I don't recall any cycle completing and going back to strong unions? Are you measuring things back like before the founding of the USA or something? Workers in Europe?
Unions were barely starting to get off the ground in the late 1800's, weak in the early 1900's, peaked in 1954, and membership in unions has declined ever since.
And from the 1980's (Reagan) onward there has been very strong political measures taken to weaken unions. And this continues right up to the present, with several Republican controlled States outright banning collective bargaining for public workers.
because in the west marriage is of christian origins
Marriage has no basis in Christianity. There are hundreds of non-Christian cultures all over the world that have practiced marriage for a very long time. You might more accurately say that "in the west there are a lot of Christians, so many marriages are performed using Christian rituals."
Why would you care about label when it's the perks you are after (inheritance, visitations in hospitals, etc)?
Why would you care if you have to sit in the back of the bus, because all you care about is getting the ride right? Why would you care about being put in a separate part of the restaurant, all you care about is getting the food right?
As far as I recall, there is evidence of ritualistic behavior going back 30,000 years, but evidence of man/woman permanent unions are much more modern.
I cannot comment readily on the teaching of the Humanities subjects, as from the age of 14 I concentrated exclusively on the mathematics and science disciplines
It sounds like you has some great science teachers and really crappy humanities teachers. Unfortunately it seems like there are a higher percent of bad humanities teachers vs science teachers. I think that is the result of the subject matter of the humanities often being 'fuzzy' in nature. There are rarely right or wrong answers in the humanities. And that leads to a lot of people just BS'ing along without using good formal logic.
And a lot of it isn't something that is very easy to teach to being with. Take cultural anthropology for instance. There can be a lot of science and math involved. Statistical studies of culture x,y,z etc.. but the other half of discipline, obtaining the data, can almost be an art form at times. How do you work your way into another culture and study them in an unbiased fashion, without letting your own cultural perceptions get in the way (or at least minimize your own cultural perceptions)?
Just because there isn't a rigorous scientific experiment that can be run to determine if someone has minimized their own cultural perception when gathering data from Tribe X, doesn't mean that debating, writing, and talking about ways that might minimize your cultural perception isn't worth doing.
Or the vast amounts of wealth in the US brings with it lobbyists, corporations, and other pressures that corrupt and influence our politics in ways that other countries do not face.
Funny how black people vote for the black candidate and white people vote for the white candidate. If that's not racism, I don't know what is.
The vast majority of non-white groups in the US vote democratic. It is always that way, regardless of the skin color of the candidate.
However the republican party has never nominated a non-white candidate to run for president, so there is no evidence that the reverse would be try in a real election.
Or maybe it is time to realize that on the fundamental power issues in this country, who you vote for doesn't matter? I've personally watched several presidents I voted for both gain grey hair and change their minds on national security issues once in office.
You can choose to belief whatever you want about why they change their minds (Intelligence community threats, pressure, exposure to new information, whatever), but they all change their minds. This has nothing to do with left, right, or middle. It has to do with a military industrial complex that is basically its own nation, complete with unelected leaders and lifetime members.
Scantily clad women itself isn't a problem. It is when it is seen as a predominant role for women at these functions that it is a problem.
Bingo. Give this man a medal, he's just hit the nail on the head. Welcome to gender studies 101... you just earned yourself an 'A', dude.
I don't even think that is the main problem. If trade show X is known for scantily clad women, everyone knows it, customers and employees, then that's fine. Customers can refuse to buy the products, or employees can get another job. It is isolated to trade show X.
The bigger issue, that I think most guys refuse to acknowledge, is that this objectivism does not stay isolated. It seeps out and permeates areas of society where it does not belong. It creates a feeling that men are serious and women are entertainment well beyond the borders of the trade show.
If you use it like a desktop OS, and stay away from metro, what's wrong with it? I've installed all my normal apps, and launching then tabbing between them and getting work done seems fine.
Hmm... why is this insightful? I am not seeing it.
