what exactly does this mean, the "sign of the feminine"

What Frank said. I think the college was looking at phenomena like, for example, "dumb blonde" jokes that are rarely told about men.

A right versus a privilege isn't really referring to privileged people; it's more of a legal concept. For example, freedom of speech is a right granted by the Constitution. Driving a car is a privilege, i.e., something you have to be licensed for and meet certain criteria like insurance. You have no inherent right to drive.

Health care is considered a right under the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the U.S. is not exactly a shining star in meeting those.

(Please jump in any time, lawistas.)

Five Myths about Health Care in the Rest of the World: [link]

what exactly does this mean, the "sign of the feminine"

It means that the course designer has gotten too involved in stupidity.

It means that the course designer has gotten too involved in stupidity.

An unfortunate side-effect of studying stupidity....

Heh - I listened to a lecture once by a TA who was doing their thesis on boredom. I almost fell asleep...

They misspelled Beavis in there, too:

Beevis and Butthead

A right versus a privilege isn't really referring to privileged people; it's more of a legal concept. For example, freedom of speech is a right granted by the Constitution. Driving a car is a privilege, i.e., something you have to be licensed for and meet certain criteria like insurance. You have no inherent right to drive.

Ginger, thank you. I think this is the way I was interpreting it.

Five Myths about Health Care in the Rest of the World

I keep reading articles like this and keep wondering why so many people are opposed to health care reform.

Who in the US doesn't have to wait weeks or months for non-emergency care?? And hours for (non heart attack, non bleeding) emergency care???

And who in the US has more than a limited number of choices of provider (assuming they don't have unlimited funds)?????

Grrr.

DH takes aciphex. And his double dose was approved. However, with our new insurance, 3 of my drugs got a no. I wonder how long I get to go with out them.

I do not consider health care/insurance a right or a privilege. It is a practical matter. If every one has healthcare/insurance and the ability to stay home when they are sick -- CEO's don't get sick because the office cleaner is sick, less disease is spread through work places, and less productivity is lost because of the flu sweeping through an office.

Who in the US doesn't have to wait weeks or months for non-emergency care??

Well, Dick Cheney has a wing named after him in the hospital where my Mom works. I don't think he has to wait for appointments.

Can I get quick check in from the hivemind about a question I've been mulling recently?

It stems from selling some books at Half-Price Books and getting almost nothing for them - especially compared to CDs or DVDs at Amoeba.

And also noticing that there are sellers on Amazon that can still make money by selling books for one cent (somehow making profit on the mailing charge).

And knowing that my publisher pulped a bunch of the Bubblegum books because it cost him more in taxes to warehouse them than they worth.

One of the things that the internet does is it changes the means of distribution and eliminates local market inefficiencies. A local bookstore might be able to corner the market on vintage Baum Oz books and keep the prices up, but an online search will find somebody somewhere that will sell it cheaper.

So my question isn't about publishing so much as my sense that the production cost to make books has gotten extremely cheap. Which is also true for most digital media.

And indeed, other bargain hunts on the interpipe suggest that manufacturing is almost throwing away some items. That they're so cheap to produce that if they don't sell, they can be dumped for almost nothing.

So my question is, Are production costs getting so low that the world economy could feasibly house and feed everybody in the world?

Because it seems to me that we could, and the biggest impediment to that is Capitalism.

I know it's a raging commie sort of question to ask, and I'm not advocating switching to worldwide socialism tomorrow. But it seems to me that the worldwide economy is such that you could feed, house, educate and provide healthcare for everybody in the world.

Is my supposition unfounded? Is it a near possibility? Would we need to make an energy breakthrough to make it feasible?

I don't think anybody's giving up on their profit line anytime soon, and there are plenty of political interests inimical to such a structure. But it just feels like we've reached a tipping point of abundance.

Which is what Marx implied would happen with capitalism. And also Guy Debord argued that capitalism only works by creating the illusion of need. That markets can only continue to grow well past the point of necessities by creating false needs.