One thing you do need to understand about the American labor movement is that it only existed in the first place due to federal backing, originally by Teddy Roosevelt and then Wilson. In Wilson's case it was in line with his progressive Christianity. — Tate

Well... news to me. Consider this:

In early 1866 William Harding, who was then president of the Coachmakers' International Union, met with William H. Sylvis, president of the Ironmoulders' International Union and Jonathan Fincher, head of the Machinists and Blacksmiths Union. At that meeting they called for a formal meeting to be held August 20-24, 1866, in Baltimore, Maryland. On the first day of that meeting the National Labor Union was born. Also, on that first day various committees were created to study different issues—one of which was focused on the 8-hour system. — Wikipedia

So, some level of unionizing was occurring at least in the immediate post-Civil War period. Congress did pass an 8 hour day law (applicable to railroads), and the SCOTUS upheld the law in 1917.

It would be more accurate to say that the existing union movement required congressional action to establish the 8 hour day across the country. That isn't the same thing as unions existing because of federal backing. The federal government is a tool which capital and labor both use for their own ends--the former more effectively than the latter.

The Socialist Labor Party was organized around 1873; union organizing was a major plank in their party platform. The Haymarket Riot in Chicago was 1886 -- all well before T. R. and W. W. An eight-hour day proclamation issued by President Ulysses S. Grant declaring that employers cannot reduce wages as a result of the reduction of the workday, 1869

Unions have self-inflicted wounds, certainly, some of them near fatal. But it Is also the case that unions, unionizing, union leadership, union thinking -- all of it has been subject to really sustained attacks by both corporations and government. Legal barriers have been placed in the way of union formation. Unions are restricted in their ability to support each other (no secondary boycotts, for instance). State governments have stood ready to assist in breaking strikes (like, by protecting scabs crossing picket lines). There are companies specializing in anti-union strategies. There is a strong anti-unionization bias in media. ETC.

I am very happy to see successful union efforts at Apple or Amazon, but not to get overly excited, these are unions at specific locations--not company-wide unions. These seem to be primarily organizing efforts among younger economically precarious workers, which is another good sign.

Most American workers, though, young, middle aged, and approaching retirement, are without union representation.

My work history has been mostly in the non-profit sector--an area as in need of unions as any other, but is additionally hobbled by do-good thinking that discourages unions. I was a member of AFSCME while employed at the University. AFSCME didn't seem to be very effective at this location. Some groups at the U were represented by the Teamster Union, which seemed to be a better representative and organizer.

Quite a gamble wouldn't you say? — Agent Smith

Joining the military is a HUGE gamble, really in the same way taking any job is a gamble, only much much more so.

True, one might join up in a peaceful June and by September we could be at war with [fill in blank]. Even if we don't throw a war during one's years in the military, there's still lots of opportunities to be disappointed, ill-served, have one's time wasted, screwed over, etc. etc. etc.

I was a conscientious objector (in the 1960s). Even so, any organization with such vast resources at its disposal has a certain amount of charm.

25 reasons to join the military, according to Indeed, the personnel people:

1. To serve your country
2. To learn new skills or a trade
3. To find purpose
4. To travel
5. To get physically fit [What? Are there no gyms?]
6. To pay for college
7. To save money [What? Something other than thrift?]
8. To have adventure
9. To have medical benefits
10. To enjoy job stability
11. To retire early [in time to start a second career]
12. To gain experience
13. To continue family tradition
14. To find an alternative to college
15. To earn respect
16. To form friendships [What? No one liked you in civilian life?]
17. To receive housing, stipend or loan
18. To learn discipline
19. To gain perspective [WTF does that mean?]
20. To meet challenges
21. To earn military perks
22. To get paid vacation days [What? must be an easier way]
23. To get help starting a business
24. To find a positive environment
25. To showcase leadership abilities

The circumstances of signing up for the armed forces helps explain some motivations:

An intelligent but unskilled youth may find few employment opportunities. Hence, a job.

