Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
For some reason I thought he hound of the Baskervilles was a lovable St. Bernard….but I'm guessing I'm wrong!http://pets4u.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/terrier-breeds-chart-9.jpg
I think it's neat to see the comparisons with things like education (vastly different) and unemployment (similar). We have succeeded in increasing the national “brain”, but I wouldn't say we've necessarily increased national wisdom.
Makes me what they are going to do with all that stuff in that room. It would be cool to look through it all.
What, exactly, are “common sense things” that government should address? This is the problem, IMO. Today, common sense things are the things around the edges. The big things, such as spending and taxation, are major areas of contention and therefore not agreed upon easily. And I don't think the "wacky" ideas are only in the past. We can blame figures such as FDR or LBJ for initiating certain policies, but at least they did not have the knowledge of the actual fruit their ideas would bear. Today's liberals do see the fruit of leftist ideas - everything from the growth of the entitlement state, to failing schools, to the sexual revolution and today's broken homes - and they still keep at it. Every generation makes its own choices and contributes to its own well-being.
Right now the fact is that nothing will get down because neither side can agree on anything effective. Everything that might be effective is vetoed by one side or the other.
Is that what you really believe is the problem, though? I am of the opinion that a nation slowed down by leaders who can't get anything done is better than a nation which is on cruise control down a course of destruction. I think the real problem is that the Democrats are so wacky in their ideas that they weigh down our government and society. While the Republicans are not polar opposites in this regard - their ideas are hardly perfect - they are at least closer to the mark. So I am happy when the Republicans veto bad ideas offered by the Democrats, even if some claim this is an example of government which doesn't get anything done.
I take heart in the thought that eventually the extremists on both sides will spark a civil war. I don't see how there is any room to even talk to each other from the extremes and it seems the extreme is becoming mainstream thought. The liberal desire for more government is at odds with the conservative desire for less. there is no middle ground any more. The question for me is when will the spark come, not if it will come.
To throw another wrench in here....I think the label "extreme" is used to marginalize and mischaracterize at times, and in some respects it has become a political tool in itself. It's annoying to hear the media label some idea or lifestyle as "extreme", only for me to think "wait a second, I believe in that as well, and I consider it to be rational/common sense". Who, in the end, is the arbiter of "mainstream" and "extreme"?
Yeah, it is pretty bad out there. You just have to hang in there, since eventually things will get better. Not sure quite when, but they will get better in the end.
Well, I know the area around the Temple of Hatshepsut, near Luxor, was quite hilly/rocky. The Egyptians would have had to transport monuments in many more places, and over longer distances, than the flat area near Giza. And even if we set aside “hills” per se, any kind of uneven terrain could have proved problematic if we're talking huge stones. I'm not dismissing the water-sled strategy; rather, it raises several other questions which need to be answered about its context.
So it's a promising theory, but I don't think it's conclusive enough for historical purposes. According to the picture, the experiment they did was in a lab under controlled circumstances. How would factors such as hills, varying sand types, or sand absorption rate affect the glide of the sled? And although they did find an Egyptian picture to corroborate the theory in part, doesn't it seem like they'd need much more than a few slaves pouring water directly in front of a sled carrying a 2+ ton statue to make it slide effectively? This is a situation where experimental archaeology could help us: someone should try this out in real life conditions to see if it would work.
And you can do it in a short time, right? I noticed it takes just under 30 minutes to get from the middle of Providence to the state's western border (assuming without traffic). I bet you could go on some pretty nice day trips without driving too long. Here, we usually have to drive an hour+, or several hours if we want to get to the coast. Man, you Rhode Islanders have it made. 😉 Again, why do they want to move from their state? 🙂
I was just looking at the RI map and I was surprised by the lack of towns in the state. I expected to see more towns scattered about, but it seems like there are very few, with much farmland(?) in between.
This relates very well to this thread:State Residents' Desire to Move to a Different State
Funny, because I would love to live in a place like Rhode Island. Or at least I picture it to be a quaint place with picturesque towns, salty air, historic vibe, and good restaurants. I guess this is the plot of life; we often imagine it better elsewhere, and our imaginings can sometimes depart from reality.
If I can go back to the topic; I think that this "guiltiness" seems to be quite a "modern" criteria in the way that today everyone "must" feel guilty about something, no matter how old the event or whatever it can be, but you are the guilty one.What the Romans did to Christ happened according to the rules of the time, Pilate just complied with what the priests decided about Christ's fate. (Didn't he wash his hands about this matter?) Local authorities wanted him dead, he complied in respect with local laws.As the authority of a Roman province, the Romans were in charge of keeping law and order, and regarding the Roman tolerance towards "foreign" religions, I don't think they were particularly against Christ himself but they just tried to appease the local authorities in order to "save" a local peacefulness. The Romans did not condemn Christ.
That makes sense, and I have wondered in the past whether Pilate was acting "justly" according to the rules of state at the time (even it was objectively the greatest injustice ever). However, did the post-Constantinian Romans look at it this way? Also, I would think they would have had a hard time excusing the Romans altogether since crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, and since the Roman soldiers played their own part in scourging and mocking Christ.But now, it has occurred to me that since the post-Constantinian Romans were both Romans and Christians, they could only have felt so much collective guilt; after all, they were both the oppressors and part of the group that was oppressed, so to speak.