Mass media is tied to mass manipulation too
Mass media is not social media. A Government or Corporation cannot produce 50 million tweets. That is the 'social' part.
Now, can a Government, Corporation, or influential Private group spread rumors, misinformation, or lies that the population at large begins to believe or at least parrot? Sure. That has been happening since the first 'representative' of 'group X' stood on a box in the public square and delivered a message.
The only difference now is the speed at which misinformation can be transmitted. On the flip side, truth and counter-facts to misinformation can also spread rapidly.
I just wonder who is modding up AC posts that are so full of errors. You don't even need anywhere near a phd to see the errors. 1 'history of middle ages' or 'history of the near east' type survey course in undergrad would suffice.
Example: US and its current ability to imprison people indefinitely under anti-terrorist laws. After 9/11 enough US people of voting aged judged that freedom to have a fair trial in reasonable amount of time was no longer on the list of freedoms they wish to have. So this freedom was repelled democratically.
Enough people judged...? No, enough people didn't care. That, thankfully, is why there is a balance of power between our judicial, executive, and legislative branches of Government. Eventually our judicial system will (I hope) declare certain executive and legislative overreaches on the war on terror to be in conflict with our constitution.
Occasionally our Supreme Court really does make decisions that go against what the majority want, and what those in power want.
I see some of this sentiment on the conservative side of my family, and honestly, I don't see how he's much different than any other president. And in terms of comparing him to Nixon, everything Obama is doing is currently legal. Nixon intentionally used the office of the president to commit crimes. The most I can say about Obama, is that some of his foreign policy tactics are untested fully in a court of law (and are largely carried over from his predecessor anyway).
There is also a demand for an isolated experience. Any console that doesn't provide it will not get my money.
Well, not even isolated. Just not having to continually contact the person (corporation) who sold you the device.
When our family and extended family goes on vacation, like renting a beach house or cabin, we often bring the wii, xbox, etc.. to play at night. It is more fun and collaborative than just watching a movie. If one of the entertainment boxes requires an internet connection, it isn't coming on the trip.
And that demographic (parents with money and kids who travel) is a pretty large one.
I think most people that want the system changed see a hybrid, regulated finance system. This starts with banning political advertisements that are not financed by the campaigns themselves. That would be hardest hurdle to overcome both legally and politically.
After that is done, it is pretty simple: Get X signatures, you get on the ballot and are given some TV/radio time, are in all the debates, and get some amount of money to spend as you see fit. In addition, you can accept small (50-100 dollar donations) from individuals prior and during the campaign, with no limit. No personal money can be spent.
If your ideas are appealing, you'll get your small donations from the people, get your signatures, get on the ballot, and be given money, air time, and allowed in the debates.
The only way I see our elections producing better results is to drastically change how campaign financing and after-office employment works. Something like, "no personal money can be used, and only small 50-100 dollar donations per citizen can be used)". Add to that, "no employment with industry or lobbyist groups that relates to anything you did or voted on while in public office for 10 years after office".
I doubt he does. I've pretty much given up trying to convince anyone living in the Fox News/Drudge report/Limbaugh bubble about anything concerning reality.
"The study concentrated on decreased suitability of current ranges and ignores increased suitability of currently unsuitable ranges."
That may be true (I didn't read the study), but I thought one of the problems with this warming trend is the speed at which it is warming. The species will not have time to adapt or move to their new habitat before their numbers are diminished or driven to extinction.
I doubt it is fatigue. More likely because our political and economic systems are incapable of dealing with 50+ year problems, the result is zero activity. And zero activity is kinda a non-story.
My guess is that the non-story will become a story when the effects are so blatant and in society's face, that no one can deny that we have a problem with climate. But even then, we won't actually try to fix the source of the problem, instead we'll resort to engineering solutions, like dumping massive amounts of iron slurry into the ocean. Most right wing think tanks support geo-engineering solutions while simultaneously denying that global warming is a problem. It is an interesting display of cognitive dissonance.
