@Hunter Watson, I also remember nearly free education, $85/semester at LSU in 1961; worked weekends and graduated with more in the bank than when I started. Then TA'ed my way through grad school. UCal was famously cheaper. It is my understanding that we can credit Reagan for the instigating the decline, while he was gubna. Unfortunately California tends to set trends.
And Curt, in Niebla, Unamuno argued convincingly that we are but god's dream. We die when he wakes up. No need for evolution.
I am troubled about how to respond to this dichotomy: If A&E can fire an employee for public behavior, which I find fully appropriate, why can Hobby Lobby not restrict employees choice of health care providers? This is not a 1st Amendment issue but rather that of the 1964 Civil Rights act. Is a retail store not also a public accommodation in spirit if not letter? When I worked for a mega-NGO, I would be quickly terminated if I had made such comments in public in my own name, which would have been easily associated with the NGO. I did and continue to agree with their policy, but cannot quite parse the logic. Any help appreciated.
@Hunter Watson, I also remember nearly free education, $85/semester at LSU in 1961; worked weekends and graduated with more in the bank than when I started. Then TA'ed my way through grad school. UCal was famously cheaper. It is my understanding that we can credit Reagan for the instigating the decline, while he was gubna. Unfortunately California tends to set trends.
And Curt, in Niebla, Unamuno argued convincingly that we are but god's dream. We die when he wakes up. No need for evolution.
I am troubled about how to respond to this dichotomy: If A&E can fire an employee for public behavior, which I find fully appropriate, why can Hobby Lobby not restrict employees choice of health care providers? This is not a 1st Amendment issue but rather that of the 1964 Civil Rights act. Is a retail store not also a public accommodation in spirit if not letter? When I worked for a mega-NGO, I would be quickly terminated if I had made such comments in public in my own name, which would have been easily associated with the NGO. I did and continue to agree with their policy, but cannot quite parse the logic. Any help appreciated.