Answer: Albeit the Founding Fathers never planned it to be like this, partisanship and a two party framework are critical pieces of US legislative issues since they take into consideration "groups to be shaped"- - groups that can more readily get across specific thoughts and party stages to general society.
Since there are just two significant gatherings, US residents feel that they just host a decision between one get-together or the other.
Since there are just two significant gatherings, the gatherings will in general differ enormously on many issues, taking possibly one outrageous side of the contention or the other.
On occasion, there have been endeavors to make a suitable outsider, yet these gatherings infrequently have sufficient help to be on an equivalent balance with the two fundamental gatherings.
Food rations in the military were delivered to Union soldiers by volunteers in the United States Sanitary Commission. The purpose of the commission was to ensure that <span>Civil War soldiers </span>were fed healthy and nutritional meals to prevent malnutrition and food poisoning.
An African-American army cook in City Point, VA
Since the focus was on health and nutrition, not culinary delight, and there were around 2 million soldiers to feed, the food tended to be bland, basic and simple. Each soldier’s daily rations included:
1. Three-quarters of a pound of pork or bacon, or one and one-quarter pound of fresh or salt pork
2. Eighteen ounces of flour or bread or 12 ounces of hardtack
3. One and one-quarter pound of cornmeal
Hardtack, also known as “army bread,” was type of hard, dry biscuit that soldiers had to soak in water and fry in grease or pork fat in order to eat.
Each unit was also given a food ration in addition to each soldier’s individual ration. A 100 man company was given:
1. Eight quarts of peas or beans, or 10 pounds of rice
2. Six to 10 pounds of coffee or one and one-half pounds of tea
3. Twelve to 15 pounds of sugar
4. Two quarts of salt
Vegetables, dried fruits, pickles and pickled cabbage were sometimes issued to prevent scurvy but only in small quantities. Other foods soldiers occasionally ate included baked beans, hardtack pudding, ashcakes and milk toast.
When weather or nearby fighting interrupted food deliveries, soldiers often had to forage for food. In extreme cases, such as during the Battle of Vicksburg, the soldiers had to eat rats, cats, bullfrogs and dogs, according to the book The Civil War Book of Lists.
The Confederate army provided its soldiers with the same rations as Union soldiers but food shortages in the south, caused by blockades of southern harbors, often made many of the ingredients hard to come by which forced many of the soldiers to hunt or forage for food.
As a result, boiled peanuts, which were an abundant crop in the south, became a staple of the Confederate army’s diet.
Answer:
Torture in the Medieval Inquisition began in 1252 with a papal bull Ad Extirpanda and ended in 1816 when another papal bull forbade its use. Although the torture that was sanctioned by the bull was less severe than the torture that could be found in contemporary secular courts.
A friend of mine just asked me about this, so I have lots of thoughts about it. This may be deeper than you need, but here goes: My initial feelings about culture lead me to think of simply a “way of life” but if I think about it just a bit more, I notice that the word “way” connects to the idea of a path or perhaps even a journey – as in “let’s go this way” or “you go your way, and I’ll go mine.” Of course there is a collective nature to culture, so culture is like a collective journey or shared path. But I also get a feeling of boats on a river. Each boat has a certain level of individual freedom, but collectively they are all floating down the same river, so there is a sort of shared movement and common history despite whatever individual movements or relationships there might be among or between the individual boats. And of course rivers have branches, so some boats follow one branch while other boats follow other branches, so shared histories diverge and thus different cultures have very different characteristics.
Getting a bit more philosophical/esoteric, I also get an image of the individuals in a culture existing like cells in body. Different cells belong to different bodies, but each body defines the context – the role, function , or “meaning” – of the individual cells. The “essence” of a brain cell is different than the essence of a liver cell, and these differences in essence are correlated with their different roles – but these roles, in turn, spring from their function in the overall body – and this is what culture does; it is the larger “body” or context that defines a great deal of our essence as conscious individuals. Just as there is a degree of literal truth in the old saying “You are what you eat,” I sense a degree of literal truth in the idea that we are, to a significant degree, constituted by the culture in which we live. Our bodies are constituted by the materials we ingest, and our minds are constituted by the “psychical material” that we ingest, and the contextual meaning of this “mental food” comes from or culture. I want to emphasize the word ‘constituted’ because it is a lot stronger than just saying “influenced by” – it gets at the idea that our culture becomes part of our actual, deep, essence.
As for examples from my own life…well…since I am a philosopher, a great deal of my life IS thinking about stuff like this, so in a way, I have been speaking from my own life this whole time. For various reasons stemming from my interest in philosophy of mind, I do not believe that there are any such things as isolated (or isolatable) conscious individuals. A major part of the essence of a conscious individual is the context which provides the systems of meaning-relations that constitute the very nature of consciousness. Consciousness, I believe, is culturally constituted. Without culture there is no consciousness, and without consciousness, there are no selves, no egos. Without my consciousness there is no “me” as the individual that I am. But I know you are asking for something more personal, so let’s see…here is one concrete example: I was raised in a culture that values monogamy and devalues alternative lifestyles. For various reasons I have protested against this cultural mainstream. To borrow from my boats/river metaphor, you might say that my wife and I have spent a lot of time “swimming up stream” on this issue. Part of our role in life – one of the labels defining who we are as individuals is our membership in “alternative lifestyles”. But notice that this definition of who we are – this aspect of our identity – only has meaning in the context of a culture that values monogamy. Even tho we don’t flow with the majority, our lives are still to some extent defined by the flow of the majority – the overall flow of the culture that gives our status as “protesters” the very meaning that it has. We are who we are because of the culture, even when we don’t flow with the culture. It is part of our very essence as individuals, and we cannot abandon this essence no matter how hard we try (or at least we can’t abandon it without losing our selves in the process).
Source(s):
Sorry if I’ve rambled a bit. I’ve taken classes on hermanutics, semotics, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc. I don't consciously remember much of anything from these classes (I just don’t have a memory for details), but I guess I must be learning something along the way, cuz me can sure talk big words ;-) I guess you could say that the verbal diarrhea you are now experiencing is another example from my personal life. It is who I am. I am the crazy dude who spouts nonsense all over the place – the one you’d probably be embarrassed to bring home to meet your mom.
