Stupid Recognition Critical Theories on Facebook

My facebook friends follow my Linkedin Pinterest and that's stupid. They can't take down my other social networks, but they would if they could. Facebook Friends like Robert Haggerty and Liz Birch want this blog, my Fb22strikeraptor Instagram and Pinterest to disappear. Why? They're betting against me or they're using Axel Honneth Critical Theory on Facebook of all things. I always thought the 2003 class reads Struggle for Recognition, The I of We, and Freedom's Right The Social Foundations of Democratic Life and screwing me over online. Rasmussen College was using recognition critical theory on campus, it appears & announced when getting my Dean's List / Honor Role. Liz Birch belongs to the Catholic church which is close to mainline Lutheran. Robert is using Axel Honneth critical theory to destroy Jueto-Christian values as an athiest. Nobody talks on Facebook because they read Axel honneth or watch Axel Honneth on Youtube. Axel Honneth is in the ELCA. Axel Honneth is in the Catholic church. They also developed Julian Habermas safe spaces on Facebook in the 2000s and I don't belong to any safe space. That's what's really going on. They want to destroy mono culture. Most listen to the Frankfurt School, not the Republican Party. They would kill themselves before voting Republican.

Buy RARE LCMS books before LCMS defuncts

In 2017 the Lutheran church in North America will observe the Reformation by closing hundreds of its congregations and preaching stations. We love the purity of our pulpits and quiet of our sanctuaries, which grow every quieter. I am writing this because of something I saw the other day. Recently, Concordia Publishing House introduced an easy to use Outreach Kit, which some Lutheran congregations have picked up. Most congregations are taking one copy of the kit, which equips them to reach out to 50 households. What struck me yesterday was when I saw members of another conservative protestant church snap up twelve copies of the kit, intending to reach out to 600 households—shocking contrast in behavior and an indictment of our passive, Lutheran culture. Some reasons other conservative Protestants are growing while Lutherans are not can be explained as simply as follows: (1) Outreach is an on-going priority for them. They build it into their members’ thinking while Lutherans do not. (2) They plan for it and budget for it while we plan for the best sausage supper. (3) They will work with all the messy, confused, needy people who respond to the outreach. We find such people annoying. Our congregations tend to be slower or even totally negligent on these points. This is perhaps because we are a 500 year old church and they are more spry by comparison. Be we have got to address this cultural issue.

It isn't our fault our synod is decreasing.  It's Max Weber's fault. A thumbnail version goes like this. There appears to be lots more Protestant capitalists than there are Catholic ones. Also, Protestant countries tend to be more economically developed than Catholic ones - so why? Marxism would say that people's ideas are a manifestation of the economic structure they find themselves in, but Weber believes this is only partly true, although he starts off strongly opposed to Marxism, in the end he is much less certain of the limits of the role of economics in providing the base for these ideas to flourish.. All the same, he believes that there is something in Protestantism that makes Capitalism more or less inevitable and that is not present in Catholicism. Now, given the countries picked - Italy and Spain on the Catholic side, Northern Europe and England on the Protestant side, you could possibly argue that living in a country with an incredibly bad cuisine is the problem. But Weber focuses on religion. In the last chapter he says that extreme Protestant views run something like this - God has a perfect plan which he worked out at the dawn of time. There is nothing you can do to change this plan. You don't deserve to be saved - no one does (we are all contemptible sinners and it is only God's grace which saves us in any sense). You cannot know you are saved. The only way you might 'guess' is if God rewards you. So, if you work hard and gain riches you are obviously in God's favour and therefore you might also be saved. Spending money is a sin. So, Calvinism and other extreme sects encouraged people to work hard and not to spend - prerequisites for the growth of Capitalism. Now, that bit is the bit this book is mostly known for. But what I found interesting was the idea at the very end that becoming increasingly wealthy - like Silus Marner - also leads one to become increasingly obsessed with secular interests, not least in increasing ones own wealth to the point of a fetish and to become obsessed with worldly goods, rather than heavenly ones. So, while Protestantism is seen as a kind of prerequisite for the early development of Capitalism, ironically enough, Capitalism does not return the favour and works to undermine the extreme forms of this faith that assisted its own development. Protestant Ethnic and Spirit of Capitalism PDF download  