An intelligent youth may sign up to receive college education benefits. There are various programs that cover the cost of education (highly inconvenient conditions may apply).

A youth from a boring backwater may seek adventure in armed forces. "Join the navy, see the world" kind of thing.

A youth from a jingoistic, crypto-fascist (or maybe not so crypto) family may be able to fulfill family expectations by serving valiantly in the peacetime military. It's not his fault if there is no decent war at the time.

A youth may feel a need to live in a highly structured, directive environment. One could become a monk but most men will find being a grunt more interesting.

"One of the most common reasons people join the military is because they feel drawn to serving their country. This sense of duty, or a “calling to service,” can arise from patriotic family values or the desire to do something meaningful."

Roach is for real, as you discovered, and has been on the New York Times Best Seller lists. She likes to delve into the gory details.

Working class men who become soldiers continue to be at the bottom and continue to be exposed to the worst consequences of war. A good example are the soldiers who were heavily exposed to the smoke from appalling filthy, toxic burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their injuries don't involve holes in their bodies so maybe they don't get the attention they deserve.

War has always involved severe wounds, but WWI was innovative. First, a lot more concentrated gunfire, long range bombardment, and the use of chlorine and mustard gas. Troops were also concentrated in the trenches. The second innovation was medical: antisepsis measures (based on the relatively new germ theory) led to higher rates of survival. Good field-hospital organization also helped.

Lindsey Fitzharris' new book, FACEMAKER, is about the developments in plastic surgery that were made during the war. There were many soldiers with head and neck bullet wounds -- eyes shot out, jaws shot off, faces almost entirely destroyed. Surgeons learned how to use autografts, metal, early plastic-type material, wound drainage, fine stitching, and so forth. Before and after photos show that remarkable results could be achieved treating the heavy flow of wounded men.

Books like Facemaker show how high the price was paid by the soldier. Not all wounds could be repaired nicely. IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan produced a lot of long-term, but not readily visible, neurological damage from concussions. And then there was Agent Orange, and radiation from other wars.

I have not read Mary Roach's book, Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War. Based on reading her other titles, I would expect this to be an interesting exploration of soldiering. (other titles: Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex; Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers; Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal; Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void.

This idea has been explored in novels. My favorite is Earth Abides by George Stewart, 1949. The lead character is alone for quite some time, and only a few other people are found. Other novels stick to your plot idea -- one person and one person only.

I indulge the fantasy every now and then, wondering what I would do. Not much, actually. Without human attendants, our supporting infrastructure and technology would fall apart very fast. It wouldn't be long before the electrical systems failed, and then tap water. It would be VERY quiet. For a little while, say in the summer, it might be pleasant, or at least interesting.

I would not expect, or wish, to live very long after waking up totally alone. Even as a not too social person, I engage with other people every day, one way or another.

Pets? One would not have to look for a pet: the pets of every disappeared person would be out looking for a human, hungry for company, food, water, and comfort.

Good post.

but if we agree the less powerful could easily unite and topple the elites at any moment ... then collectively the less powerful have more responsibility. — boethius

I don't agree that the less powerful could "easily unite" or easily "topple the elite". True, it has happened in the past, but not often. To a small extent, a move in that direction just happened in Sri Lanka (but only a couple of heads rolled -- the power elite is still intact there). It doesn't happen often because it is in fact very difficult for any large group to unite in solidarity around radical change and a plan's execution. It also doesn't happen often because the elite is well defended--not just by guns, but by propaganda machines.

the blame game is irrelevant — boethius

You are quite right. It is irrelevant because the elites and the commoners, being the same species, are similarly endowed. We do not seem to be able to act on risks that are not immediate. We are not even good at recognizing and measuring risk. The momentum of the industrial revolution has driven the use of fossil fuel, and elites and commoners all welcomed the labor saving which coal, steam, oil, and gas (turned into on-line energy) made possible.