It just happens to be very unfortunate that there currently isn't any way to tell if you have the type of disorder (or symptoms) that requires meds or not. Everyone with similar symptoms is lumped into the try med A for x months, try med B for x months, try med C, etc.. until the patient reports 'success'.
And what ends up happening is a few success stories like yours, but a much larger number of people that just try to cope with their symptoms without ever getting relief. Modern (U.S.) medicine, especially the HMO type systems, have no approved approaches that treat a person's depression holistically (looking for underlying causes, examining the entire lifestyle, diet, sunlight, etc... ). And most people have come to realize that their depression isn't a simple chemical issue, but don't have the time nor expertise to manage all the factors at play.
I'd have to see those termed applied to a specific ideology or person, but you can assign all those descriptors to something or someone without hating the target. If the definition fits...
Take a listen to Pat Robertson's latest wonderful comments for example: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/pat-robertson-cheating-comments-males-tendency-wander-19200017
I think most people would say it would be accurate to call those views sexiest. And Pat Robertson is by no means as far right as most of the far right in this country.
I live in Portland also. I don't think a few personal incidents show balance between the far right and far left in terms of blind ideology and hatred. The far right is way further away from main stream than the far left. Even more so if you put both those extremes in a world context.
I mean, just compare belief in mainstream science between the far left and far right. Far far left: some percent X might be.... say skeptical of vaccines or genetically modified crops without much scientific evidence on their side. Far far right: 99% of them don't believe in evolution, one of the most widely studied and evidence based theories of all time. Completely different levels of crazy.
That price looks alright until you realize it is a full year commitment. So you take one course of graphic design 101 but have to pay for 12 months at 20 dollars. A 240 dollar 'fee' every time you need to use the cloud isn't going to work for most students. It might work out if Adobe allows licensing to generic student accounts for a particular course, but I doubt they will do that.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't recall any cycle completing and going back to strong unions? Are you measuring things back like before the founding of the USA or something? Workers in Europe?
Unions were barely starting to get off the ground in the late 1800's, weak in the early 1900's, peaked in 1954, and membership in unions has declined ever since.
And from the 1980's (Reagan) onward there has been very strong political measures taken to weaken unions. And this continues right up to the present, with several Republican controlled States outright banning collective bargaining for public workers.
because in the west marriage is of christian origins
Marriage has no basis in Christianity. There are hundreds of non-Christian cultures all over the world that have practiced marriage for a very long time. You might more accurately say that "in the west there are a lot of Christians, so many marriages are performed using Christian rituals."
Why would you care about label when it's the perks you are after (inheritance, visitations in hospitals, etc)?
Why would you care if you have to sit in the back of the bus, because all you care about is getting the ride right? Why would you care about being put in a separate part of the restaurant, all you care about is getting the food right?
How far back are you going?
As far as I recall, there is evidence of ritualistic behavior going back 30,000 years, but evidence of man/woman permanent unions are much more modern.
The statement that "the humanities" are somehow subversive by nature is WAY too broad.
No kidding. I don't even like the term 'humanities' to begin with. There is way too much going on under that word for it to have any meaning.
I cannot comment readily on the teaching of the Humanities subjects, as from the age of 14 I concentrated exclusively on the mathematics and science disciplines
It sounds like you has some great science teachers and really crappy humanities teachers. Unfortunately it seems like there are a higher percent of bad humanities teachers vs science teachers. I think that is the result of the subject matter of the humanities often being 'fuzzy' in nature. There are rarely right or wrong answers in the humanities. And that leads to a lot of people just BS'ing along without using good formal logic.
And a lot of it isn't something that is very easy to teach to being with. Take cultural anthropology for instance. There can be a lot of science and math involved. Statistical studies of culture x,y,z etc.. but the other half of discipline, obtaining the data, can almost be an art form at times. How do you work your way into another culture and study them in an unbiased fashion, without letting your own cultural perceptions get in the way (or at least minimize your own cultural perceptions)?
Just because there isn't a rigorous scientific experiment that can be run to determine if someone has minimized their own cultural perception when gathering data from Tribe X, doesn't mean that debating, writing, and talking about ways that might minimize your cultural perception isn't worth doing.
