"Even if you don't inhale, you can get cancer from smoking pipes and cigars. People who smoke cigars regularly are 4 to 10 times more likely than nonsmokers to die from cancers of the mouth, larynx, and esophagus." [1]
"Between pipe and cigarette smokers, no or only minor differences were found in mortality from any cause and the specified smoking-related diseases. Pipe smoking is not safer than cigarette smoking." [2]
Not sure if pipe smoking is a better alternative. Would love to hear your thoughts on what I've shared.
The trouble here is that I can't see actual paper in [2], cigars don't enter into it, and that the study I referenced, and subsequent studies, show that what causes cancer is carcinogens, which are intentionally addrd by Big Tobacco to increase addictiveness. The fact is everyone has cancer, but we're not all sick because we naturally slough off cancer cells. Is anyone particularly aware of cancer rates in Native Americans from the 1300s to the 1940s? Why aren't we? Probably because they were low enough to be noise against the natural occurrences of cancer.
Smoking anything can cause emphysema, and I wasn't ever making a claim that smoking is healthy or safe, so there are some straw man fallacies present in your reply. What I was drawing attention to is that cigarettes are not tobacco, and that due to the intentional infusion of 300+ known carcinogens [1], it is no wonder it kills so many people every year. I don't have any references, but I expect before the chemical revolution in the 1950's, smoking cigarettes didn't kill remotely as many people.
"Amazon's Choice" are also littered with fake reviews. WSJ did a story on this and looked at hundreds of "[AC]" listings and found majority of listings had fake reviews; many of the fake reviews being the top reviews.
Wait, Romans won because a war of attrition was not in favor for Carthage. Carthage won more naval battles yet the loses from each battle weren't replenished like the Romans.
Thats right, corporations have legal person status & protection (kinda odd) like any other American citizen, but you can argue they have more rights than the average american citizen.
Anyway, corporations, for-profit that is, are driven by one tenet & one tenet alone, which is their bottom-line. And they only answer to their ruling shareholders. Customers, employees, their own product, the USA govt, etc are all secondary.
> Burmese people seemingly accepting the false claim the ethnically-cleansed Rohingya actually were Bangladeshi regardless of where they stand on other things
That was largely a result of campaigning against giving rights to the Rohingya.
> the outpouring of support for Aung Sung Suu Kyi after Western criticism that might have been signals that they believed the conflict was the generals' doing rather than hers or might have been mass endorsement of the government's violence
Yeah, because Aung Sung Suu Kyi keeps denying, on live TV, that any problem exist other than the insurrectionists are responsible for everything thats happened thus far. The insurrectionists/terrorist according to her are composed of muslim Rohingya that are financed by foreign "Muslim" powers.
The matter of the fact is that most power is held by the military, NOT Aung Sung Suu Kyi. Thus, Aung Sung Suu Kyi stance on this issue is probably a result of the military's position. At any moment, the army can choose to remove her from power. Her position is that fragile.
Couldn't agree more. Read a couple of battle analysis by the USA army , which constantly compared decisions to what the decision should be accordingly to the USA army field manual to explain. You're absolutely right!
Had this experience while growing in NYC, near chinatown and the flushing area. It's not that I didn't believe them, I simply found their information to be ridiculous and theres no way the chinese government actually engages in that kind of behavior. Oh boy, was I wrong.
One particular case that is interesting: USA. USA is pretty religious country(>2/3 believe in god and angels) relative to other western countries(where religion is in decline and below 1/2). Its often argued that the religious nature(protestants) of USA shaped the superpower and its economic dominance. Nearly all founding fathers were wealthy land owners who were also deeply religious. The god that they believed in was a wealthy god, who told his subjects it was okay to pursue wealth and fortune. So its not surprising that Televangelists ask for crazy donations and live like the wealthy.
...and easily defensible borders for when things did go pearshaped, and peaceful (and weak) neighbors to avoid the drain of constant defense, and had lots of internal cultures to draw from. And in any case throughout certainly the first half the 20th century the US was not uniquely religious; much of europe was too, and non-coincidentally shared the same faiths. The ascent of the US appears to have occurred at least somewhat before the loss of faith in europe.
So... who knows? I mean, there are so many differences you're never going to be able to pick the various effects apart without careful - but subjective and error-prone - plain old reasoning.
I don't see any particular reason to believe religion played a very notable role, but I don't think it's an absurd notion either: I just don't know, and haven't seen a very convincing argument either way.