Life has been hard for us for most of our history, requiring enormous amounts of labor, much of it miserable and life-shortening. Science and technology have made life easier for many (not all, though).

If the James Webb cameras were to spot a large human-life-ending meteor heading in our direction, with arrival time about 30 years into the future and a 75% likelihood of a catastrophic impact, the world would not unite in laboring to build the device which would deflect the meteor. There would be bickering and dithering over plans, denial, contention, possibly major destabilization--possibly up until the rock arrived or barely missed us. Various people would definitely get blamed, no matter what. Why?

Why? Because we are not perfectly evolved primates. Yes, we do have lots of hard capabilities, but we also have lots of hard limitations. Maybe we can all agree that the James Webb Telescope is a marvel, but we have not all agreed that we should get vaccinated against Covid 19 (and other diseases); that we should wear masks in public; that we should stay home if we feel sick, and so on. Those are easy behavior changes.

Alot of the corrupt politicians are there because we are duped into voting for them and against our own interests. — Mr Bee

Whether the politicians are corrupt or not, whether we voted them in or they just muscled their way
in, may not matter that much. The State has interests that are pursued using the procedures and personnel available to it. (On the one hand, the State is an abstraction; on the other hand, the State has authorizing legislation, a permanent government, courts, and interested parties to make sure things run "the right way".)

Our country was set up to be the kind of country it was / is. The rights of property were / are paramount. "Nature" and the original inhabitants of the American land were of little interest to the State. "Individualism" might have been important, but most run-of-the-mill "individuals" (lacking wealth) were of little importance.

We can easily topple over the oligarchs if we actually unite together, but instead we're more interested in fighting amongst ourselves. — Mr Bee

The individuals who did matter, and who in various ways animated the State to begin with, were the oligarchs. The oligarchs and the States have a close relationship, and overturning one will require overturning both. That is a tall order, even for 7 billion people. Not impossible, but very difficult. Why? for the simple reason that most people are decent folk who are not made of the abrasive, corroding stuff that oligarchs and crooked senators are made of.

Plus, the state knows how to use violence in its self-defense, and the state have a lot of violence at their disposal. Gunning down the rioting masses (or gassing them) won't bother the oligarchs. To quote one oligarch "If the masses want to die, then they should get on with it."

All of this is to say, again, the 7 billion are not to blame.

Of course we can debate human nature, but I think we would agree that we are now experiencing the consequences of our actions. — boethius

We are certainly experiencing the consequences of some people's actions. Yes it does seem futile; yes it is hard to be optimistic; yes some people have lost faith in humanity.

But look: there are 7+ billion pretty much powerless consumers in the world. We tend to blame ourselves for the climate disaster. Maybe we are all complicit, but none of us are guilty of being prime movers in energy production, manufacturing or consumption. We are small cogs in a great wheel, but we do not turn the wheel. We do not grind; we are ground up.

There are guilty parties--the several million rich, powerful people who have steered the economy of waste in both energy and materiel; who have worked over the last century to put us all in private cars; who have always chosen the long term environmental loss over short term profitgain; who have always opted to keep most workers' heads just above water.

You - bricklayer; you - librarian; you - farmer; you - janitor; you - mechanic; you - teacher; you - factory worker; you - accountant; you - grocery store clerk; you - nurse; you - teacher... None of you were ever in a position to steer steer the economy, for better or worse. You are not to take the blame: you are the victim.

Erm ↪T Clark... where are you? — Changeling

Clark must be on vacation or something - he hasn't posted on the shout box lately. But then, hardly anybody else has, either. Everybody on vacation? In bed with Covid? Joined the Ukrainian army? In D.C. to advise JB? Exploring the sewers of Paris?

Sorry for stealing your lunch. I did't notice it was your post -- thought it was Jackson's. Talk about awareness!

Did you spot the clown moving from the left to the right in the video.

I am not very observant, but this is a classic experiment. The subjects are asked to count the number of passes made by the white-shirt team. One is unlikely to notice the non-player dressed as a clown in the group.