Or the vast amounts of wealth in the US brings with it lobbyists, corporations, and other pressures that corrupt and influence our politics in ways that other countries do not face.
Funny how black people vote for the black candidate and white people vote for the white candidate. If that's not racism, I don't know what is.
The vast majority of non-white groups in the US vote democratic. It is always that way, regardless of the skin color of the candidate.
However the republican party has never nominated a non-white candidate to run for president, so there is no evidence that the reverse would be try in a real election.
Or maybe it is time to realize that on the fundamental power issues in this country, who you vote for doesn't matter? I've personally watched several presidents I voted for both gain grey hair and change their minds on national security issues once in office.
You can choose to belief whatever you want about why they change their minds (Intelligence community threats, pressure, exposure to new information, whatever), but they all change their minds. This has nothing to do with left, right, or middle. It has to do with a military industrial complex that is basically its own nation, complete with unelected leaders and lifetime members.
Scantily clad women itself isn't a problem. It is when it is seen as a predominant role for women at these functions that it is a problem.
Bingo. Give this man a medal, he's just hit the nail on the head. Welcome to gender studies 101... you just earned yourself an 'A', dude.
I don't even think that is the main problem. If trade show X is known for scantily clad women, everyone knows it, customers and employees, then that's fine. Customers can refuse to buy the products, or employees can get another job. It is isolated to trade show X.
The bigger issue, that I think most guys refuse to acknowledge, is that this objectivism does not stay isolated. It seeps out and permeates areas of society where it does not belong. It creates a feeling that men are serious and women are entertainment well beyond the borders of the trade show.
If you use it like a desktop OS, and stay away from metro, what's wrong with it? I've installed all my normal apps, and launching then tabbing between them and getting work done seems fine.
The people are very tolerant of pretty much everything
Are your experiences only in the large cities? Someone posted above about how the majority of the population is rural and very religious.
Hmm... why is this insightful? I am not seeing it.
Mass media is tied to mass manipulation too
Mass media is not social media. A Government or Corporation cannot produce 50 million tweets. That is the 'social' part.
Now, can a Government, Corporation, or influential Private group spread rumors, misinformation, or lies that the population at large begins to believe or at least parrot? Sure. That has been happening since the first 'representative' of 'group X' stood on a box in the public square and delivered a message.
The only difference now is the speed at which misinformation can be transmitted. On the flip side, truth and counter-facts to misinformation can also spread rapidly.
I just wonder who is modding up AC posts that are so full of errors. You don't even need anywhere near a phd to see the errors. 1 'history of middle ages' or 'history of the near east' type survey course in undergrad would suffice.
Example: US and its current ability to imprison people indefinitely under anti-terrorist laws. After 9/11 enough US people of voting aged judged that freedom to have a fair trial in reasonable amount of time was no longer on the list of freedoms they wish to have. So this freedom was repelled democratically.
Enough people judged...? No, enough people didn't care. That, thankfully, is why there is a balance of power between our judicial, executive, and legislative branches of Government. Eventually our judicial system will (I hope) declare certain executive and legislative overreaches on the war on terror to be in conflict with our constitution.
Occasionally our Supreme Court really does make decisions that go against what the majority want, and what those in power want.
Except Nixon was a saint compared to Obama.
Can you please elaborate?
I see some of this sentiment on the conservative side of my family, and honestly, I don't see how he's much different than any other president. And in terms of comparing him to Nixon, everything Obama is doing is currently legal. Nixon intentionally used the office of the president to commit crimes. The most I can say about Obama, is that some of his foreign policy tactics are untested fully in a court of law (and are largely carried over from his predecessor anyway).
There is a demand for a connected experience.
There is also a demand for an isolated experience. Any console that doesn't provide it will not get my money.
Well, not even isolated. Just not having to continually contact the person (corporation) who sold you the device.
