|
There's this as well but it happened almost 25 years ago. Otherwise, the only times they seem to have had to destroy blood was due to random failures/natural disasters causing the storage freezers to stop working. I admit I didn't know about the communications office mixup, that makes the continuing solicitation a much less troubling reflection on the Red Cross.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
I went to a middle-class school in the North and the first time I ever heard of the Pinkertons was in Bioshock Infinite. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Personally when I read that the reason Oklahoma only allows Democrats and Republicans on the ballot is due to the strength of left-wing third parties in the early 20th century, I had trouble believing it. I went to a local museum in my podunk, rural as heck Alabama town a couple of weeks ago and they had a ballot from decades and decades ago (pre-civil rights movement) with a socialist and a communist party running multiple candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Social programs were really popular in the South before black people had access to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Didn't a socialist party candidate for president get like 20% of the popular vote one time? I think he was in prison at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Didn't a socialist party candidate for president get like 20% of the popular vote one time? I think he was in prison at the time. Eugene V. Debs. The popularity of anarchism and socialism in America and Europe during the late 19th and earl 20th centuries definitely seems glossed over in most history courses in America, though given how quickly both movements disintegrated in the face of World War 1 nationalism, I don't think they're covering up a threat per se.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:i graduated eleven years ago and i still talk with my history teacher on facebook because she's awesome; i probably had a weird experience for suburban texas, but it was APUSH. i have yet to hear from a person that took APUSH that was disappointed in their class me, my teacher was the football coach and just put notes on an overhead projector while going back to drawing up plays at his desk. In addition to the notes from the book, the syllabus called for us to occasionally read a chapter now and then from Zinn's People's History but the teacher after asking us to read one chapter never enforced it/mentioned it again and didn't test on it so no one read anything from it. after the year's AP testing we watched the movies Pearl Harbor and Cinderella Man under the pretext that they were historical films and it's a history class
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
what kind of monster makes his students watch Pearl harbor that movie was terrible just play Tora Tora Tora and The Longest Day like every other history class that gets to WWII for fucks sake
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:what kind of monster makes his students watch Pearl harbor We got to watch John Q. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
I was shown Dumb and Dumber in calculus class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
we studied star wars in year 9 english & watched weird science and 16 candles in science
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:we studied star wars in year 9 english & watched weird science and 16 candles in science home schooling doesn't count
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
that english teacher was a bigtime star wars fan, we did schindler's list a couple of years later. white fang by jack london is the most socialest thing we studied i think
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
I did a really awesome oral report about Hitler in 10th grade where I had a blonde lady come up to the front and I said Hitler loved statuesque blonde women most of all, then I fed everyone some chocolate cake and said Hitler loved chocolate cake absolutely he used to eat a whole one in the back of his official limousine. The whole point was that he was a human being who did evil things not a caricature. I got called a Nazi. Then Downfall came out in '05.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
I watched Looney Tunes in my science class and Saving Private Ryan in my history class. No real memorable reports about people though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
I have only seen the 1981 Clash of The Titans in history classes. I moved around a lot so I have seen it 10+ times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:the one with the treadmills is pretty great and also some pretty harsh criticism for brooker himself. it also works as a critique of capitalist society, so there's that too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
cafel posted:Eugene V. Debs. The popularity of anarchism and socialism in America and Europe during the late 19th and earl 20th centuries definitely seems glossed over in most history courses in America, though given how quickly both movements disintegrated in the face of World War 1 nationalism, I don't think they're covering up a threat per se. Well, that and the government murdering/deporting reds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Didn't a socialist party candidate for president get like 20% of the popular vote one time? I think he was in prison at the time. And of all states, he got one of his highest popular vote percentages from Oklahoma with 16.42% in 1912. This was the first flag of Oklahoma. It was changed after World War I during the 1st Red Scare because it was (correctly) accused of being too socialistic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
The staple film of our US History classes was Glory, which seemed like an anti-war movie to youthful me. Not sure why the district liked that one so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:People's History of the United States should be mandatory or recommended in high school. The labor movement, the guilded age, Emma Goldman and Eugene Debs, the fact that kids don't grow up with this stuff doesn't seem like a mistake, but an utter calculation. I think there's reasoning to support this. I remember reading The Jungle in high school and being upset (yes, history nerd) that nobody ever acknowledges its Socialist bent besides nominal mention about TR and setting up the FDA. It's like everyone admitted to the book being historically important while completely missing the point of the book entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
