Or they could follow the Jewish solution and lawyer around their scriptures to get the result that they want. If the Torah is the constitution of the Jews than the Talmud is the living constiution interpretation of it.

Or they could follow the Jewish solution and lawyer around their scriptures to get the result that they want. If the Torah is the constitution of the Jews than the Talmud is the living constiution interpretation of it.

Or they could follow the Jewish solution and lawyer around their scriptures to get the result that they want. If the Torah is the constitution of the Jews than the Talmud is the living constiution interpretation of it.

Is this really the case though? I think a good argument can be made that we were just as ideologically divided in the past as we are now but that limited technology made us largely ignorant of the divisions. It could be more about willful blindness to ideology than anything else.

Speaking of cartoon libertarianism:

http://hurryupharry.org/2013/05/12/anarchodepravity/#more-81514

To the extent that they were protesting government intervention they think only helps the top strata of society and corporations, yes. However, a lot of the Occupy movement is not opposed to government intervention in the economy as a matter of principle. I think that most of them would support government intervention that would help the masses.

Do you need to have rentier income to be considered upper-class? Is there anytime a salaried or proprietary income is high enough to be considered upper-class? An A-list celebrity makes money through means you describe as middle-class but there income is in the millions and life-style that reflects this. A lot of people in finance also earn their income through non-rentier methods. I'd say that once income reaches in the high six-figure range, say above 500,000, than you are upper-class. If your income is between 100,000 and 500,000 than you are upper-middle class.

Its an interesting question. A lot of people on the Left have criticized Marxism as practiced but I can't recall anybody that argued that Marx's writings themselves are completely lacking in value. Even many people who are Liberal find at least something of value in Marx.

This makes a lot of sense. Modern liberalism and leftism isn't a coherent political ideology in the way that Libertarianism or Marxism or Amatchism. All three of the previous philosophies have a lot of variation but have a common foundation or end point be it the minimal state or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Modern liberalism has numerous foundations and no clear end point. To a certain extent it's a strength because it allows for flexibility. It's also a weakness for the reason you mentioned.

An example of a cartoon liberal/leftist would be like the people who see the United States as the source of all evil in the world and any American foreign policy as imperialist. Sometimes they extend this to an entire Western discourse. The liberals and leftists that keep talking about privilege also strike me as cartoonish.

I think thinks this sums up the division on the liberal/leftist side but it doesn't quite show what a cartoon liberal would be. To me a cartoon liberal or leftist like a cartoon libertarian or conservative has to be one that sees the liberal solution as so obviously correct that they can't understand why somebody would reach a different conclusion. These are the types that see libertarians and conservatives as strange creatures, not quite human, that can't be understood.

If I'm remembering correctly, I don't think this is right. One aspect of the Progressive Era was the High School movement, a push to have 14 to 18 year olds in school rather than going out to work. The High School movement was particularly big in the Mid-West and North East. I think that by the late 1910s or early 1920s, most Americans aged 14 to 18 were in school. At least in the more industrialized and urban parts of the country. In the South, you might be right.

When I went to watch the Hobbit, I had to deal with the constant narration from a group of teenagers.* Why can't people watch movies with no commentary while giving the appropriate audible reaction at the appropriate time?

*Although I understand that the idea that you should be silent during movies, plays, and musical performances is relatively recent.

No, it was accordance with Jewish law. Burial in this case means disposing of the body rather than letting it decompose in the open. However, you do not need to treat the body of the criminal with the same respect as the body of an ordinary person let alone a good person. By cremating and putting his ashes in the sea, the body was disposed of but not in a respectful way. This is perfectly fine.

No, it was accordance with Jewish law. Burial in this case means disposing of the body rather than letting it decompose in the open. However, you do not need to treat the body of the criminal with the same respect as the body of an ordinary person let alone a good person. By cremating and putting his ashes in the sea, the body was disposed of but not in a respectful way. This is perfectly fine.

In case your wondering, Jewish law requires that everybody be given a burial. No crime is considered so serious that it renders the perpetrator undeserving of a burial and requires their remains to rot forever. However, that doesn't mean that people deserve equal burials. You can treat the remains of criminal differently than those of a more ethical person.

Well, we know its not what others might do but what they will do. Spain has moer than a few people that revere Franco and Chile has its Pinochet fans. They treat the graves of their "heroes" as revered monuments.

I believe the French have a saying about the more things change, the more they stay the same. We might dress differently and our toys might be different but many of the dilemmas faced by us were faced by our ancestors in the distant past.

Personally, I don't see the benefit in denying Tamerlane Tsarnaev a burial somewhere. What he did was horrible but plenty of other people have done worse and received glorious funerals and burals because of the horrors that they inflicted on the world. Tamerlane Tsarnaev was a son, brother, husband, and father in addition to being a murderer. Not for his sake but for his families sake, he should be given a burial and his family should be allowed to mourn.

I believe the French have a saying about the more things change, the more they stay the same. We might dress differently and our toys might be different but many of the dilemmas faced by us were faced by our ancestors in the distant past.

Personally, I don't see the benefit in denying Tamerlane Tsarnaev a burial somewhere. What he did was horrible but plenty of other people have done worse and received glorious funerals and burals because of the horrors that they inflicted on the world. Tamerlane Tsarnaev was a son, brother, husband, and father in addition to being a murderer. Not for his sake but for his families sake, he should be given a burial and his family should be allowed to mourn.

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

Diana Rigg has that effect on many of us. According to TV Tropes, Emma Peel has her origins when the writers were told to create a character with Male Appeal. This was written down as M. Appeal and eventually Emma Peel. The writers certainly did a good job.

Down-vote. Platypus' do not have the image of elegance and sophistication that we on the League wish to cultivate and project. We are gentleman.

Plus one for the non-animal mascot.

I think that the best animal mascot for the League of Ordinary Gentleman University would be the fox. In folklore, foxes are known for their cleverness and wit. The League is known on the internet for their cleverness and wit. Foxes are often associated with upper-classness and would naturally look good in bowler because of that. Another advantage to foxes is that they are under-represented in the world of mascots.

For the non-animal mascot, I'd go with the a bowler since we already selected it as a mascot.

This is outlined in Jerome Karabel's history on college admissions in the United States.