When our family and extended family goes on vacation, like renting a beach house or cabin, we often bring the wii, xbox, etc.. to play at night. It is more fun and collaborative than just watching a movie. If one of the entertainment boxes requires an internet connection, it isn't coming on the trip.
And that demographic (parents with money and kids who travel) is a pretty large one.
I think most people that want the system changed see a hybrid, regulated finance system. This starts with banning political advertisements that are not financed by the campaigns themselves. That would be hardest hurdle to overcome both legally and politically.
After that is done, it is pretty simple:
Get X signatures, you get on the ballot and are given some TV/radio time, are in all the debates, and get some amount of money to spend as you see fit. In addition, you can accept small (50-100 dollar donations) from individuals prior and during the campaign, with no limit. No personal money can be spent.
If your ideas are appealing, you'll get your small donations from the people, get your signatures, get on the ballot, and be given money, air time, and allowed in the debates.
The only way I see our elections producing better results is to drastically change how campaign financing and after-office employment works. Something like, "no personal money can be used, and only small 50-100 dollar donations per citizen can be used)". Add to that, "no employment with industry or lobbyist groups that relates to anything you did or voted on while in public office for 10 years after office".
"Do you see the double-standard there?"
I doubt he does. I've pretty much given up trying to convince anyone living in the Fox News/Drudge report/Limbaugh bubble about anything concerning reality.
"The study concentrated on decreased suitability of current ranges and ignores increased suitability of currently unsuitable ranges."
That may be true (I didn't read the study), but I thought one of the problems with this warming trend is the speed at which it is warming. The species will not have time to adapt or move to their new habitat before their numbers are diminished or driven to extinction.
I doubt it is fatigue. More likely because our political and economic systems are incapable of dealing with 50+ year problems, the result is zero activity. And zero activity is kinda a non-story.
My guess is that the non-story will become a story when the effects are so blatant and in society's face, that no one can deny that we have a problem with climate. But even then, we won't actually try to fix the source of the problem, instead we'll resort to engineering solutions, like dumping massive amounts of iron slurry into the ocean. Most right wing think tanks support geo-engineering solutions while simultaneously denying that global warming is a problem. It is an interesting display of cognitive dissonance.
It just happens to be very unfortunate that there currently isn't any way to tell if you have the type of disorder (or symptoms) that requires meds or not. Everyone with similar symptoms is lumped into the try med A for x months, try med B for x months, try med C, etc.. until the patient reports 'success'.
And what ends up happening is a few success stories like yours, but a much larger number of people that just try to cope with their symptoms without ever getting relief. Modern (U.S.) medicine, especially the HMO type systems, have no approved approaches that treat a person's depression holistically (looking for underlying causes, examining the entire lifestyle, diet, sunlight, etc... ). And most people have come to realize that their depression isn't a simple chemical issue, but don't have the time nor expertise to manage all the factors at play.
I'd have to see those termed applied to a specific ideology or person, but you can assign all those descriptors to something or someone without hating the target. If the definition fits...
Take a listen to Pat Robertson's latest wonderful comments for example: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/pat-robertson-cheating-comments-males-tendency-wander-19200017
I think most people would say it would be accurate to call those views sexiest. And Pat Robertson is by no means as far right as most of the far right in this country.
I live in Portland also. I don't think a few personal incidents show balance between the far right and far left in terms of blind ideology and hatred. The far right is way further away from main stream than the far left. Even more so if you put both those extremes in a world context.
I mean, just compare belief in mainstream science between the far left and far right. Far far left: some percent X might be.... say skeptical of vaccines or genetically modified crops without much scientific evidence on their side. Far far right: 99% of them don't believe in evolution, one of the most widely studied and evidence based theories of all time. Completely different levels of crazy.
That price looks alright until you realize it is a full year commitment. So you take one course of graphic design 101 but have to pay for 12 months at 20 dollars. A 240 dollar 'fee' every time you need to use the cloud isn't going to work for most students. It might work out if Adobe allows licensing to generic student accounts for a particular course, but I doubt they will do that.