I should probably change my signature, but I don't want to.
Hey, Odradek, let's celebrate culture and history by reminding me what the name of that one book about Augustus Caesar was that you liked with the ending mentioning Nero.
I should probably change my signature, but I don't want to.
Hey, Odradek, let's celebrate culture and history by reminding me what the name of that one book about Augustus Caesar was that you liked with the ending mentioning Nero.
I would like to talk history with peeps some time.
Also, I have already doubled the length of my research paper, technically. I'm going to treat this as a good sign.
Yeah, I'd like to talk history with you, as well.
But you're probably one of those people who would be all like "great man history is pretty silly, let's consider the effects of social class, technology, and economic forces. Also, a lot of the numbers in history are exaggerated and Brendan the Navigator did not ride a whale".
And I'd be all like, "you're probably right, but that kind of history is boring; I like great man history. Also, if its in the records and is sufficiently awesome, I accept it as true. I say that Harald Hardraada was actually all that big, and Brendan did ride a whale."
In his “Rethinking Drug Policy” article for The Humanist magazine, drug policy expert Jefferson Fish argues that the problem does not necessarily lie with the fact that owning and using drugs is currently criminal, but rather that there exists a “black market” in which these drugs are made. He argues that the solution to the drug “problem” is not merely legalization, but a diffusion of these black markets entirely.
I would like to talk history with peeps some time.
Also, I have already doubled the length of my research paper, technically. I'm going to treat this as a good sign.
Yeah, I'd like to talk history with you, as well.
But you're probably one of those people who would be all like "great man history is pretty silly, let's consider the effects of social class, technology, and economic forces. Also, a lot of the numbers in history are exaggerated and Brendan the Navigator did not ride a whale".
And I'd be all like, "you're probably right, but that kind of history is boring; I like great man history. Also, if its in the records and is sufficiently awesome, I accept it as true. I say that Harald Hardraada was actually all that big, and Brendan did ride a whale."
I'm actually more interested in rulers as well. It's a sort of telling mix of fact and fiction that says a lot about what nations think of themselves.
I don't have any strong opinions on Harald The Hardruler though.
'Great man' history can certainly be interesting, but it's not the be-all and end-all.
Most history at school seems to concern itself with wars and rulers. That's important, but less interesting to me than learning what it was like to live back then. i want to hear about the clothes they wore, the food they ate, that kind of thing. And i like reading about the technology and the philosophy and the religion, what jobs people did, what they did for fun, that kind of thing.
History of people, not just nations considered in the abstract, you know?
'Great man' history can certainly be interesting, but it's not the be-all and end-all.
Most history at school seems to concern itself with wars and rulers. That's important, but less interesting to me than learning what it was like to live back then. i want to hear about the clothes they wore, the food they ate, that kind of thing. And i like reading about the technology and the philosophy and the religion, what jobs people did, what they did for fun, that kind of thing.
History of people, not just nations considered in the abstract, you know?
This also has value (possibly more), it's just not what I prefer to read about.
'Great man' history can certainly be interesting, but it's not the be-all and end-all.
Most history at school seems to concern itself with wars and rulers. That's important, but less interesting to me than learning what it was like to live back then. i want to hear about the clothes they wore, the food they ate, that kind of thing. And i like reading about the technology and the philosophy and the religion, what jobs people did, what they did for fun, that kind of thing.
History of people, not just nations considered in the abstract, you know?
This also has value (possibly more), it's just not what I prefer to read about.
'Great man' history can certainly be interesting, but it's not the be-all and end-all.
Most history at school seems to concern itself with wars and rulers. That's important, but less interesting to me than learning what it was like to live back then. i want to hear about the clothes they wore, the food they ate, that kind of thing. And i like reading about the technology and the philosophy and the religion, what jobs people did, what they did for fun, that kind of thing.
History of people, not just nations considered in the abstract, you know?
This also has value (possibly more), it's just not what I prefer to read about.
I like them both, although I think that I am the most inclined toward the history of language and literature and how those things evolved. Also religion, which is not infrequently tied to those things (and politics); the evolution of states, because maps are cool; music, because obvious reasons; and board games, because I want to play Turkish grand chess, goddamnit!
I'm probably going to get points docked for using the same source too many times. This Jefferson Fish article is the source of like 99% of my paper so far.