Top 50 Developers

50: Midway (Mortal Kombat, Cruis'n USA)
49: Westwood Studios (Command and Conquer, Eye of the Beholder)
48: Treasure (Guardian Heroes, Ikaruga)
47: SCE Japan Studio (ICO, Shadow of the Collosus)
46: Relic Entertainment (Company of Heroes, Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War)
45: Black Isle Studios (Fallout, Planescape)
44: SNK (King of Figthers, Metal Slug)
43: Origin Systems (Wing Commander, Ultima Online)
42: thatgamecompany (Flower, Journey)
41: PopCap Games (Bejeweled, Peggle)
40: SCE Santa Monica Studio (God of War)
39: EA Canada (SSX, Need for Speed)
38: Neversoft (Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, Gun)
37: Sonic Team (Sonic the Hedgehog, Nights Into Dreams)
36: Rare (Goldeneye, Killer Instinct, Donkey Kong Country)
35: Harmonix (Rock Band, Dance Central)
34: DICE (Battlefield, Mirror's Edge)
33: Sierra (King's Quest, Space Quest)
32: Retro Studios (Metroid Prime, Donkey Kong Country Returns)
31: Broderbund (Prince of Persia, Galatic Empire)
30: Intelligent Systems (Fire Emblem, Paper Mario)
29: Sega AM2 (Virtua Fighter, Out Run)
28: GameFreak (Pokemon)
27: Bungie (Halo, Myth)
26: Irrational Games (System Shock 2, Bioshock)
25: Infinity Ward (Call of Duty)
24: Polyphony Digital (Gran Turismo)
23: Epic Games (Unreal Tournament, Gears of War)
22: Level-5 (Dark Cloud, Ni No Kuni)
21: Namco (Ridge Racer, Pac-Man)
20: Insomniac Games (Rachet and Clank, Spyro the Dragon)
19: MicroProse (Civilization, Pirates!)
18: Enix (Dragon Quest, Actraiser, Illusion of Gaia)
17: Ubisoft Montreal (Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time)
16: Naughty Dogs (Uncharted, Jak and Daxter, Crash Bandicoot)
15: HAL Laboratory (Earthbound, Super Smash Bros., Kibry's Dream Land)
14: BioWare (Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate, KOTOR)
13: Bethesda Game Studios (Fallout 3, The Elder Scrolls IV and V)
12: Looking Glass Studios (Ultima Underworld, System Shock, Thief)
11: LucasArts (X-wing, Monkey Island, Star Wars: Dark Forces)
10: Id Software (Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein 3D)
09: Maxis (The Sims, SimCity, Spore)
08: Blizzard Entertainment (Diablo, StarCraft, WoW)
07: Valve (Half-Life, Portal, Left 4 Dead)
06: SquareSoft (Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Xenogears)
05: Atari (Asteroids, Gauntlet, Centipede)
04: Konami (Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania, Silent Hill)
03: Rockstar North (Grand Theft Auto III and IV, Red Dead Redemption)
02: Capcom (Street Fighter, Mega Man, Devil May Cry, Resident Evil)
01: Nintendo EAD (Super Mario Bros, Zelda, Metroid)

Discs and DirecTV are in demand again with US gov regulating Internet

Netflix takes up 1/3 of the total US Internet access.  Now American will support Hollywood and foreign industries by buying DVDs, Blurays, and Bluray 4k along with paying for DirecTV and Dish Network like in the early 1990s-2000s.

Yeah, actually go out and put a satellite dish on top of your house for 'cable tv' instead of relying on your cable provider for Netflix!