Alertness for one particular thing can disrupt our perception of unrelated things. So drivers (and bicyclists, for that matter) may not notice bicyclists or pedestrians because they are focussed on cars--or something else.

"In the long run, money invested in stocks will do better than money invested in savings" -- or some such formulation. Perhaps, but as John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."

No investment return (real estate, gold, platinum, pork belly futures, mutual funds, stocks and bonds, etc.) can claim to be guaranteed. If someone claims their fund is guaranteed to turn a profit, they are running some sort of scam.

it makes sense to save money, to buy (and pay for) a reasonably priced appropriately sized house; to put money into conservative investments which are unlikely to yield either unreliable big gains or very big losses. It makes sense to invest in yourself -- education (skills acquisition), a reasonable level of fitness (you'll be less likely to fall apart too early), and relationships (marry, find a long-term partner, get a nice dog, and the like.

What can go wrong if you follow my advice above? Pretty much everything. You could end up flat broke after decades of sensible thrift and prudent investment and totally wretched. It just that you are less likely to end up flat broke and miserable if you save, invest conservatively, limit debt as much as possible, and live within your means. Friendship is always good to have on hand.

Machines are good enough at writing copy for publication -- not editorials, not art/drama/book/film reviews, not investigative stories--not humor, not horror, not philosophical speculation--but they are, apparently, good enough to write mundane copy for newspapers, on topics like market reports, weather forecasts, sports, etc. Run of the mill (pulp) can probably be turned out by machines because a lot of the stuff is extremely formulaic (which doesn't mean people won't buy it).

Some specific types of human services can be 'mechanized'. Machines can 'perform' in nursing homes, for instance, leading group exercise sessions. Machines can perform a kind of counseling service of listening and providing some level of listening and response.

Anyone who has been repeatedly frustrated by automated telephone systems where one speaks one's responses, has experienced the limitations of some current software abilities. (However, sometimes they work just fine.)

That said, I am not arguing that machines SHOULD be doing any of this, just that -- if standards are not very high -- they can. They are not being used because people prefer to interact with robots; they are used because corporations are usually trying to save money.

I am not a detail person, and in some work places, I would gladly have given my job over to a robot to perform paper processing. A good share of clerical work probably could be replaced by automated information processing.

The consequence of eliminating jobs is not trivial, however. There are detail-oriented people who can process paper all day without becoming remotely homicidal.

The evil of the always lesser choice.

Which war was / is that?

Bojo was aware that Chrisp Incher had groped two men while "incredibly drunk" and didn't do anything about it. Seems sort of reasonable. Can anyone be so drunk that their inebriation is not creditable? As for groping--rude, maybe. Depends on the gropee. Did they file criminal charges? When women are 'incredibly drunk' and end up in compromising situations, we generally excuse the woman. Why not Pincher?

That said, may all tories rot in hell--gay, straight. groped, or grappled.

Thinking about reality requires that the emotions be observed because our minds are embodied. Maintaining philosophical enquiry long enough to achieve coherence (thinking through to a conclusion) generally requires emotional sustenance. We have to experience a reward of pleasure in the process. If not, we will eventually stop.

Emotion and cognition aren't separated, opposed systems.

:100:

It doesn't take a grand conspiracy. It takes narrow interests pursued relentlessly. The "right to life" anti-abortion drive is another good example: They have been consistent and persistent for 50 years. (Longer, really.). Conservatives are better at monomania than progressives. Reactionaries are not fastidious when it comes to respecting their political opposites.

Wealthy elites are also consistent and persistent, which is how the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

What? That's ridiculous. — Benkei

Of course. But... Who said everything had to make sense?

I don't follow Reddit much.

What I have observed, and it seems to be something of a consensus, is that people might be fired for cause or for some discriminatory reason, but the actual reason will not be officially stated. It seems like a lot of agencies are also not giving references--not because they have no former employees who deserve a good reference, but because litigation has resulted often enough from references the next employer thought were too positive or the former employee thought was too negative.