Granted, I still have just under a full page (of six) written. :/
Wars usually do not interest me all that much; but weapons, armor, and that stuff interests me. Agincourt is fascinating, but World War II? Bleh. Everything after the renaissance is soap. I like to learn about linguistics, that's endless fascination. I also like to learn about the personalities of rulers and of ordinary people and stuff. Economics is a myth, there's no such thing as an economy; and politics starts to get really stupid after the renaissance, so I don't care too much for politics post-renaissance. I could go on for hours about the cordwainers, but the status of women in the byzantine empire? Bleh.
So yeah. Cordovan leather: Neat! Trade embargoes: Bleh.
To understand what The War on Drugs really is, and how it affects our country, we have to get into the history of the term. This war was first officially declared by President Nixon, but it's with the Reagan Administration that we really start to see the movement pick up momentum. Things like the “Just Say No” campaign are both typical of the campaign and highlight exactly what is wrong with it. [need cites] Modern drug law on the other hand, we can trace mostly to Nelson Rockefeller. Who instituted a number of harsh laws in New York City after concluding that previous lenient treatment had failed. [expand here] (Kohler-Hausmann)
In his “Rethinking Drug Policy” article for The Humanist magazine, drug policy expert Jefferson Fish argues that the problem does not necessarily lie with the fact that owning and using drugs is currently criminal, but rather that there exists a “black market” in which these drugs are made. He argues that the solution to the drug “problem” is not merely legalization, but a diffusion dissolution of these black markets entirely. (Fish) Fish goes on to argue that the best way to combat an illegal market is to create a legal one, and that doing so both allows the federal government to regulate – [expand]
Fish's conclusions lead into my own, and also into the central thesis of this paper. The War on Drugs, as a unified effort, has been an increasingly costly failure. It has ruined far more lives than it has saved, and it has been entirely ineffective in; ending drug use in the United States and the world at large, reducing crime in American cities, or bettering the lives of American citizens in any measurable way.
Following this central statement, it is logical to conclude that the time has come to end this effort and begin instituting a more sane approach to dealing with the drug issue. Ethan Nadelmann (founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, a rights organization that works toward developing alternatives to the War on Drugs) describes a “drug-free world” as an unrealistic goal, one as unrealistic as an alcohol-free world. (Nadelmann) A problem with the idea that a drug-free world is desirable (much less possible) is that all drugs are not created equal. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that using the term in the way it is often used by drug war advocates (to demonize, essentially, all narcotics that are already illegal) is useless because the term is so broad.
There is an underlying assumption that all drugs that happen to be illegal are both dangerous and addictive, this simply is not true. [cite] The very reason that some drugs are as dangerous as they are is because of current drug laws. Fish, again, here has something relevant to say, arguing that the reason many drugs are dangerous is because they are injected. They are injected chiefly because this is the quickest way to get them into one's system (which means less time for one to potentially be discovered by the police), this causes problems relating to extremely high dosages and shared needles. It is this, not the drugs themselves in reasonable doses, that are most harmful to users. There is additionally an economic incentive to inject, as it's the method with the highest drug/price ratio. The users receive, in Fish's words; “more bang for their buck”, than they would using safer, more expensive, low-dosage methods. Comparisons can be made to Prohibition, where dangerous high-percentage bootleg whiskey and moonshine became the preferred method of alcohol consumption, compared to both before and afterward, where much safer beer was the standard. (Fish)
The assumption that all drugs are addictive is also false. An American Psychologist study published in the year 1990 concluded long ago that frequent drug usage was a symptom of psychological problems, not a cause of them. (Shelder & Block) This is important, because it's an effective exposure of the fact that our current drug policies are dictated primarily by politicians, and those who are otherwise in the political field, rather than pharmacists and other medical experts. One would assume that drug use (a primarily medical issue at its core) would be handled primarily by medical professionals. Currently however, it is not.
When one considers that drug policy is handled largely by politicians (who are largely unqualified in regards to the subject), current drug policy begins to make a lot more sense. We can conclude it is created in the modern age primarily to cater to different political demographics, and thus hopefully secure votes, rather than in a fashion that would actually help reduce dangerous drug use.
That's my paper so far. It's about a page of text.
Christ why do I procrastinate so badly. Maybe I should take a short break to collect my thoughts because currently I'm just panicking that I don't have as much information as I thought I did.