healthcare

The President’s Health Care Law I remain committed to controlling Washington’s reckless spending spree by rolling back the President’s fiscally irresponsible health care law. Businesses, policy experts, and government actuaries have continually confirmed what the country already knew: this law spends trillions of dollars that we don’t have, raises taxes on workers, businesses and families, and puts the federal government squarely in the middle of health-care decisions. Budgetary smoke and mirrors were used to claim this plan would reduce the deficit. The law relies on 10 years of tax increases and 10 years of Medicare cuts to pay for six years of new spending. The bill raids more than $700 billion from Medicare to fuel a new $1.9 trillion open ended entitlement and ignores the $138 billion needed to avert cuts to Medicare physicians. Even the implementation costs are hidden behind budgetary gimmicks and Washington-style accounting rules. In addition to its impact on the deficit, the health care law is damaging to job creation and economic growth. Its dizzying maze of mandates and thousands of new regulations threaten to cripple businesses both large and small. The bill also hurts workers by encouraging employers to drop coverage and dump employees into a government-controlled exchange rather than pay the increased rates associated with new mandates in the bill. With the Supreme Court ruling, 21 tax increases remain in the law, a dozen of which target Americans earning less than $200,000 per year for singles and $250,000 per year for married couples. With the national unemployment rate hovering around 8%, keeping a job-destroying, spend-and-tax policy on the books would be irresponsible and would further diminish the prospects of a robust economic recovery. I raised these concerns with the President at the 2009 Blair House Summit and again when Congress took up the bill. Since then, the Administration’s own Chief Actuary, along with a host of other independent studies, have raised many of the same concerns. But as the House stands ready to undo this damage, some are crying foul claiming that repeal will in fact raise the deficit. Only in Washington can repealing a massive new government-spending program be seen as adding to our fiscal problems. To be clear, the same budgetary gimmicks that were used to enact the health care law last year are still there. Nothing has changed. All of this belies the point that our nation’s health care system is fundamentally broken. We spend more per capita on health care than any other developed nation, yet our health outcomes are worse. Republicans and Democrats both agree that the status quo in health care is unacceptable. Congress must work diligently to improve the quality of care, lower costs, and slow the spiraling growth of programs already on the books. These are not new ideas, and I have been advocating for comprehensive patient-centered health care reform since before the health care debate began in earnest. We cannot afford to tinker around the edges of this fundamentally flawed law. Full repeal is a critical step towards true health care reform. Supreme Court Decision On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal mandate to purchase government-approved health insurance imposes a tax on the American people. Despite the disappointing decision on the law’s constitutionality, there is no question that the law remains terrible policy. I remain committed to advancing reforms that realign incentives so that individuals and their doctors – not government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats – are the nucleus of our health care system. This requires reforms to equalize the tax treatment of health insurance, invite true choice and competition, and ensure critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid can deliver on their promise in the 21st century. The Fiscal Year 2013 Budget, The Path to Prosperity Our government has a spending problem—a problem so large that it is driving up our debt, hurting our nation’s ability to create jobs, and threatening our future. In the past, Washington has not been truthful about the magnitude of these problems facing our country, but we can no longer afford to put off an honest, fact-based conversation on how to solve them. Unless we act soon, government spending on health and retirement programs will crowd out spending on all other government programs, including national security, and, eventually, will consume every cent of every federal tax dollar. No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health care law has created a tremendous fiscal burden, and a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses. The House-passed budget repeals the President’s disastrous new health care law and protects the health and retirement security of those who need it. With the creation of Medicare in 1965, the United States made a commitment to help fund the medical care of elderly Americans to ensure that a serious illness would not exhaust their life savings or the assets and incomes of their working children and younger relatives. Medicare’s structural imbalance threatens beneficiaries’ access to quality, affordable care. Flaws in the structure of the program are driving up health care costs, which are, in turn, threatening to bankrupt the system – and ultimately the nation. Unless Congress fixes what’s broken in Medicare, without breaking what’s working, the program will end up causing exactly what it was created to avoid – millions of American seniors without adequate health security and a younger working generation saddled with enormous debts to pay for spending levels that cannot be sustained. It is morally unconscionable for elected leaders to cling to an unsustainable status quo with respect to America’s health and retirement security programs. Current seniors and future generations deserve better than empty promises and a diminished country. Current retirees deserve the benefits around which they organized their lives. Future generations deserve health and retirement security they can count on. By making gradual structural improvements, Congress can preserve America’s social contract with retired workers. Recognizing the problems facing Medicare, the House Budget Proposal: Strengthens health and retirement security by taking power away from government bureaucrats and empowering patients with control over their care. Repeals the new health care law’s unaccountable board of bureaucrats empowered to cut Medicare in ways that would jeopardize seniors’ access to care. Saves Medicare for current and future generations, with no disruptions for those in and near retirement. For younger workers, when they become eligible, Medicare will provide a premium-support payment and a list of guaranteed coverage options – including a traditional fee-for-service option – from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs. Program growth would be determined by a competitive-bidding process – with choice and competition forcing providers to reduce costs and improve quality for seniors. Premium support, competitive bidding, and more assistance for those with lower incomes or greater health care needs will ensure guaranteed affordability for all seniors. Allowing the federal government to break its promises to current seniors and to future generations is unacceptable. The reforms outlined in the budget passed by the House protect and preserve Medicare for those in and near retirement, while saving and strengthening this critical program so that future generations can count on it to be there when they retire. Reforming Medicaid in the Path to Prosperity The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal spending on Medicaid, a program which provides medical care for the poor, will grow from $265 billion in 2013 to $536 billion by 2022. Should this problem continue to be ignored, Medicaid will continue to overwhelm state and federal budgets and fail the vulnerable people who need it most. Specifically, the Path to Prosperity: Secures the Medicaid benefit by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant tailored to meet each state’s needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. This reform ends the misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has tied the hands of so many state governments. States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, they will have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations. Improves the health-care safety net for low-income Americans by giving states the ability to offer their Medicaid populations more options and better access to care. Medicaid recipients, like all Americans, deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health care decisions, instead of having Washington dictate those decisions for them. Saves $810 billion over ten years, contributing to the long-term stabilization of the federal government’s fiscal path and encouraging fiscal responsibility at the state level. All Americans will pay more because of this broken Medicaid system – and not just in higher taxes. Because Medicaid’s reimbursement rates have been ratcheted down to below-market levels, the care that Medicaid patients receive is often substandard. Offering states more flexibility for their Medicaid beneficiaries will remove the stigma Medicaid recipients face, and allow them to take advantage of a range of options available. Several of the nation’s governors have made innovative proposals to fix Medicaid. This budget encourages further efforts in this direction.