King was one of those figures, who despite his faults and shortcomings, sensed which way the wind was blowing, and happened to come along at just the right time. Like Hitler. Or Ronald Reagan.
He certainly had a talent for public speeches, and would be interesting to see how he would have fared today, in an age where the Internet has a tendency of making the skeletons really hard to keep inside the closet.
Doubt he would fared very well. His numerous extramarital affairs and fondness of prostitutes (as an interesting side note: He spent he night before his assassination with three of the latter) would have been much harder to keep away from the public. Journalists were also much more discrete and respectful of the private life back then.
Can't say I agree with the choice to put him on the front page, not just because he has nothing to do with Apple, but also because MLK has little relevance for non-Americans.
Personally I've always preferred Malcolm X, who had a much more unifying and post racial outlook, after having left Nation of Islam and before he got assassinated.
1) There does seem to be an odd union between infidelity and the greatest leaders in history. Perhaps we're discover why as we learn more about the brain or genetics.
2) Personally, even though these sex scandals do call into question a politician's integrity, I don't think the legal act of violating a marriage contract call for their resignation and impeachment. From what I read Anthony Weiner had some great ideas and did a lot of great things for New York. But still, if you're in the public eye, why jeopardize that? Is that the rush, is the desire that overpowering, or do they honestly think they won't ever get caught?
I happen to think that leaders are inherently reckless and have less of an ability to understand cause and effect, they merely charge ahead regardless of the damage...which would easily explain the idiocy of the last 3 presidencies.
Weird comment. If it has survived as a social institution for so many millennia, surely there must be some sensible reason that makes it optimal in some fashion?
I agree with [@]SpamSandwich[/@] in wondering why people get married at all, but the reasoning for marriage makes perfect sense. We are a species that needs to care for our young. If our offspring were independent from birth there would be no reason for it. There is also a huge part of man's history where women could not hold jobs, public office and we could not know the identity of the father. This seems to require a union that creates a pairing that helps create a chain of responsibility, even within groupings where the children are raised, more or less, by the larger community as a whole.
Today is a little different than logical rules for a functional society in which I believe it was created; today we do it because we're taught it's the right thing to do and it likely falls in with everything we know, including our various groups of association, like church and state.
King was one of those figures, who despite his faults and shortcomings, sensed which way the wind was blowing, and happened to come along at just the right time. Like Hitler. Or Ronald Reagan.
He certainly had a talent for public speeches, and would be interesting to see how he would have fared today, in an age where the Internet has a tendency of making the skeletons really hard to keep inside the closet.
Doubt he would fared very well. His numerous extramarital affairs and fondness of prostitutes (as an interesting side note: He spent he night before his assassination with three of the latter) would have been much harder to keep away from the public. Journalists were also much more discrete and respectful of the private life back then.
Can't say I agree with the choice to put him on the front page, not just because he has nothing to do with Apple, but also because MLK has little relevance for non-Americans.
Personally I've always preferred Malcolm X, who had a much more unifying and post racial outlook, after having left Nation of Islam and before he got assassinated.
I understand the background behind the rise of racial and cultural identity politics, but I generally find collectivism and groupthink to be dangerous for individual rights.
Can't say I agree with the choice to put him on the front page, not just because he has nothing to do with Apple, but also because MLK has little relevance for non-Americans.
I only checked a couple pages, but they seem to have only added it to the US page.
I agree with @SpamSandwich in wondering why people get married at all, but the reasoning for marriage makes perfect sense. We are a species that needs to care for our young. If our offspring were independent from birth there would be no reason for it. There is also a huge part of man's history where women could not hold jobs, public office and we could not know the identity of the father. This seems to require a union that creates a pairing that helps create a chain of responsibility, even within groupings where the children are raised, more or less, by the larger community as a whole.
Today is a little different than logical rules for a functional society in which I believe it was created; today we do it because we're taught it's the right thing to do and it likely falls in with everything we know, including our various groups of association, like church and state.
Marriage was a legal bonding to prove that the man owns that particular woman (chattel). Anything she owned prior to the marriage became his upon marriage.
Apparently, some men think this is still the case.
Many of the people today who invoke MLK's name are not alright people. They're simple minded losers, criminals and truly disgusting people, like those groups of hashtag using thugs who have recently taken to blocking traffic, invading restaurants and malls, harassing people, and even denying ambulances from transporting injured people to the hospital.
Here's to hoping that an 18 wheeler drives right over those idiotic protesters, the next time that they decide to block any roads.
MLK wouldn't like what he saw today, if he were still alive.