Wars usually do not interest me all that much; but weapons, armor, and that stuff interests me. Agincourt is fascinating, but World War II? Bleh. Everything after the renaissance is soap. I like to learn about linguistics, that's endless fascination. I also like to learn about the personalities of rulers and of ordinary people and stuff. Economics is a myth, there's no such thing as an economy; and politics starts to get really stupid after the renaissance, so I don't care too much for politics post-renaissance. I could go on for hours about the cordwainers, but the status of women in the byzantine empire? Bleh.
So yeah. Cordovan leather: Neat! Trade embargoes: Bleh.
There's a museum dedicated solely to weapons and armor in...Dresden, I think. Went there on a class trip.
It had those tiny child armor sets, and gunswords (and gunaxes and gunmaces and whatnot), and even a bayonet that splits into three bayonets.
ah now see World War II interests me because of the enormous impact it had on people. The Blitz is particularly interesting to me.
History of war certainly can be interesting, like military technology and such. In general what it was like to be a soldier is more interesting to me than who beat who and won what territory, which isn't the kind of information i retain easily unless it had some lasting impact (which, in fairness, it often did).
Language is interesting. The status of women is also interesting, because it very often means learning about societal attitudes, the structure of the family, and what it was like to be an ordinary woman during that time period.
i disagree that economics is a myth, but much of it is a little dry for me tbh.
The status of women in different societies through history can be really fascinating, I think, when you compare it to how things were here even recently or are now. Consider that in the Kingdom of Sicily during the Low Middle Ages, women taught in colleges and worked as doctors, where in France and England they were, in many places, no better than property, particularly in the upper classes.
Weapons are the shiznat. Especially swords and knives and things that stab!
The status of women in different societies through history can be really fascinating, I think, when you compare it to how things were here even recently or are now. Consider that in the Kingdom of Sicily during the Low Middle Ages, women taught in colleges and worked as doctors, where in France and England they were, in many places, no better than property, particularly in the upper classes.
Weapons are the shiznat. Especially swords and knives and things that stab!
The Norman Kingdom of Sicily is an interesting place that I wish I knew more about.
Relatedly in my CK2 games Sicily (or whatever power is down there) seems to almost always end up controlling Bavaria somehow.
Comments
I am currently eating a chicken wing meal and my mouse battery just died. Good start, I'd say.
Hey, Odradek, let's celebrate culture and history by reminding me what the name of that one book about Augustus Caesar was that you liked with the ending mentioning Nero.
Don't read the blurb on the back (it gives away the whole story).
Also, I have already doubled the length of my research paper, technically. I'm going to treat this as a good sign.
Am I wrong about this?
Thanks.
The game say it has "Precise" controls, precise my ass.
Or am I confusing it with another word.
But you're probably one of those people who would be all like "great man history is pretty silly, let's consider the effects of social class, technology, and economic forces. Also, a lot of the numbers in history are exaggerated and Brendan the Navigator did not ride a whale".
And I'd be all like, "you're probably right, but that kind of history is boring; I like great man history. Also, if its in the records and is sufficiently awesome, I accept it as true. I say that Harald Hardraada was actually all that big, and Brendan did ride a whale."
here is the paragraph, for context.
I don't have any strong opinions on Harald The Hardruler though.
Also, remember, the people of Iran were able to do cataract surgery around one thousand years ago.
Nobody ever reads that book.
Most history at school seems to concern itself with wars and rulers. That's important, but less interesting to me than learning what it was like to live back then. i want to hear about the clothes they wore, the food they ate, that kind of thing. And i like reading about the technology and the philosophy and the religion, what jobs people did, what they did for fun, that kind of thing.
History of people, not just nations considered in the abstract, you know?
I have no idea how to properly cite an Abstract of a scholarly study. Either in a Works Cited page or parenthetically. This also has value (possibly more), it's just not what I prefer to read about.
And citation errors = failed paper. So I don't want to make any mistakes.
i don't know if it has more value, i just find it fascinating.
i definitely prefer 'great man' history to lists of dates and such, again because i prefer to learn about people than abstract nations.
Granted, I still have just under a full page (of six) written. :/
So yeah. Cordovan leather: Neat! Trade embargoes: Bleh.
