Interesting findings. I think it’s interesting that the decline in religiosity seems to be more lack of trust in religious institutions, rather than just non-belief. I’m curious how this will affect organized religions. It seems religion is becoming more personal, with less of a social aspect, for better or worse.
I think the core of this is the hurtful aspects of gender roles men and boys face about how to handle and express emotions creates the situation of increased suicidality. Yeah firearms access is going to enable suicidal people to act upon their ideation, but taking it away just leaves you with a depressed/anxious guy, who doesn’t have the knowledge or resources to overcome his negative emotions. I’m not saying this in a “it’s a mental health issue not a gun issue” way, but society really normalizes the ignorance of mens’ emotions and for men to not build support for managing their emotions, be it intimate friendships, healthcare resources, healthy expression of emotions.
I think it’s good topic to bring up, because there’s a lot of things leading to men not doing too well, and I think it’d be dumb to ignore it, given the rise of acts of violence we’ve seen in the past decade from men who really feel disconnected or disillusioned with society. Finding out what we can do to help men cope with hardship in a more productive way, and ultimately address the root causes of the issues they face can improve things for men, as well as everyone in society.
It’s really another instance of legal gun owners getting shafted because it sounds better to just ban concealed carry than to address the causes of gun violence in the city. That would require more effort and ultimately the political benefit looks better because democrats will die with goal of disarming the citizenry, and the republicans and conservatives don’t care about the suffering and root causes that lead to cultures of violence (gang crime, road rage, shooting people turning around in your driveway or who knock on your door), heck in some cases they benefit from it.
While I’m not sold on the idea on mandatory training (I don’t trust governments enough make it accessible and useful), i’d be ignorant to think that training shouldn’t be made an expectation of ownership if not legally, than socially. There’s lot’s of people I just dread the fact they carry a gun. Reddit’s CCW subreddit has way too many posts that are essentially “Can I kill this guy?” Luckily there’s people there who do their best to educate and share resources and try to encourage a defensive mindset, away from the aggressive, “if you mess with me i’ll kill you” mindset.
I’m in medicine, and one of the biggest issues I see in my field, as well as science in general, is a lack of ethics and cultural understanding. The humanities give context for scientific findings, and guide us in the research process. Without it, we wind up with the Tuskegee trials or Nazi medicine. The same sort of things can happen in tech (privacy, security, wellbeing) and engineering (safety, integrity).
Humanities aren’t a waste of money. They broaden your knowledge of our world and the people in it. Maybe you don’t have interest in art or history, but law, ethics (or other areas of philosophy), and sociology all can help a person be more well-rounded.
I think a big part of it is the mindset that college education should train you to do a job, rather than provide a knowledge based on which job-specific training can be built upon. I think this is dually precipitated by employers not investing in training/educating their employees anymore, and outsourcing that cost to the employee, but also the issue of students who throw a fit about taking class X because they’re going for a degree in Y (I see this a lot with science/engineering majors when having to take classes in the humanities).
Ultimately this feels weak. The prefatory clause is an explanation of why the right to bear arms is to be unrestricted. It isn’t a statement to say “the people should only have guns to serve in defense of the country”, it’s to support a militia should it be necessary. Everything else is just secondary to the “shall not be infringed” portion.
The Heller decision did enumerate a right to self defense as part of the 2A, with the justification that is was common to own guns to defend one’s person and property. While it can be argued that we shouldn’t base law today on life in 1787(given issues we are seeing in LGBT rights erosion, namely), I don’t think that there’s any reason why right to self defense has diminished in importance since then.
The Constitution is generally a statement of the limitations of the government, not the citizenry. I think that paints the tone of how the bill of rights should be taken.
I mean. yeah single payer is nice, however that’s really not even on the horizon for the US. For most Americans, especially those who actually have to know how to fully utilize their insurance (if lucky enough to have it), there’s no benefit for them to worry too much about a single-payer or socialized system. They have immediate needs and immediate solutions. They need to get their prescriptions, their surgeries, and their doctor’s appointments. It’s not “supporting” it, as so much as it is the devil you know.
Practically speaking, compared to standard PPO/HMO insurance, HDHPs are pretty good. If you are low-maintenance health-wise, you don’t pay for your physical, are going to spend maybe couple hundred bucks on sick care and maintenance meds. If you have chronic illness, you will only pay the deductible before your care is 100 percent covered, so a hospital stay would be enough to meet your out-of-pocket max, and everything else is covered 100% by your insurer (whereas the traditional plans have 6-10k limits, the HDHPs are much lower at 1-2k for a person and 2-3 for a family). Especially with HSAs, which are savings/retirement accounts for medical expenses, that some employers will pay into, so basically free money to pay copays, prescriptions, even stuff like aspirin and bandages.
They might have to depending on the final court opinion. It’s important to know that that’s a long process, it takes about 10 years. I’m not sure about the specifics of what that would look like for a drug getting re-approved.
As I understand the regulations, the FDA did a roundabout way of approving the drug for general use (it was originally approved under a pathway for drugs that were dangerous and had to be closely monitored by a doctor. This really was a weak spot for the FDA’s case. So I think the main critique from the court being that the decision-making of the FDA was abitrary and capricious in relaxing rules to prescribe (if it was dangerous, why did they relax the rules for use during covid? If COVID necessitated an easier way to obtain it, was it dangerous enough to need the Subpart H approval in the first place?). So the way the FDA approved the drug opened them up to administrative challenge.
You know it’s not good when it’s bipartisan. I think the key point here is the bill sets a catch-22. If you are a dominant platform, you have to follow our rules. if you try to not be dominant, you violate the rules anyway.
It’s just made to control and censor.
I use hispanic and can’t say i have much care for the whole latinx/e debate, but if latino or latina just doesn’t float your boat, I think latine at least sounds better and looks better.