So my friend and I were talking about this while we were walking this morning and she asked: if this needs to be part of congressional record for the sake of history, what about all the stuff that got recorded and was later shown to be wrong outside of congress -how does that get corrected in the history books? The example she gave was the recent statement along the lines of 90% of Planned Parenthood's money being used to fund abortions... (I realise I don't have the exact wording, but you kbnow the one I mean)

---

and Jill, sorry, I had not seen all the other shit going on and apologise if I made anything worse. I was truly just interested in it because you started the thread about it. I try to stay away from the politics threads for exactly this reason but you seemed like a rational person to discuss stuff with. I am ignorant about American politics -and a lot of Brit politics these days too- but I don't find it helpful to be told so and then given political labels when I question, so I stay away. yup chicken. I didn't mean to pile on in any way shape or form, and I am sorry for giving that impression.