I was working on the local government OP and realized some of the terms I was going to use would confuse the poo poo out of things. For example I was going to use the term community development to refer to all the urban design and building code work that cities do and stumbled into what most of us would think of as community organizing. To me its suddenly obvious why it hasnt really been attempted previously in my recollection, defining scope is a bear in itself. Is there anyone else working in municipal government that I can compare notes with?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Well, that and the government murdering/deporting reds. He's still covered in Indiana (surprise, he's from Terre Haute) but depending on how far you are from Terre Haute is how much his name is besmirched or reviled. Doesn't help that many of his biographies are written as a love letter to him so many dismiss everything about him as socialist propaganda The Bending Cross comes to mind. It's worth a read but take the fact he comes off as a complete demigod that can do no wrong with a grain of salt. Also has anyone gone and seen the new America movie that kinda went under the radar? Looks like it's from the same guy who made 2016 Obama's America... Yeah... He's back 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Also has anyone gone and seen the new America movie that kinda went under the radar? Looks like it's from the same guy who made 2016 Obama's America... Yeah... He's back Dinesh D'Souza has to recoup his legal fees (for something he ultimately plead guilt to) somehow, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
This is a long and extremely depressing article about offshoring and American manufacturing. Here's a chunk from the beginning:quote:The humming Sparta plant had it all. For one thing, the town is within a day’s haul of most US markets—from New York and Chicago to Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas. Tennessee has decent, well-maintained highways. The plant was union—a new experience for Norris—but this IBEW local was steely-eyed about keeping and creating jobs; it had, for example, accepted a two-tier pay scale and surrendered contract protections in order to attract a highly automated production line from New Jersey. The press for that new line, known as a Bliss, was nearly three stories high (so big it had to be anchored twenty feet underground) and could stamp out eight or ten massive commercial fluorescent fixtures every minute. It attracted lucrative contracts from hospitals, prisons, grocery-store chains, and Walmart supercenters. Norris called it “a monument.” Brent Hall, the union rep, described it as a beating heart. “Every time that press rolled over,” he said, “the whole building would shake.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Someone should remake 'Bush was Right' by the Right Brothers Rising Productivity Jobless Recovery Marx was right!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
I wonder when or even if automation is going to start becoming an issue discussed in the mainstream. The most you get, in the UK at least, is a reporter occasionally asking economists or business experts pushing new "labour saving" technologies about if this will reduce the number of jobs. A standard "new tech always creates new jobs" response is then accepted without question. I suppose as long as those higher up the chain or in "safe" jobs don't realise how automation is likely to create a paradox of thrift it wont get discussed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 18:31
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:I think there's reasoning to support this. Sinclair himself said something along the lines of "I was aiming for their hearts, but I hit them in their stomachs."
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:I wonder when or even if automation is going to start becoming an issue discussed in the mainstream. It already was, about 180 years ago, and generally again every generation or so up until the 50s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
If anyone misses jrodefeld's walls of nonsense he is currently performing his act on revleft forums. "I appreciate the responses I've gotten so far. I'll clarify my position a little. I am certainly not a libertarian socialist, anarcho communist or Marxist. I believe you could classify me as "right" libertarian, though I dispute that label somewhat. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, there were plenty of radical anarchist philosophers who believed in private property rights and laissez faire markets who considered themselves a part of the "left". But I endorse the sort of anarchism that Murray Rothbard did, and more recently thinkers like Hans Hermann Hoppe. They would call it "anarcho capitalism", though I think the term "capitalism" is so different in meaning from what you all probably view as capitalism that I think that label is lacking as well. I did support Ron Paul in 2008 and though I disagree with him on several issues, I still like him but I passionately dislike his son Rand who is certainly no libertarian. I see libertarianism as a political ideology that asks one central question: "When is it morally justified to use violence?" The answer that I have come to is that it is justified to use violence in self defense only. The initiation of violence should be prohibited and morally indefensible for all members of society. I like talking to left anarchists because we can both agree that the State is an immoral, exploitative institution that serves the interests of the political class and the lobbyists at the expense of the rest of us. I want to note as an aside that I don't think that anyone who advocates for "States rights" is truly a libertarian. An anarchist libertarian would want to see all forms of coercive government dissolved. We don't stop at an abolition of the federal government! Short of that goal, however, we see the breakup of centralized political structures into smaller units of political order to be a step in the right direction. To that end, peaceful secession and declarations of individual sovereignty on the part of smaller groups of individuals can be seen as methods towards attaining our Stateless society. The difference that I understand between supposedly "right" anarchists and supposedly "left" anarchists is that we disagree fundamentally on property rights. Your side would presumably argue that the employee employer relationship is inherently exploitative and hierarchies of all sorts are to be considered coercive and illegitimate. You would therefore advocate for "democracy in the workplace", and workers owning the means of production and so forth. Is that correct? If I understand correctly, the left anarchist would concede that individual property rights must be protected when it comes to personal possessions. I can own my home, my clothes, etc but once I start a business I cannot continue to own the means of production. I must instead enter into mutual, equal partnership with other workers and share the profits equally. I know I am making a lot of assumptions here, and you all certainly hold varying sorts of political views, but I believe that is close to the left anarchist position. There is a division in property rights, "personal" property is okay but economic property