Men are From Mars and Women..

.. are from UC Berkeley

You know what... I bet she's a great Mom, otherwise.

But this is the irony.... The nest-protect urge genetically built into women may preserve the family, and even the tribe or village, but it will absolutely RUIN a nation or society.

Her crap blather nicely dismembered here

That's dispassionate... my first response was to call her a stupid overeducated c*nt!

But that wouldnt be nice, so I wont.
_________
Speaking of anthropology, here's a blast from the grass-stained past:

Ultraviolet: 69 Classic Blacklight Posters from the Aquarian Age and Beyond

For me, the first exposure to the art genre was in the mid-sixties in Yellow Springs. Didnt last long in that bastion of Marxism though, as you might expect. Decadent and Bourgeois, dontcha know. {They were right.. see Peter Max.}

Blacklight came later with Jefferson Airplane and Fillmore, IIRC.

Whatever you can live the thrill.. just buy the book and turn on the blacklight {not included}, instead of the Lava Lamp.

I thought it was crap on a par with Elvis Velvet Paintings, but whatta I know. Yes...including Yellow Submarine.

For you young'uns.. go ahead, indulge.
- -- - - - -- - - - -

 

No 'Fog you should omit the "overeducated" from your comment. Any educated person should know that the moon and planets affect our lives on earth. An educated person knows that all fields of study, such as astronomy, that have been studied for centuries by some of the brightest minds on earth are worthy of respecting, whether one enjoys them personally or not. Why she would question how to react to her son's interest in the subject is beyond me.

And the Simberg guy did dismember her argument about better uses for NASA's budget but he didnt do near enough for my tastes. Tell me what are these NASA boondoggles? That they've cancelled, postponed, or underfunded NASA programs relating to earth Science? They've done that with nearly every program they have. And Simberg is right. Any waste at NASA is due to meddling by Congress. They now make NASA use a certain amount of their budget to award grants to small and minority business and certain universities. The result is that capable, well eduacated NASA scientists and engineers spend their time reviewing crappy proposals so they can award money to someone that they will then have to train how to do the work. Basically, good scientists teaching people not as smart as them to do the work that NASA should be doing. It has spawned an entire industry of people that go after this money.

What are the other boondoogles? That we've gotten nothing from the Apollo program and the shuttle program? How about the miniaturization of electronics, satellite technology, flame retardant fabric, running shoes, temperapedic beds, remote monitoring technology, self-righting rescue rafts, the lickless stamp, ventricular assist devices and scores of new materials and technologies that are employed in medical and electronic devices. Oh and there is also the fact that planes dont fall out of the sky as often due to the fracture mechanics models and materials databases NASA developed and that are now used by everyone in aeronautics.

Those greedy selfish NASA bastards. How dare they share everything they do with the world so medical device companies can make loads of profit. How dare they work in dreary old cement block offices with fifty year old grey metal government furniture while most of the country (especially those in the media) work in new, trendy officess. How dare they work for half of what they could get out in industry and how dare they adhere to strict travel per diems while other business folk dine at the finest resturants and drink $100 glasses of brandy.

 

I know that me responding to Mo's ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT Practical disposition of the idea would perhaps have a chilling effect. So I hesitated until the thread rolled off the sidebar.

One of the Simberg commenters:

How absolutely TRUE. I tried to find that quote author and didnt so perhaps it IS Heinlein, a much underappreciated SF sage on future society

What the search did find is HERE:

Ah.. but what that treatise points out, perhaps unwittingly, is that the Romantic of one era is the Practical of another. The referred to 'Middle Ages' succeeded what.. the DARK AGES. To say the middle ages was manufactured by practical philosophy seems rather narrow minded.
For even scientists CAN be romantic... so much so that they may continually alter their scope of reason {sometimes by fiddling coded and formulas} to make the romantic ideal fit.

The Romantic Marxism of the 19th and early 20th century led -in practice- to the concrete hive mentality of the late 20th century socialism. In practice, what is perhaps POSSIBLE, devolved to what is REASONABLE.

Certain key elements remain but now the Romantic is the advocate of the individual man striving to excel and explore the unknown.

You tell ME who's the Romantic: Richard Branson or Al Gore?

On the other hand, look at the 'notable anthropologists' of yore:
Margaret Mead, Jane Goodall spring to mind. Not to mention the barely published, if at all, Mom of our current Romantic in Chief.

There's a distinct difference in the 'wonder factor' .. both are emotional at the base instinct but one is seeking the unknown to ratify or justify who we are, the other might just might want to change what and where we are.