MLK wouldn't like what he saw today, if he were still alive.
He wouldn't like to see Barack Obama as president? He wouldn't like to see "black" CEOs of major corporations? He wouldn't like to see how influential "black" actors and musicians are in today's culture? He wouldn't like to see the change he helped create?
If there is anything I would say he might have an issue with it's homosexuality in society, but that's only because of his "Christian" values, and because I'm doing a direct transplant from his day to today without any of the benefits one might get from being educated in this modern age about the natural reasons for homosexuality.
He wouldn't like to see Barack Obama as president? He wouldn't like to see "black" CEOs of major corporations? He wouldn't like to see how influential "black" actors and musicians are in today's culture? He wouldn't like to see the change he helped create?
If there is anything I would say he might have an issue with it's homosexuality in society, but that's only because of his "Christian" values, and because I'm doing a direct transplant from his day to today without any of the benefits one might get from being educated in this modern age about the natural reasons for homosexuality.
No, i dont think that he'd like what he saw. One of his famous quotes was about judging people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
There are no MLKs today. He's been replaced by hoodlums like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other race hustlers, who do little else but judge by color, and who see racism everywhere they look. As for Obama, he's set back race relations by decades. Black people are worse off now than before, and it's entirely their fault.
1) There does seem to be an odd union between infidelity and the greatest leaders in history. Perhaps we're discover why as we learn more about the brain or genetics.
I don't think it's odd at all. Leaders have power. Power attracts. Ergo, infidelity.
On top of that, if you add charisma to the mix (which many leaders also tend to have), I am surprised infidelity is not more universal.
I don't think it's odd at all. Leaders have power. Power attracts. Ergo, infidelity.
On top of that, if you add charisma to the mix (which many leaders also tend to have), I am surprised infidelity is not more universal.
One still has the choice to act. I am an adonis, yet I don't act on every opportunity for coitus simply because it's there.
But seriously though, why don't these people think of how this action could affect the position in the community, their livelihood, and their relationship with friends and family (especially their wife and children)? Is the biological urge simply so strong that they can't help themselves? I certainly know that I should stay away from soda/pop/Coke even though I do love the taste, and that choice only affects me. No one is going to be devastated by my choice to drink a wonderfully carbonated, sugary beverage.
I honestly can't grasp the desire to be married, and thereby pledging a singular commitment to one person for the rest of one's life just to turn around and cheat on them. I simply can't imagine doing that to another human being, especially one that is often defined as my soul mate.
I also have no problem with people having as many partners as they desire, but if you know that is how your natural biological makeup pulls you then why even bother getting married.
You can't know how you'll feel after living with someone for a long period of time. People tend to get bored with the same things. They provide a sense of familiarity and comfort but try eating your favorite food for 30 days straight. Jackie Kennedy cheated on her husband too (in response to his infidelity). Not to mention people change over time.
The speeches take on an entirely different character when meshed with the reality of the orgies and infidelity.
I think the two can be separated but there should be awareness of the character that is being promoted and also that many portions of famous speeches don't originally come from the individual giving them. Presidents have speechwriters for example and MLK used material from other authors and religious leaders.
The work that people do stands on its own merit but it's harder when the work is closely tied to an individual such as with people like Bill Cosby or Roman Polanski. People in Hollywood defend Polanski even after he admitted to abusing a 13 year old girl as if his work invalidates his crime. It doesn't mean the work is terrible now, it just means focus should be taken away from the individual. Rather than celebrating MLK's birthday for example, they could celebrate the Civil Rights Movement. He did play an important role though so he deserves commendation and it's not like the bad parts of other people's character are brought up whenever they're mentioned. When people mention Steve Jobs, he's not dismissed because he abandoned his first child nor is that point raised every time. It's also not the case that the bad points of people's character are being promoted by promoting them in other contexts. Promoting MLK is not promoting infidelity for example and infidelity isn't contrary to civil rights.
I generally find collectivism and groupthink to be dangerous for individual rights.
The world simply couldn't exist in any state of peacefulness if everyone had to fight for their own rights. Whenever race laws were written, it was a collective white population making them, motivated by patriotism and racism. The Civil Rights Movement couldn't have happened without black people coming together in force and MLK was a driving force in that. That collectivism was essential for the individual rights of black people.
In general, what you're saying holds true that laws written in the interests of a group suppress the rights of an individual but it can't be any other way. That's just another idealism that can't be applied to the real world.