To understand what The War on Drugs
really is, and how it affects our country, we have to get into the
history of the term. This war was first officially declared by
President Nixon, but it's with the Reagan Administration that we
really start to see the movement pick up momentum. Things like the
“Just Say No” campaign are both typical of the campaign and
highlight exactly what is wrong with it. [need cites] Modern drug law
on the other hand, we can trace mostly to Nelson Rockefeller. Who
instituted a number of harsh laws in New York City after concluding
that previous lenient treatment had failed. [expand here]
(Kohler-Hausmann)
In his “Rethinking Drug Policy”
article for The Humanist magazine, drug policy expert
Jefferson Fish argues that the problem does not necessarily lie with
the fact that owning and using drugs is currently criminal, but
rather that there exists a “black market” in which these drugs
are made. He argues that the solution to the drug “problem” is
not merely legalization, but a diffusion
dissolution of these black markets entirely. (Fish) Fish goes on to
argue that the best way to combat an illegal market is to create a
legal one, and that doing so both allows the federal government to
regulate – [expand]
Fish's conclusions lead into my own,
and also into the central thesis of this paper. The War on Drugs,
as a unified effort, has been an increasingly costly failure. It has
ruined far more lives than it has saved, and it has been entirely
ineffective in; ending drug use in the United States and the world at
large, reducing crime in American cities, or bettering the lives of
American citizens in any measurable way.
Following this central statement, it is
logical to conclude that the time has come to end this effort and
begin instituting a more sane approach to dealing with the drug
issue. Ethan Nadelmann (founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, a rights
organization that works toward developing alternatives to the War on
Drugs) describes a “drug-free world” as an unrealistic goal, one
as unrealistic as an alcohol-free world. (Nadelmann) A problem with
the idea that a drug-free world is desirable (much less possible) is
that all drugs are not created equal. Indeed, the fact of the matter
is that using the term in the way it is often used by drug war
advocates (to demonize, essentially, all narcotics that are already
illegal) is useless because the term is so broad.
There is an underlying assumption that
all drugs that happen to be illegal are both dangerous and addictive,
this simply is not true. [cite] The very reason that some drugs are
as dangerous as they are is because of current drug laws. Fish,
again, here has something relevant to say, arguing that the reason
many drugs are dangerous is because they are injected. They are
injected chiefly because this is the quickest way to get them into
one's system (which means less time for one to potentially be
discovered by the police), this causes problems relating to extremely
high dosages and shared needles. It is this, not the drugs themselves
in reasonable doses, that are most harmful to users. There is
additionally an economic incentive to inject, as it's the method with
the highest drug/price ratio. The users receive, in Fish's words;
“more bang for their buck”, than they would using safer, more
expensive, low-dosage methods. Comparisons can be made to
Prohibition, where dangerous high-percentage bootleg whiskey and
moonshine became the preferred method of alcohol consumption,
compared to both before and afterward, where much safer beer was the
standard. (Fish)
The assumption that all drugs are
addictive is also false. An American Psychologist study published in
the year 1990 concluded long ago that frequent drug usage was a
symptom of psychological problems, not a cause of them.
(Shelder & Block) This is important, because it's an effective
exposure of the fact that our current drug policies are dictated
primarily by politicians, and those who are otherwise in the
political field, rather than pharmacists and other medical experts.
One would assume that drug use (a primarily medical issue at its
core) would be handled primarily by medical professionals. Currently
however, it is not.
When one considers that drug policy is
handled largely by politicians (who are largely unqualified in
regards to the subject), current drug policy begins to make a lot
more sense. We can conclude it is created in the modern age primarily
to cater to different political demographics, and thus hopefully
secure votes, rather than in a fashion that would actually help
reduce dangerous drug use.
That's my paper so far. It's about a page of text.
Christ why do I procrastinate so badly. Maybe I should take a short break to collect my thoughts because currently I'm just panicking that I don't have as much information as I thought I did.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
History of war certainly can be interesting, like military technology and such. In general what it was like to be a soldier is more interesting to me than who beat who and won what territory, which isn't the kind of information i retain easily unless it had some lasting impact (which, in fairness, it often did).
Language is interesting. The status of women is also interesting, because it very often means learning about societal attitudes, the structure of the family, and what it was like to be an ordinary woman during that time period.
i disagree that economics is a myth, but much of it is a little dry for me tbh.
Relatedly in my CK2 games Sicily (or whatever power is down there) seems to almost always end up controlling Bavaria somehow.
my interest in weapons and armor is minimal.