My experience was mostly in the non-profit sector. Perhaps practices in corporate establishments are harsher.

Most jobs are bad jobs, which is why workers have to be paid to get anything done. Most bosses are bad bosses because they pretty much have to treat workers as means to ends which they may or not believe in. There are of course a few good jobs and several good bosses.

Once hired you're not allowed to fire them because of it. — Benkei

Not a problem, because many to most Americans are hired, quit, or are fired "at will". "At will" requires no justification, You can hire me (bearded, balding, in a mini dress and heels) if you so wish. I can quit because I would just rather not work for you, and you can fire me because... heels and mini skirt didn't match. If one is hired with a contract this doesn't apply, and voluntarily quitting generally disqualifies one for unemployment.

Then too, a plaintiff will probably need to show a pattern of discrimination. Being the one gay, female, black, or Dutch male to get fired doesn't in itself mean much. Were Hanover's firm to fire all of its Dutch male employees, you might have a case.

relies on custom and management of the media — unenlightened

Domhoff suggests we stop blaming the media:

Like everyone else, progressives have a strong tendency to blame the media for their failures. As horrible as the media can be, they are not the problem. Blaming the media becomes an excuse for not considering the possibility that much of the leftist program is unappealing to most people — Domhoff

I am saying that states that claim to be democratic are nearly always dynastic to a great extent (count the Bushes and Kennedys, for example). — unenlightened

The Bushes and Kennedys among others. G. William Domhoff's WHO RULES AMERICA is a very readable report on how, exactly, the ruling elite arranges its affairs to hold, and keep holding, power. In a nutshell, the answer is "The Corporate rich, white nationalist Republicans, and inclusionary Democrats..."

Happily, Domhoff has made a lot of his findings available on his University of California - Santa Cruz webpage HERE

I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired? — Hanover

As you say, [some] gays were not excluded from universities, real estate markets, or employment, they are ideal diversity candidates. Gays have the proper cultural credentials, in addition to their "disadvantaged" status. Gays that were excluded from universities and real estate markets (in terms of purchase, rather than rent) belong to the very large class of not-very-prosperous working class people who stay not-very-prosperous working class.

It was probably not intended as a means to divide and keep the working classes conquered, but affirmative action has been quite divisive. Hiring and admission ought to be based on the merit of meeting the stated expectations of the organization. In my case, I would have failed to meet the requirements of very good, never mind elite colleges. The same goes for high paying jobs -- I was generally not an attractive candidate.

I was not an attractive candidate for the Ivy League or the Fortune 500, because I wasn't interested in producing the kind of high achievement that would have made me an attractive candidate. Now, there are many people who had fewer opportunities to excel than I did. That's unfortunate, but if they aren't prepared to compete for very good and elite positions, then they are, like me, S.O.L.

Diversity is much sought after (in some circles) because it is thought to improve performance for everyone through some mysterious influence. I haven't witnessed such an effect in the work place, but I can imagine that diversity could make a contribution to collegiate life.

Many Americans suppose that some jiggering of the system can overcome disadvantages that are built into 'the system' from the foundation upwards. Jiggering won't work. A community whose systematic disadvantages are based on 5 or 10 generations of being on the bottom, won't be changed by affirmative action, It has to be rebuilt from new-borns on up.

All that said, when exceptional candidates whose cohort has been very underrepresented, present themselves, they ought to be admitted/hired because they have great merit, not because they are black or female. It is nonsense and frank discrimination to limit qualified Asian candidates, just as it was nonsense and frank discrimination to limit qualified Jewish candidates.

I am confused as to why Biden allows Trump to subvert our democracy. — Jackson

.

A) Trump was busy subverting democracy before Biden was elected.

B) Trump is not an isolated player; he has a substantial following with considerable political clout.

