Could always just do away with loans and make higher education free for the users.
This paid method hasn't really helped much, has it and now if they're saying the loans are going to loose too much money... Why not cut out the middle steps and just fund universities?
Post-modernism denies grand narratives and puts forward that people will deceive themselves for their own benefit.And indeed that values and ideals are socially contracted, so what is "Good" will vary across space-time.
But ours are done by private companies that merely get preferable treatment from the government, not the nation itself.
So when BP or Rio Tinto do it, get government spokesmen to defend them, make sure any investigations lag, get government legal and financial assistance, are well warned of any seizures of computers, and invariably declare corrupt lone operatives, it's totally different.Not the same at all.
You are an American who just got your alternative potential answer from Wikipedia, right? Decent rapid research skills, well done.
But you need to keep going to contextual information. "the Historic City of London" is what it says on the page you linked, but click on "City of London" for its definition, perhaps.
And if you're doing a bit like other posters, you need to keep the format roughly the same to convey that metatextual information.
If you're living in one of those very conservative on women's dress Islamic nations (i.e. Middle East or Central Asia) then there are cultural limits imposed beyond the baseline of the religion.
A Senegalese Muslim woman in colourful patterned headscarf and matching dress is following what Islam requires.Some places have kept, or imposed, much stricter controls on women's dress (amongst other things). And while they might choose to wear more colourful ones, many of these countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Bahrain, through to Pakistan and Afghanistan) turn a blind eye to femicide and are plagued by honour killings.
The WHO does good work, but it's as much a bureaucractic force as a medical one, and I think due to the desire for geopolitical clout the US cared more about the latter than the former.Not that way that the US doesn't also do some medical outreach with military missions as the PRC also does.But it does make there a minor difference in kind. After all, the selfish jerk who goes around fulfilling people's dreams just for his own selfish satisfaction of feeling like a good person still is.
More reasonable than the embargo never existing is it finishing in the 90s following the end of the Cold War. Sadly US face couldn't allow that to happen.
The PRC isn't blockaded in the same way and has also invested in medicine and sends out lots of medical missions; that said, it had a bigger economy and does that less than Cuba.
And even so, it doesn't make the blockade right - even if this is a potential silver lining.
The PRC is helping kill Balochi and Burmese to keep it's access to resources in those areas in the 21st century.Which is far fewer than US imperialism across any comparible time scale.
I get that. The hypocrisy of criticising one side, but not being able to bear any criticism when the other side does the same is infuriatingly lacking in moral backbone.
And while a change from US to Chinese hegemony might have some short term gains for some places, there would also be losses for others - one need only look at the Balochi, Tamils, Myanmar/Burma, Afghanistan for no shortage of examples.The PRC is an imperial power ascendent, and the national ideology and mood is already scarily fascistic.
I mentioned Israel-Palestine for history, as too many folks seem to want to portray October 8th as a random, unprovoked attack by Palestinians - removing it from historic context which, all events, must always be kept.We can never hope to build a better future without knowing and understanding how events lead to one another.
The whole "Israel-Palestine conflict began on October 8th, do not look at the ageing historical events behind the curtain argument". And then seem to basically fallacy fallacy at anything you might have to think about how it fits with your narrative. If you're actually trying to bring nuance and point out how large nations are bullies who use military and economic clout to force their will on the world around them: that's what I'm saying too. Go back and look over what I've said with that lens, and see if you can find that reading.
Also, what's with the focus on 100 years ago? Time hasn't moved that fast yet. Round up by 50%? Just say S70 my friend.
And for the purpose of friendship I should assume you actually want to make a point and ask:"OK then, what information do you actually want to convey to me? What is the core idea you want to assert, not a negation of something said but an idea that stands on its own."
Could always just do away with loans and make higher education free for the users.
This paid method hasn't really helped much, has it and now if they're saying the loans are going to loose too much money... Why not cut out the middle steps and just fund universities?