Russia, Mexico, Brazil, etc., have or had more readily available natural resources. The US, unlike the Spanish viceroyalties relied more on agriculture and trade than the Portuguese and Spanish colonies who stuck gold in the Americas. Japan is natural resource poor yet it’s the worlds third leading economy. So thats not the main driver.
Japan’s wealth has varied over time. Same for the other countries you listed. It seems that a good work ethic that includes working to educate yourself, and a stable environment for your good works to compound on themselves is the main driver. The US had these qualities in abundance and at a large scale for some time.
Nearly all founding fathers were ... were also deeply religious
I'm no expert but I had the impression the founders weren't big on religion. One wouldn't admit to being an atheist back then, so being into Freemasonry or Deism was as close as you'd expect a public figure to get.
My understanding (and I am not a historian) is that many of the founding fathers were not Christians (e.g. they were deists, agnostic, or atheists); however, they did come from a Christian culture and espoused/endorsed Christian ethical principles. There also were founding fathers who were Christians (e.g. Sam Adams, Washington, and Patrick Henry).
My interpretation of this is that America was founded based on Christian ethics, culture, and philosophy; even if many of the founders were not practicing Christians. In my opinion, this does not necessarily imply that America is/should be a Christian nation in the right wing/culture war sense.
They assembled a country from components of a lot of cultures through history. They were as informed by the source of Christian ethics (older religions and philosophies with the same ideas) as by Christianity itself.
The founding fathers were very far from being "deeply religious." Once, when Benjamin Franklin proposed a moment of prayer - at a difficult point during negotiations over the shape the nation should take - the other founders just looked at him as though he were a fish. No prayer happened. And Mr. Franklin wasn't exactly pious, either.
Two big factors: the U.S. and Canada held enormous untapped gold and silver sources, and the U.S. (and Russia) appropriated all German intellectual property after WWII. Their allies didn't, but kept trading with the U.S. nonetheless.
While religiosity has been diverging significantly over the last decades, no such different existed in the times you mention, i. e. from first settlements to, say, WW2.
The degree to which the founding fathers were religious is debatable. It would appear to be singular achievement for men of actual, deep faith to resist the temptation to recreate the sort of intertwined state and church typical of the time.
A somewhat more believable narrative is that the founding fathers tended more to the religious ideas of enlightment, in a process parallel to what would later result in the french revolution.
It is unlikely that any of them believed in a "Wealthy god", for most of these men were quite smart, and had studied philosophy, while the idea of God being "wealthy" in a material sense is insanely stupid: Once you've created the universe, you really don't care about your ranking on the Forbes list.
There is, obviously, the Calvinist/Puritan tradition that emphasised work ethics (plus burning of witches). But it's important to remember that these were very small communities, and that about a hundred years passed between the pilgrims and US independence. By that time, these groups were but a minor fraction of the population. The vast majority of delegates to the Continental Congress were therefore (officially) Anglicans or "mainline" Protestants.
That's not to discount the Quaker/Calvinist/etc. influence, which certainly played a role. But it's unclear if the causality was quite as easy as one may think: after all, religious believes emphasising self-reliance may just be too good a fit for the needs of small groups of settlers arriving on a vast and wild continent. So it's just as believable that the importance of such doctrine was retrofitted to the needs of the time, possibly even afterwards.
In any case, drawing an equivalence from these early believes of redemption through work to today's version of retrofitting religion to match culture, namely the so-called "Prosperity Gospel" is a simplification bordering on insult. That's easily observed by comparing adherence of the former tradition (the Amish being the closest example you'll find) and the latter (the President comes to mind).
The missing pieces are obvious: humility was certainly among the values, but wealth wasn't. While hard work was/is emphasised, it was/is not intended to lead to earthly riches, but to atone for the original sin and, by God's grace, lead to rewards not in this life, but what comes next.
"The degree to which the founding fathers were religious is debatable. It would appear to be singular achievement for men of actual, deep faith to resist the temptation to recreate the sort of intertwined state and church typical of the time"
Considering that the sectarian violence of the English Civil War was still fresh in their minds, and that many of the States did have different official state churches (e.g. MA:Puritan, PA:Quaker, MD: Catholic), they all made a pragmatic compromise to prohibit the congress from establishing a federal religion or interfering with the state religions of any of the several states.
As an example, the original MA state constitution, written by Adams, makes the Congregationalist church the state religion, and guarantees state funding to construct a church in each town and pay a Congregationalist minister to preach there. That's why there is a quaint white wooden church in the center of each town in MA and ME (which was part of MA at the time).
Jefferson might have been a deist and his Democrats have always been more aligned with the spirit of the French enlightenment and revolution, but the Whigs/Federalists were most definitely not.
reply