Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree with many of those things listed at which Europeans are better at (although some of the categories are a bit ridiculous). However, Europe has the advantage in some areas (e.g. healthcare) because there can be several dozen different systems to choose from, rather than one federal system. While the healthcare system in Sweden might be better overall, I'm not sure I'd want to have to go to the hospital in a place like Greece or Romania. I do admit that Europe trumps America in the areas of cheese, public transportation, vacation time, chocolate, castles. They could add other categories like museums and architecture and beer as well.Now - as for things America is better at than Europe: cars, Italian food, streets, residential homes, Mexican food, military, movies.Boy bands (tie).
Don't you think it will be interesting to hear what they found? Maybe I am ignorant about it, but I do not recall hearing any official, specific reason for the assassination, or the nature of it. I think that's odd given the magnitude of the event.Come to think of it, I do not recall the reason why the Boston Marathon bombings took place, or even the 9/11 attacks. Of course, I have a generalized sense of why they were done (Muslim opposition to the West), but not a specific sense (what exactly were they hoping to directly accomplish by their actions?).
It looks like there have been several GW biographies released in the past three years which have gotten good reviews. George Washington: The Crossing by Levin and Levin might have potential.
Clinton gets better with Obama in office. Back in 2008, I figured Hillary would govern like Bill if she were in office – left of center, but more political animal than liberal ideologue. At the same time, I figured that Obama was more of an ideologue and therefore more dangerous if he got into office.
Apparently the “coolest” presidents are the ones that the public also thinks governs the best. A poll was conducted to see which president people would like to see back in office:
Asked who they would most want to bring back, 24 percent of adults chose Reagan, 21 percent chose Clinton and 13 percent chose Kennedy. Abraham Lincoln was next, at 9 percent.
So they were doing it partly for show, and now they'll be rebranding it to more accurately tell what is actually taking place.
I actually do realize there is something of a problem, given the responses to the Pope's messages. I admit that I do find it unusual that he makes a point of emphasizing the poor and criticizing greed/luxury so much, even in the Catholic Church. To me, such a message would make sense 400 years ago, but today I just don't see it as a big problem in the Church (then again, I'm not traveling around to different countries). Then again, that may be the message that God wants emphasized today. As for Nancy Pelosi, I don't really accept the idea that liberals are "pro-poor" to begin with, despite what liberals may claim. Now, I do think that ideological liberals (non-politicians) and true conservatives are both for the poor, but they have different ways of helping them. I happen to think that the conservative approach to helping the poor is more rational, more realistic, and more beneficial than the liberal approach. Anyway, I read an article in the Washington Post on the reception of Pope Francis by conservatives. I think this part nicely illuminates part of the communication difference between Pope Francis and his predecessors:
During the previous three decades, popes John Paul II and Benedict shared a focus: Make orthodox teachings crystal clear so Catholics don’t get lost in an increasingly messy, relativistic world.Catholics also became accustomed to popes who were largely speaking to “the Church,” rather than the public. These men often communicated in the language of Catholic theology, and through books, not through long, freewheeling interviews, like Pope Francis.
Whoever designed that webpage should be fired. Talk about slow and millions of popups. >:(
Funny, I didn't get a single pop up. You sure your computer isn't carrying spyware or something?
There is a family that occupies one of the Maunsell Forts and claim sovereignty as a separate nation called the Principality of Sealand. They even mint their own coins and have their own stamps. They also maintain some of the most notorious spam servers and gambling internet sites in the world.
I just spent time reading the history of Sealand. Interesting story. I wonder if there's been a movie or book written about it, since it seems like such a peculiar thing.
What was the point of keeping all those POWs? Was it just to thwart any potential effort to regroup an army of pocket resistance afterwards? It seems to me that the process of nation-rebuilding would require large quantities of men of the age that would have been fighting in the war.
FWIW, I saw someone on Daily Kos mention that Obama could come out toward the end of his term by acknowledging that he was never lawfully elected to a second term, have Biden fill out the remainder of his term, and then win election in 2016. Or something like that.
I finally got around to reading Pope Francis' remarks in that interview. I had heard references to his comments about “Who am I to judge?” and they sounded like a liberal talking point. Here is the larger context of his comments, in response to a direct question about the “gay lobby” (bold is mine):
Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ... wait a moment, how does it say it ... it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem.
To me, reading the above was quite different than what I had heard in other sources. Daniel, there was no changes made in any positions of the Catholic Church in what the Pope said. Scout, what did he say that you disapproved of? To me, people in general (often in the media) fail to distinguish between being gay and engaging in gay behavior. The Catholic Church teaches that the latter is wrong, not the former. I am guessing that there were some analysts/media talking heads which wishfully thought that Pope Francis was making a statement that those who engage in gay behavior are not doing anything wrong. I think that was a wrongful presumption on their part because of the failure in making the distinction I mentioned above. Personally, while I am very much against the homosexual agenda which I think is being pushed on us in ever-more increasing ways, I am not against gay people per se. In fact, I may even feel more compassion to them if they are struggling with their sexuality in a way that is moral. I don't think anyone should be denigrated on account of one's naturally-born condition, as all are born with dignity as given by God. We cannot judge or condemn a person or a class of persons on account of their state, but we can judge or condemn actions which are objectively evil.
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that St. John Lateran was built inside the walls of the ancient city (the Aurelian walls, that is). There's another church on the south side of the city called St. Paul outside the Walls.
