In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
CAR manufacturing was the defining industry of the 20th century. In the 21st it is health care. Health spending comprised 17% of America’s GDP in 2012. About one in ten workers are employed in the health sector. These workers have the crucial job of making American health care more efficient, probably the country’s top domestic challenge. Those who are not doctors have a particularly important role—nurses and lesser-trained workers can monitor and care for patients out of hospital, which should result in better quality of life for patients and lower costs for everyone else. But just as the car industry was the 20th century’s main battleground for fights over labour, it is increasingly clear that health workers will be at the centre of the latest bitter conflict.
In the darkest days of the recession, health employment was a rare bright spot. But even then, all was not rosy. Take a new report on health workers from the Brookings Institution, a think-tank. Those without college degrees comprised 61% of the health workforce from 2009 to 2011. Of these, 85% had one of ten jobs, such as home-health aides, registered nurses and medical assistants. These health workers have generally fared better than their peers in other sectors—in the 100 biggest metropolitan areas in America, the number of health-care jobs for people without college degrees jumped by 46% from 2000 to 2011, compared with just 3% job growth for workers without college degrees across all industries. Nevertheless, most health jobs saw median earnings decline over that period. And the fastest growing occupations were those with low wages. Personal-care aides, who earn just $21,000, nearly tripled in number.
Now health workers face new headwinds. Slowing health spending (in part due to the recession and probably also due to new efficiency) is good news for the broader economy and bad news for them. Health-care employment grew by just 1.8% in the year to June.
Going forward, pressure on wages will likely intensify, for two reasons. First, more care is moving from hospitals to clinics and from clinics to homes. That is sensible. As a patient ages, his chronic condition is better managed continuously at home, instead of letting his disease degenerate until a costly trip to the emergency room. But jobs at clinics pay less than similar ones in hospitals. Home-health workers are among the lowest paid of all.
Second, hospitals themselves are looking for new ways to save. The federal government is clamping down on hospital payments. Experimental contracts, from both public health programmes and private insurers, reward hospitals for lowering spending. Given that labour usually accounts for at least half of a hospital’s costs, workers are a natural target. For example, MedAssets, a health-care consultancy, has long helped hospitals squeeze waste out of their supply chains; now the firm also helps boost labour productivity. That includes maximising a worker's time and skills—both surely worthy endeavours. Inevitably, however, hospitals are also looking to restrain hiring, wages and benefits. Some rely on outsourced labour, hiring nurses and other workers from independent agencies on a temporary basis. Others have sacked workers. Last year health care accounted for more layoffs than any industry but finance.
All this sets the stage for fights between workers and hospital management. America’s biggest local health-care union, 1199SEIU, represents nurses, aides, hospital janitors and other health workers along the east coast. On July 21st the union announced a tentative deal with big hospital systems in New York—demands included better health insurance and a clear process for unionising workers in clinics. But the deal has yet to be finalised. Further fights are likely. “This is all happening in the context in the decimation of the middle class in America,” says the 1199’s Dave Bates. On July 20th a nurses’ union in New Mexico rejected a proposed contract. And in California, a nurses’ union is preparing to fight Kaiser Permanente over the terms of its next contract. Talks began today. They will be rancorous.
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history.
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history.
Maybe I'm biased though.
As if it wasn't silly enough that a lot of US schools spend 2 or more years on US history in high school. I mean, how many times did we go over the Revolution or the Civil War? And yet you can easily play this fun game with your US friends: see how many can name 3 pre-colonization African states, or how many can say anything much at all about Latin American history beyond Conquistadors, Bolivar and US interactions in the 20th C. For bonus points, anything at all about religious history (beyond a stilted and out-of-date notion of parts of Christian history).
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history.
Maybe I'm biased though.
Oh, no you're right, I just thought I was about to learn about an alternative viewpoint about what happened then. But yeah, my entire 7th grade history class was Texas history.
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history.
Maybe I'm biased though.
As if it wasn't silly enough that a lot of US schools spend 2 or more years on US history in high school. I mean, how many times did we go over the Revolution or the Civil War? And yet you can easily play this fun game with your US friends: see how many can name 3 pre-colonization African states, or how many can say anything much at all about Latin American history beyond Conquistadors, Bolivar and US interactions in the 20th C. For bonus points, anything at all about religious history (beyond a stilted and out-of-date notion of parts of Christian history).
American history as a class is usually a joke from my experience. Personally my history teacher in high school was a tennis coach who on the first day of class said 'You guys probably know more about history than I do. The assignment is on the board, you shouldn't have any reason to ask me any questions.'
Class was just a few of the studious kids doing the questions at the back of the chapter (not the critical thinking types, just the find the bold word in the chapter fill in the blank types) then some 'cool kid' would offer a bit of prestige (by talking/flirting to one of the studious ones) call them smart, and then copy all the answers from them. From there the answers were disseminated among the kids in order of coolness and proximity. That usually only took the first 20-30 minutes so the last half or so of class was usually hanging out in the gym (Our classroom was the old equipment room in the gym [They sold the 70's weight equipment they had to make space]) or talking, or some kids (usually the athletes because they wouldn't get yelled at) would just come in after last lunch and spend the second half copying.