is a form of exploitation and coercion. Now, in my mind, without the State then people should be permitted to interact with each other on a voluntary basis but no one should have the right to initiate aggression against anyone else. In that sense, I don't see any reason to oppose a voluntarily agreed to contract between two or more economic actors. I think the difference between left anarchists and right anarchists is this. For a Rothbardian private property anarchist, you would be entirely within your rights to advocate against the worker/employer relationship. You are free to speak out against all manner of hierarchical structures. If you favor mutual coops and worker run factories, then you can collectively buy a factory and run a business based on that model, with no "bosses" and no "authority". You can encourage other workers to quit their current "exploitative" jobs and form mutual coops. If your preferred model of economic organization is superior and in the best interests of the masses, then you should have little difficulty in convincing others to join you. But what if I am an entrepreneur and I wish to hire a worker to work for a wage. And he or she voluntarily agrees to the economic transaction. In a left anarchist society, what would happen to me? Would you use violence against me? Throw me in a cage? What would be the penalty for engaging in an "illegal" economic relationship? I think the coop model, or Anarcho Communist model of economic organization is flawed because some people are more competent as entrepreneurs and others are completely happy exchanging their labor for wages. I see the possibility of future profits as the primary driving force in the creation of prosperity in any society. Being an entrepreneur is a very risky enterprise. You must risk your capital (savings) on an untested idea. The job of the entrepreneur is to anticipate consumer demand and strive to meet that demand. Some make prescient predictions and become wealthy while many others bet on a bad idea and lose everything. Risk taking would be virtually non existent without the potential for future profits. For the worker, the reason they would voluntarily trade their labor for wages is that they want the money now. Each person in an anarchist market would be able to become entrepreneurs themselves or join a coop, but they don't want to assume the risk that is inherent in either of those activities. In working for a wage, they agree to a guaranteed wage rate per hour regardless of whether the company they work for is making profits or losses. They have a high time preference which means they prefer money now and don't want to wait for investments to pay off. The entrepreneur has to wait for a very long time to see a return on the investment. He has a low time preference and is willing to take losses in the short term for a shot a profits in the long term. That is why the worker/employer relationship is a mutually beneficial one and is not exploitative as long as both parties agree to a contract voluntarily. By definition, both expect to be made better off. As for the coop, worker run factory or business that the Marxist advocates, why would every worker even want to own the means of production? That would necessarily mean that each worker would have to bear the risk of a failed business. Most business ventures fail either because the consumer rejects what they are selling or they are supplanted by a superior business offering superior products and services. By being force to "own" part of the factory, part of the land, part of the capital investment, each worker is forced to assume a greater risk than he or she may be willing to assume. The worker neither gets the possibility of full return on investment that the entrepreneur may get, nor the peace of mind and lack of risk that the wage earner gets. I just don't believe it is morally right to use force against peaceful economic actors because you don't particularly like their voluntary choices. I believe that if a person acquires property legitimately, either through original appropriation of previously unused natural resources, or through voluntary transactions, then that person has the right to determine the use of that property provided they don't violate the person or property rights of anyone else. I have looked over the left anarchist philosophy carefully and I have found it lacking and illogical. Perhaps some of you could set me right in my errors if I have made any. There is a forgotten tradition of left-sympathetic libertarians who were not Marxist, but did believe in private property rights and the non aggression principle. This article by Sheldon Richman sums up that tradition nicely and is a good read (I can't yet post links so just retype this link the way it is supposed to look in your browser): www dot theamericanconservative dot com/articles/libertarian-left/" AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Oh this is going to be fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Well, I guess he didn't have another  to pony up after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:31
|
|
 Jesus, that makes my posting look concise. He/she could've stopped after the first paragraphs. Is this the person that started a political philosophy thread OP by declaring themselves an ancap?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
Behold, a work of art
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
The first couple google results for the username are accounts of them getting banned from other forums as well. I wonder if, when the mods get a serial offender like that, they're ever tempted to write stuff in the "Punishment Reason" field that will make neat little patterns or images. "hey look, your serial shitposting helped me draw a cute little bunny!" or something along those lines.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The first couple google results for the username are accounts of them getting banned from other forums as well. For a while when noted actual-Nazi Emden was posting his ban/probation reason would always include 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:For a while when noted actual-Nazi Emden was posting his ban/probation reason would always include Probating Emden was a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Probating Emden was a lot of fun. Reading those probation reasons was fun also.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
joe, weren't you the one that got to do the romney toxxes? those were nice and probably closer to what vox was thinking of
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
R. Mute posted:joe, weren't you the one that got to do the romney toxxes? those were nice and probably closer to what vox was thinking of Yes, mostly because I said I had the Rand quotes ready. It was tough to get them all through with the forums melting down. If Obama had lost we'd probably have had to take shifts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:07
|
|