C) Some countries have traditions of liquidating inconvenient and overly annoying persons. We tend to put up with and ignore such types, unless they break laws that can be conveniently prosecuted.

Will time bring a rebound? Perhaps. — Banno

Probably, rather than perhaps, but it matters how long it takes. A lot of damage can be done while we wait for balance to return.

It has mattered, still does matter, what happens on the state level. Some states have a slovenly political culture than tends toward corruption. Others have a much firmer political culture which avoids corruption to a large degree. Unfortunately what has happened at the federal level can happen at the state level.

I am not altogether sanguine about this country's future--and not just because of some idiot bastard sons and daughter on the Supreme Court. Congress has been a captive of the plutocracy for a long time -- nothing new there. The plutocrats don't seemed to care what happens to the world, above and beyond their immediate self-interest. Time has run out, or will soon, for environmental common sense to take effect (here, there, everywhere).

We could, of course, revolt. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish A NEW Constitution for the United States, and hereby consign to the dustbin of history the pre-existent government and its parasitic class of rich people. May it rot in the depths of hell."

A revolution in the US is about as likely as the Second Coming, but it could come like a thief in the night and surprise us all. (Don't hold your breath,)

something is missing. Some form of illumination. — Banno

Like, a light unto the gentiles, so to speak?

How we got to where we have been for a long time is available in some (not all) history books. What one needs to do is follow the money, literally and figuratively. Any country's history is a mixed bag of progress and regress--not necessarily in balanced sequence. Look for historical accounts that do not gloss over the grave regressions.

You may well ask, "How will I know whether they are glossing over regressions?"

Look for deviant historical accounts. Some titles (These and similar books may not be your cup of tea at all -- I don't like some of them -- but they do cover American History from an angle quite different than the typical narrative):

White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, Nancy Isenberg youtube talk by the author

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn (what Zinn thought about the other side of history from the more traditional "fundamental nationalist glorification of country)

A True History of the United States: Indigenous Genocide, Racialized Slavery, Hyper-Capitalism, Militarist Imperialism and Other Overlooked Aspects of American Exceptionalism by Daniel A. Sjursen

Lies My Teacher Told Me, James W. Loewen

From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend: An Illustrated History of Labor in the United States, Priscilla Murolo

Noam Chomsky has all sorts of things to say about American history, most of it unflattering,

And now the Supreme Court seems - without being asked - to be deciding on legally relevant but political issues. How is this fair to voters? — Tim3003

The Supreme Court was asked. How? In some court room, a few years ago, a judge made a decision and it was appealed to at the next higher court. Either the plaintiffs or the defense asked the court to reconsider. This process was repeated until the Supreme Court was asked to decide. It doesn't have to say yes -- it can say, "No -- there is no reason for us to review the case." Then the last higher court decision stands. It can also decide to settle the issue more broadly -- like it did a few years ago when it announced that gay marriage was a right in all states.

How you feel about the court depends on whose ox was just gored. The court upheld the constitutionality of Obama Care and the conservatives twisted in pain. The court decided that abortion was unconstitutional, and pro-choice people howled (and will for some time).

I'm at least a progressive and I loathe the conservative majority on the court, but I can remember when the progressives held a strong majority (like the Warren Court under CJ Earl Warren) was loathed by the right wing. There were billboards demanding that Earl Warren be impeached.

The Founding Organizers of the US government and political system kept their thumb on the scale in favor of an elite -- even an elected elite. Some of the FOs were frankly suspicious of "the people".

The first use of a filibuster (whatever they called it) was observed on September 22, 1789, when Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.”

Don't worry about how. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Lots of people are justifiably upset over recent events — _db

I am upset over recent events, BUT, in the context of our history, all this can not be a complete surprise.

