Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[i2amroy]

It's because >95% of all of our national lawmakers fall into either the "elderly" or "aging" categories. Right now only 7% of the House of Representatives and 1% of Senators are under the age of 40, despite the fact that currently some 45% of eligible voters are under the age of 40 at the moment (and 59% of the total population is under the age of 40).

[Flying Dice]

It's because >95% of all of our national lawmakers fall into either the "elderly" or "aging" categories. Right now only 7% of the House of Representatives and 1% of Senators are under the age of 40, despite the fact that currently some 45% of eligible voters are under the age of 40 at the moment (and 59% of the total population is under the age of 40).

That's actually not unreasonable. You have to be 25 to get into the House and 30 for the Senate, and pretty much every national-level politician already has an established career, either in politics, law, or occasionally something else. I can honestly say that I don't think I would ever vote for someone younger than their mid-30s for the House or Senate, that's at most a decade of experience in lower-level positions, likely not even that.

What does come into play is voter activity. US Census data habitually shows that the elderly have higher rates of both voter registration and election turnout. They're also represented by one of (arguably) the three most influential lobbies in the nation, the AARP (I'd point to AIPAC and the NRA for the other two). Basically, U.S. politicians have strong motivation to pursue legislation supported by the elderly, especially in the current climate where gaining the ire of an "important" group can mean losing money and having large sums donated to an opponent's campaign.

[Orange Wizard]

In other words, the real solution is to get rid of the lobby groups. Or at least chop off their throbbing money power boner thingies.

[Reelya]

About the USA being insular. What would you think of hemisphere-shaking socioeconomic and political developments right on America's doorstep, yet nobody is reporting on it in any mainstream American press? Read this, and consider the ramifications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations

Basically the entire continent of South America has been under a united Parliament for the best part of a decade, modelling the entire thing on the EU and working towards a common currency / single passport arrangement. And they have a united military alliance called the South American Defence Council now, loosely modeled on NATO. And basically not one word of this in any mainstream American news source. Clearly because it doesn't advance US interests for Americans to realize that South America isn't the divisive basketcase it was two decades ago. Basically, you only ever hear about South America going to hell in a handbasket, not how much the economies have grown and how much they're now coordinating their own regional self interests and rejecting US meddling in their foreign affairs..

And after that they formed this 33-nation alliance. Which also doesn't warrant any mention in the corporate press apparently. Because literally every single other nation in the hemisphere agreed "America (and Canada) aren't invited". South of the border you now have an economic bloc (with their own parliament in the core countries) and a total population of 600 million, and ~7 trillion in GDP. Them all working together is clearly not good for US strategic power. which is why you probably never heard about any of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States

So yeah, don't trust even nytimes or washington post to tell you what's happening south of the border. They basically turn into a clone of FOX news once it's Latin American affairs. To give you an idea on the under-reporting of Unasur, searching nytimes shows 66 stories referenced that since 2008, or 8 per year. Whereas for e.g. "myanmar" it gets 6111 hits from nytimes, or 235 per year since the name was changed.

[Neonivek]

So I finished Brave

It sounds silly but I wish the entire movie was the first 30 minutes of the movie where she basically earned her own hand in marriage and basically decided her own fate instead of being forced to live out her days as dictated to her.

It is also kind of interesting in that it was the exact opposite of Brother Bear in that... In Brother bear the main character became MORE interesting by becoming a bear and a lot more tolerable almost immediately (Helped that Brother Bear was a lot more expressive in his bear form). While in this the mother becomes a much less interesting character the moment she becomes a bear (it helps that she was a VERY interesting character before hand). She basically goes from the woman who could control a room full of Celtic warriors with just a stern stare, who knows every kingdom by heart, who is fighting over the guilt of how she must treat her child... into a clumsy oaf.

I mean the first 30 minutes was basically a unique movie onto itself with genuine consequences hinted at. While the last hour was Freaky Friday and all the problems were solved VERY easily "I want to break tradition!" "Ok! Done" almost as if there was no real tension and it was just drama for the heck of it. In fact most of it feels like all the problems were solved WAY too easily.

[TD1]

I'm fairly certain Brave wasn't targeted at the analytic mind. More of a kid thing, really.

[Neonivek]

I'm fairly certain Brave wasn't targeted at the analytic mind. More of a kid thing, really.

I am one of the many people who honestly felt like the first 30 minutes of Brave was pretty much the... well... best part of Brave.

It isn't anything unique.

I am just analyzing the many reasons why. The Post 30 minute movie only had maybe two scenes of any worth.

[Akura]

Speaking of Disney movies, I keep seeing lots of merch for Frozen in my job and other places. Is it any good? Judging from the merchandise, all I can tell is that it's a cougar/loli yuri-slashfic.

Basically the entire continent of South America has been under a united Parliament for the best part of a decade,

I really had no idea. I actually wish I did know that. In terms of global politics, that's actually pretty significant.

[SOLDIER First]

Frozen is a movie about a girl who somehow has ice powers learning to control them even though the ice is animated like blue plastic and also her sister is there

[Graknorke]

all I can tell is that it's a cougar/loli yuri-slashfic

Your imagination is by far more interesting than the film. I wouldn't bother.

[Neonivek]

Frozen is incredibly overrated and not in a "The movie isn't as good as people say it is" sort of way, but in a "I don't think it is as progressive as people say it is".

But... uhhh... It is a good Disney movie all things said and done. With nice music and songs.

Is it progressive? Not really... not by a long shot. Which isn't a problem (not all movies need to push the envelope) but goodness can fans of the movie push my button... and I like the movie...

[Arx]

I still haven't seen Frozen. Or The Martian. Or Fury Road. I don't know if I want to, though.

I don't think I've watched a movie in the last four months. Probably says a lot about me...

[LordBaal]

I think most people like the fact that it was the sister at the end that saved the day (after trougthly fucking it up) and not the "prince" like in most other movies.

Fury Road is a great movie. Watch it. That's an order.

[Aklyon]

Frozen's least repeated song is at the beginning, and thats about all I remember about it.

[Neonivek]

Frozen's least repeated song is at the beginning, and thats about all I remember about it.

Because good luck singing a folk song of that quality.