I honestly can't grasp the desire to be married, and thereby pledging a singular commitment to one person for the rest of one's life just to turn around and cheat on them. I simply can't imagine doing that to another human being, especially one that is often defined as my soul mate.
I also have no problem with people having as many partners as they desire, but if you know that is how your natural biological makeup pulls you then why even bother getting married.
It just seems crazy to me that people would either be in an unfulfilling marriage, or go into one with the idea of being unfaithful. Perhaps it's the sneaking around that is exciting, but that just sounds like a huge headache and chore to me.
What I find ridiculous is the people who cheat that still say they love their spouse, but make an excuse to justify the infidelity. If you seriously loved your spouse, you would never cheat.
There are no MLKs today. He's been replaced by hoodlums like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other race hustlers, who do little else but judge by color, and who see racism everywhere they look. As for Obama, he's set back race relations by decades. Black people are worse off now than before, and it's entirely their fault.
You started out beautifully, and then quickly crashed and burned.
They're still slaves, just not to plantation owners anymore.
I will say that many still have an oppressed mindset. In NYC many West Indian blacks own businesses, and go to institutions of higher learning in much greater numbers than African Americans.
Comments
He certainly had a talent for public speeches, and would be interesting to see how he would have fared today, in an age where the Internet has a tendency of making the skeletons really hard to keep inside the closet.
Doubt he would fared very well. His numerous extramarital affairs and fondness of prostitutes (as an interesting side note: He spent he night before his assassination with three of the latter) would have been much harder to keep away from the public. Journalists were also much more discrete and respectful of the private life back then.
Can't say I agree with the choice to put him on the front page, not just because he has nothing to do with Apple, but also because MLK has little relevance for non-Americans.
Personally I've always preferred Malcolm X, who had a much more unifying and post racial outlook, after having left Nation of Islam and before he got assassinated.
I happen to think that leaders are inherently reckless and have less of an ability to understand cause and effect, they merely charge ahead regardless of the damage...which would easily explain the idiocy of the last 3 presidencies.
I agree with [@]SpamSandwich[/@] in wondering why people get married at all, but the reasoning for marriage makes perfect sense. We are a species that needs to care for our young. If our offspring were independent from birth there would be no reason for it. There is also a huge part of man's history where women could not hold jobs, public office and we could not know the identity of the father. This seems to require a union that creates a pairing that helps create a chain of responsibility, even within groupings where the children are raised, more or less, by the larger community as a whole.
Today is a little different than logical rules for a functional society in which I believe it was created; today we do it because we're taught it's the right thing to do and it likely falls in with everything we know, including our various groups of association, like church and state.
I understand the background behind the rise of racial and cultural identity politics, but I generally find collectivism and groupthink to be dangerous for individual rights.
I only checked a couple pages, but they seem to have only added it to the US page.
I agree with @SpamSandwich in wondering why people get married at all, but the reasoning for marriage makes perfect sense. We are a species that needs to care for our young. If our offspring were independent from birth there would be no reason for it. There is also a huge part of man's history where women could not hold jobs, public office and we could not know the identity of the father. This seems to require a union that creates a pairing that helps create a chain of responsibility, even within groupings where the children are raised, more or less, by the larger community as a whole.
Today is a little different than logical rules for a functional society in which I believe it was created; today we do it because we're taught it's the right thing to do and it likely falls in with everything we know, including our various groups of association, like church and state.
Marriage was a legal bonding to prove that the man owns that particular woman (chattel). Anything she owned prior to the marriage became his upon marriage.
Apparently, some men think this is still the case.
Highly Commendable Apple. Thank you.
Many of the people today who invoke MLK's name are not alright people. They're simple minded losers, criminals and truly disgusting people, like those groups of hashtag using thugs who have recently taken to blocking traffic, invading restaurants and malls, harassing people, and even denying ambulances from transporting injured people to the hospital.
Here's to hoping that an 18 wheeler drives right over those idiotic protesters, the next time that they decide to block any roads.
MLK wouldn't like what he saw today, if he were still alive.
He wouldn't like to see Barack Obama as president? He wouldn't like to see "black" CEOs of major corporations? He wouldn't like to see how influential "black" actors and musicians are in today's culture? He wouldn't like to see the change he helped create?
If there is anything I would say he might have an issue with it's homosexuality in society, but that's only because of his "Christian" values, and because I'm doing a direct transplant from his day to today without any of the benefits one might get from being educated in this modern age about the natural reasons for homosexuality.