We have had several episodes of militant reaction against efforts designed to extend aspects of democracy.

a) Eleven states succeeded from the Union in response to efforts to limit the spread of slaveholding. A civil war followed.

b) Reconstruction (such as it was) resulted in terrorism against blacks via the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and suppression of voting rights (which enabled the 'solid south' to maintain a long-term hold on Congress.

c. Anti-labor violence began in the 1880s--referencing the Hay Market event in Chicago.

d. A 'Red Scare' set off concerted violence against blacks and labor leaders in 1919.

e. Women won suffrage, but only after a long struggle. Suffrage aided the institution of Prohibition, a 13 year disaster.

f. Extreme conservatives have been unhappy about New Deal programs ever since the 1930s.

g. Homosexuals and Communists (odd bedfellows in several respects) were persecuted during WWII and after. Reference Joe McCarthy's (Republican from Wisconsin) drive to dig out communists from government, Hollywood, and the Ladies Aid society.

h. Richard Nixon's subversion of government in the Watergate scandal.

i. Ronald Reagan ignored the AIDS epidemic.

j. The plutocracy kept wages steady during 40 years (some with high inflation) further impoverishing the working class while enriching themselves even more.

And so on.

The arc of the future may bend towards greater justice and greater freedom, but it regularly snaps back to fostering less justice and less freedom.

It means you put him out of our misery. And maybe his.

OK; so it was an act of mercy (no sarcasm intended).

Banned Streetlight for flaming, bigotry, general disruption, and ignoring warnings to stop. — Baden

et al

I had not noticed Streetlight's banning, because I generally avoided his posts. Yes, he was a very knowledgeable fellow and his posts were well written. He wasn't always corrosive. Still...

He seemed to be driven by an ill-willed animus toward the western establishment--which is understandable--but it had no bounds. Unbounded hostility has distorted my thinking at times, so I have some understanding of how it works. Unbounded hostility comes from neurosis or leads that way (probably both, in a tail-chasing circle). For one's own mental health, one does well to derail it.

He asked to be banned? Odd, but maybe that was a self-intervention he needed.

2. Since school funding is often problematic, which if any other school functions or classes should be subservient to classes in logical thinking, in terms of funding? — Elric

Maybe the football program could be subservient to classes in logical thinking.

When schools are operating with motivated students, competent teachers, and a sound program, they get good results. Could they get better results? Sure.

Lacking motivated students or competent teachers or a sound program, schools do not get good results. Would a course in logical thinking taught by mediocre teachers to unmotivated students help? No.

Some students are getting a good education, and many are not. The reasons are legion, and standing high among them is the fact that it isn't clear what the best function for schools can and should be.

So, @Elric, back to you: what do you think the schools should be doing for students and for society.

"In God we trust", all others pay cash, first appeared on a coin in 1864; on currency in 1957. It is the official motto of the US, replacing E Pluribus Unum. -- Wikipedia --

"In God we trust" strikes me as more of a deistic motto, though I doubt if deism was the prevailing religious mode of the congress and President Eisenhower when the motto was changed. "Jesus saves" would probably have passed, had somebody proposed it.

It's a nicer motto than "God hates fags and commies", don't you think? π=3.141592 could have been used; it still could be. I don't think any country has used it. It would help people remember π when they have to calculate areas and volumes of round things.

you are old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards. (youth: Earl Warren was a liberal Chief Justice long long ago.)

Maybe the coach was cursing God because they lost.

There a very good reason from a religious POV to maintain a very clear church/state separation.

Religious people do not want the state to interfere with their theology, organization, practice, rituals, and membership.

The religious and secular do not want religious people influencing the state, either. The threat of the state to the religious is clear enough. Example: Non-religious people, mainline Protestants, and liberal Catholics do not like the Roe vs. Wade decision that is much more about about the politics of religion than it is about the law.

There is a lot of history showing what happens when the state decides to get involved in religious affairs, and visa versa.

Conservatives may be happy about Roe Vs. Wade today, but suppose a future court (and/or legislature) decrees that evolution WILL BE TAUGHT and so called Intelligent Design WILL NOT BE TAUGHT?

As one expects, it depends on whose ox is getting gored by whom.