Before I just stopped showing up, I used to troll the dumber people by intentionally coming up with terrible answers. I found out that if they were athletes it didn't matter what they wrote down if they turned it in they got at least 70% One of my friends from class showed me some of his assignments and it was ridiculous. He got a B for writing one of our short essay assignments about a "Significant historical event" on 'The History of Last Friday's Game'
In college there was a running start kid who was editor in chief for the newspaper (one of the biggest budgets for a college newspaper in the country [including state and private universities {despite being a joke of a publication}]) who wrote about how after leading hundreds of people in the great bus boycott of 1937 (or 1927 forgot which one she put), he accomplished his goal of getting black and white people to be able to sit together on the bus...
They also refused to run a correction for that article. So not only are people oblivious to history, they are repugnantly comfortable in their ignorance (and remarkably well funded). For goodness sake we still teach kids Columbus discovered North America, The US was founded on religious freedom, and Ford invented the assembly line. All totally ridiculous to any independent analysis but stand strong in the minds of many Americans
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history.
Maybe I'm biased though.
As if it wasn't silly enough that a lot of US schools spend 2 or more years on US history in high school. I mean, how many times did we go over the Revolution or the Civil War? And yet you can easily play this fun game with your US friends: see how many can name 3 pre-colonization African states, or how many can say anything much at all about Latin American history beyond Conquistadors, Bolivar and US interactions in the 20th C. For bonus points, anything at all about religious history (beyond a stilted and out-of-date notion of parts of Christian history).
German history classes in high school are roughly: one year greeks + romans, 0.5-1 year everything in between ~200 AD -1933, remaining 5 years nazis with all of the other topics sprinkled in from time to time for a few weeks at the beginning/end of the school year.
So you are not alone with your utterly lopsided curriculum, though for other reasons in the german case.
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history.
Maybe I'm biased though.
As if it wasn't silly enough that a lot of US schools spend 2 or more years on US history in high school. I mean, how many times did we go over the Revolution or the Civil War? And yet you can easily play this fun game with your US friends: see how many can name 3 pre-colonization African states, or how many can say anything much at all about Latin American history beyond Conquistadors, Bolivar and US interactions in the 20th C. For bonus points, anything at all about religious history (beyond a stilted and out-of-date notion of parts of Christian history).
American history as a class is usually a joke from my experience...
Wow. Okay, that's pretty extraordinary. I have my problems with my before-college history experiences, but I've got nothing on that. + Show Spoiler +
(As a side note, the US was founded on religious tolerance, of a sort. States could have established religions, but within some restrictions, the US had an unprecedented amount of religious tolerance for its time.)
@Simberto: I'm sure there is some level of myopia to be found worldwide on this. But, however we feel about it, the fact is that the US, and by extension US voters, have extraordinary international influence. And parts of this (lack of religious history knowledge, lack of knowledge about South America and Africa, among others) do have real, tangible negative impact on policy.
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history.
Maybe I'm biased though.
HS was too long ago for me to remember very accurately. I do remember some extra attention to local stuff like the Salem witch trials, the Pilgrims and whatnot. Not all of that's positive though, obviously no one glorifies the witch trials and I don't remember a crazy amount of time just spent on MA.
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history.
Maybe I'm biased though.
As if it wasn't silly enough that a lot of US schools spend 2 or more years on US history in high school. I mean, how many times did we go over the Revolution or the Civil War? And yet you can easily play this fun game with your US friends: see how many can name 3 pre-colonization African states, or how many can say anything much at all about Latin American history beyond Conquistadors, Bolivar and US interactions in the 20th C. For bonus points, anything at all about religious history (beyond a stilted and out-of-date notion of parts of Christian history).
American history as a class is usually a joke from my experience...
Wow. Okay, that's pretty extraordinary. I have my problems with my before-college history experiences, but I've got nothing on that. + Show Spoiler +
(As a side note, the US was founded on religious tolerance, of a sort. States could have established religions, but within some restrictions, the US had an unprecedented amount of religious tolerance for its time.)
@Simberto: I'm sure there is some level of myopia to be found worldwide on this. But, however we feel about it, the fact is that the US, and by extension US voters, have extraordinary international influence. And parts of this (lack of religious history knowledge, lack of knowledge about South America and Africa, among others) do have real, tangible negative impact on policy.
To be fair, there's a lot of people in the US that do not want to have this international influence, partially because they don't feel they (and their neighbors) understand enough about the world.
@5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid"
@8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop"
@8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show"
So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"?
Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much.
Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture?
Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession.
We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments.
That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state.
The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that?
But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life.
The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history.
Maybe I'm biased though.
HS was too long ago for me to remember very accurately. I do remember some extra attention to local stuff like the Salem witch trials, the Pilgrims and whatnot. Not all of that's positive though, obviously no one glorifies the witch trials and I don't remember a crazy amount of time just spent on MA.
