I know a lot of boomer millionaires, and most weren't born into it. Most saved a lot during the 60s, 70s and 80s to get there.
I think your point holds true for people with net worth > 10 million. But a million dollars isn't much these days.
the problem is that both wings of SCOTUS have now accepted the "living Constitution" model where its meaning changes continuously, even if folks like Scalia deny it.
But that's not what a "living constitution" is. We have a "living" constitution because it can be changed. Not because we choose to interpret it differently.
The other one transposed things so when they tried to enter 7XXXX they hit 6 by mistake.
But that's not a transposition error. A transposition error is when you type "47" instead of "74"... the two keystrokes are transposed.
There is NO correlation between one's major, and one's social life.
Source, please? That's a hell of a claim.
There have been numerous studies showing that there are strong correlations between certain MBTI types and certain majors; I'm not saying MBTI is a proxy for "social life", but at least introversion/extroversion play into types of interaction in social life.
and basically all paper (it's just cheaper for paper).
A lot of the paper pulp is coming from tropical palm plantations; they are much quicker to yield than temperate forests. Paper pulp demand is still causing deforestation in tropical areas, just not so much in the US.
A school, I might add, that couldn't even COMPREHEND THE EXISTENCE of stagflation
What do you mean? Keynes modeled stagflation; he didn't use that term, but it's clear that Keynes, and those who studied his work, were aware of the effect of a supply shock on an economy.
The issue with Keynesian policy and stagflation is, given two problems with conflicting resolutions, how do you address both of them?
We now know that tackling them one at a time works. First you address inflation, then you address stagnation. This isn't a weakness of Keynesian theory -- it's validation.
SF is the art of the technical class. The central message is "You can fix it or create wonders by applying intelligence and dilligence to the problem."
Huh? That is not the central message of SF. That is one single theme used in some SF, and used in the most generic sci-fi out there. The conflict is man v. nature/technology or man v. society (or even man v. self), where the virtues extolled are up to the writer. Besides intelligence and diligence, some other virtues often key in SF include self-reliance, capacity for specific emotions (love/empathy/etc), having morals, willingness to deviate from the norm, etc.
Mainstream fiction is the propaganda of control of the general population: The central message is futility
What the hell kind of mainstream fiction did YOU read that was contemporary with Bradbury? In 1953, when Fahrenheit 451 was published, the books that topped the Adult Fiction bestseller charts were: The Silver Chalice (Costain), East of Eden (Steinbeck), Desiree (Selinko), Beyond This Place (Cronin), and Lord Vanity (Shellabarger). None of these books had a message of futility OR conformity; very much the opposite.
You are saying that Bradbury imported the mainstream fiction message of "Do what the authorities tell you to do. No matrer HOW badly they're doing and HOW bad things get, don't try to improve them. Anything you try will make them worse.". Not only was that not the mainstream message of the day, you would be hard-pressed to find that as a theme in any of Bradbury's works. I ask you to please name a single work of Bradbury's where this could conceivably be the case.
Reddit was started as an experiment in free speech.
I recall Alex coming on Slashdot a lot to promote Reddit when he first launched it. "An experiment in free speech" was not anything I recall being discussed. I also remember him posting on Slashdot while still developing reddit.
What I recall, is promotion of a general interest platform that was more open than Slashdot (unlimited moderations for all!) and less susceptible to vote brigading than Digg.
It was while ago, so I may be a bit foggy on the specifics.
I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course.
First, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Smart farmers don't diversify because the taxpayers bear the risk of their crop failure, or of crashing prices; they have insufficient incentive to diversify.
Second, if we had a true free market, dumb farmers would go out of business and we would be left with smart farmers allocating resources efficiently. Isn't that the point of economic libertarianism?
Note: I am far from libertarian.
This is still a terrible measure, because bible-belt Southerners average close to 7%, while New Englanders average under 3% (source [philanthropy.com]).
It's also a terrible measure because giving to a church is not always the same as giving to a charity. Not saying that all churches aren't charities, just that some spend quite a lot less on charitable works than some other charities.
"One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns." -- The Godfather