No, i dont think that he'd like what he saw. One of his famous quotes was about judging people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
There are no MLKs today. He's been replaced by hoodlums like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other race hustlers, who do little else but judge by color, and who see racism everywhere they look. As for Obama, he's set back race relations by decades. Black people are worse off now than before, and it's entirely their fault.
That's so ridiculous I have no choice but to answer with emoticons.
Yep. Things were so much better with Jim Crow laws, segregation, and slavery¡ :rolleyes::no:
1) There does seem to be an odd union between infidelity and the greatest leaders in history. Perhaps we're discover why as we learn more about the brain or genetics.
I don't think it's odd at all. Leaders have power. Power attracts. Ergo, infidelity.
On top of that, if you add charisma to the mix (which many leaders also tend to have), I am surprised infidelity is not more universal.
One still has the choice to act. I am an adonis, yet I don't act on every opportunity for coitus simply because it's there.
But seriously though, why don't these people think of how this action could affect the position in the community, their livelihood, and their relationship with friends and family (especially their wife and children)? Is the biological urge simply so strong that they can't help themselves? I certainly know that I should stay away from soda/pop/Coke even though I do love the taste, and that choice only affects me. No one is going to be devastated by my choice to drink a wonderfully carbonated, sugary beverage.
Quote:
That's so ridiculous I have no choice but to answer with emoticons.
I'm not the only one who believes that.
Obama Has Set Race Relations Back Decades
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/09/28/obama_has_set_race_relations_back_decades_264391.html
How Obama Poisoned Race Relations in America
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/how-obama-poisoned-race-relations-in-america/
"President Obama and Eric Holder have done damage to race relations. I mean, I really am personally distressed about this."?
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/bill-kristol-obama-has-set-race-relations-america-back
Race relations arguably worse in ‘Age of Obama’
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/12/11/249786/race-relations-arguably-worse.html
Poll: Race relations were better under Bush
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/26/poll-race-relations-were-better-under-bush/
Yep. Things were so much better with Jim Crow laws, segregation, and slavery¡
They're still slaves, just not to plantation owners anymore.
You can't know how you'll feel after living with someone for a long period of time. People tend to get bored with the same things. They provide a sense of familiarity and comfort but try eating your favorite food for 30 days straight. Jackie Kennedy cheated on her husband too (in response to his infidelity). Not to mention people change over time.
I think the two can be separated but there should be awareness of the character that is being promoted and also that many portions of famous speeches don't originally come from the individual giving them. Presidents have speechwriters for example and MLK used material from other authors and religious leaders.
The work that people do stands on its own merit but it's harder when the work is closely tied to an individual such as with people like Bill Cosby or Roman Polanski. People in Hollywood defend Polanski even after he admitted to abusing a 13 year old girl as if his work invalidates his crime. It doesn't mean the work is terrible now, it just means focus should be taken away from the individual. Rather than celebrating MLK's birthday for example, they could celebrate the Civil Rights Movement. He did play an important role though so he deserves commendation and it's not like the bad parts of other people's character are brought up whenever they're mentioned. When people mention Steve Jobs, he's not dismissed because he abandoned his first child nor is that point raised every time. It's also not the case that the bad points of people's character are being promoted by promoting them in other contexts. Promoting MLK is not promoting infidelity for example and infidelity isn't contrary to civil rights.
The world simply couldn't exist in any state of peacefulness if everyone had to fight for their own rights. Whenever race laws were written, it was a collective white population making them, motivated by patriotism and racism. The Civil Rights Movement couldn't have happened without black people coming together in force and MLK was a driving force in that. That collectivism was essential for the individual rights of black people.
In general, what you're saying holds true that laws written in the interests of a group suppress the rights of an individual but it can't be any other way. That's just another idealism that can't be applied to the real world.
I honestly can't grasp the desire to be married, and thereby pledging a singular commitment to one person for the rest of one's life just to turn around and cheat on them. I simply can't imagine doing that to another human being, especially one that is often defined as my soul mate.
I also have no problem with people having as many partners as they desire, but if you know that is how your natural biological makeup pulls you then why even bother getting married.
It just seems crazy to me that people would either be in an unfulfilling marriage, or go into one with the idea of being unfaithful. Perhaps it's the sneaking around that is exciting, but that just sounds like a huge headache and chore to me.
What I find ridiculous is the people who cheat that still say they love their spouse, but make an excuse to justify the infidelity. If you seriously loved your spouse, you would never cheat.
You started out beautifully, and then quickly crashed and burned.
I will say that many still have an oppressed mindset. In NYC many West Indian blacks own businesses, and go to institutions of higher learning in much greater numbers than African Americans.