Pretty sure 1 year of state history is standard (if not required) for most states. I got lucky and had some Native teachers in my elementary so we learned a lot about the Natives of the Pacific Northwest and probably more than most about other Natives.
Universally kids all wished we were still living like the Natives of the Northwest (particularly the Puget Sound tribes). Of course that was before 8 year olds had cell phones. Although even kids (especially, really) had a hard time squaring a potlatch with traditional American values.
Contrary to what most people think 'potluck' and 'potlatch' are not interchangeable, unless you don't mind being ignorant, and misappropriating another cultures term (pretty common in America). The host of a potluck gives gifts to all his guests not the other way around.
the US had an unprecedented amount of religious tolerance for its time.
Well, that's kind of only because India had already been tainted by colonialism. If Indian's ran their own government at the time they would of been incomparably more tolerant. But, I suppose for white's it did. However, for the less fairly complected 'religious' and 'freedom' we're not words that found themselves in proximity very often. Native religions were pretty universally banned, along with the ceremonies that included them.
Potlatching was made illegal in Canada in 1884 in an amendment to the Indian Act and the United States in the late 19th century, largely at the urging of missionaries and government agents who considered it "a worse than useless custom" that was seen as wasteful, unproductive, and contrary to civilized values.
It is the great desire of every chief and even of every man to collect a large amount of property, and then to give a great potlatch, a feast in which all is distributed among his friends, and, if possible, among the neighboring tribes. These feasts are so closely connected with the religious ideas of the natives, and regulate their mode of life to such an extent, that the Christian tribes near Victoria have not given them up.
On July 29 2014 08:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Pretty sure 1 year of state history is standard (if not required) for most states.
I had half a year of Ohio history in eighth grade, and none in High School. I couldn't tell you much of anything about Ohio history except that Washington fucked up in the Ohio territory and that the Toledo War was a thing.
Looks like GH still needs some history when it comes to religion and the US But that's not allowed here.
Anyway, California also requires a year of state history. That time is spent on the Natives (the book Island of the Blue Dolphins might as well been have mandatory reading for every kid) to the Spanish discovery, to the Catholic missions, to independence from Spain, to independence from Mexico (the attempt), to statehood, and then to the Gold Rush. I don't recall much after that, but I believe after the Gold Rush it's summed up as "this caused everyone to move here, making the cities big and prosperous, etc."
As far as I recall, they didn't really deal with things like discrimination of Mexicans, labor rights, Caesar Chavez, or Governor/ Justice Warren. But maybe my class memories overlap. Most likely kids are too young at the time to comprehend such things.
Lawmakers Announce $17 Billion Deal Intended To Fix VA System
House and Senate negotiators unveiled a $17 billion plan Monday to address the crisis in care for veterans.
The agreement would provide $10 billion to allow veterans to be treated outside the Veterans Affairs system, if they've had trouble getting appointments within it. More than two dozen clinics would be leased around the country, with $5 billion spent to hire additional doctors, nurses and other medical personnel at the VA.
The bill "makes certain that we address the immediate crisis of veterans being forced onto long waiting lists for health care," said Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at a news conference with Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., his House counterpart.
Lawmakers Announce $17 Billion Deal Intended To Fix VA System
House and Senate negotiators unveiled a $17 billion plan Monday to address the crisis in care for veterans.
The agreement would provide $10 billion to allow veterans to be treated outside the Veterans Affairs system, if they've had trouble getting appointments within it. More than two dozen clinics would be leased around the country, with $5 billion spent to hire additional doctors, nurses and other medical personnel at the VA.
The bill "makes certain that we address the immediate crisis of veterans being forced onto long waiting lists for health care," said Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at a news conference with Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., his House counterpart.
Should be interesting to see if Boehner can get a majority of Republicans to vote for it in the house. Either way, there are probably going to be some ugly town halls.
FRANKFURT — The United States and Europe put aside their differences and agreed Monday to sharply escalate economic sanctions against Russia amid worries that Moscow is stepping up its intervention in Ukraine and may be setting the stage for an outright invasion.
After months in which European leaders resisted going as far as the Americans, the two sides settled on a package of measures that would target Russia’s financial, energy and military sectors. In some cases, the Europeans may actually leapfrog beyond what the United States has done, forcing Washington to catch up.
The collaboration suggested a hardening resolve among the allies after the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine this month. Not only has Moscow not backed down, as some hoped it might, but American, European and Ukrainian officials said Russia had actually accelerated its involvement in Ukraine’s civil war with pro-Russian separatists.
The agreement came during an unusual five-way videoconference involving President Obama and his counterparts from Britain, France, Germany and Italy in advance of a European Union meeting on Tuesday to consider new sanctions on Russia. If the Europeans announce their new measures as expected, Obama administration officials said they planned to follow with their own later in the day or on Wednesday.
EPT
and I don't remember a crazy amount of time just spent on MA. 
But that's not allowed here. 
