You obviously have a core misunderstanding about how heterosexual males relate to women of beauty.

There are many versions of Moon River, most of them good. I'm happy to point out the Patty Griffin version in particular.

I don't know. There are good and bad things to say about any period. Perhaps the question should rather be about significance. What event or period is most important for where we are today? (for good or ill)

So, when do we start bombing Russia?

I go through this debate every election cycle, and always end up giving in and voting. Mostly, because I live in a contested state and convince myself of the lesser of evils principle. I usually regret it afterwards, when nothing changes.

The party hacks first dupe conservatives into voting for them by lying, and when conservatives stop believing the lies, they rely on conservatives voting simply to oppose the alternative. They take advantage of conservatives while doing the bare minimum to actually earn their support. If conservatives want to stop this charade, they need to stop playing the game, it seems.  Agitating has done little.

That's the one thing I tell people about grad school in the humanities and social sciences. Don't pursue it unless you get it paid for by someone else. It's five years of hard work and economic hardship for likely very little return. Starting over is less bitter without a pile of debt.

Likewise, I think we forget how much of unifying factor it was. The one thing all legs of the conservative stool unequivocally agreed upon was a mutual loathing of communism.

I broached this question to my (mostly) Freshman US history classes this semester. I asked how many of them had a good general idea about what happened in WWII before entering the class, and just about all of them raised their hands. I asked the same about the Cold War and only got a couple.  It's amazing how quickly and prevalently the Cold War has fallen from public memory.

I asked my students why: Some thought the Cold War lasted too long, with the major events spread out and much of it was behind the scenes. Some felt the major events, particularly the wars, are more often identified on independent terms. Popular literature, film, etc.. is of course is much more prevalent on WWII than the CW. A couple fessed up and said that they felt the CW was just not as exciting.

None mentioned the possibility that many people think the CW was wrong or overblown (which I think is a major factor). Although, the main reason, I think, is that our education system stinks and does not teach it effectively.

Why is it that when liberal interventionists whip out the Korea example, they always leave out the part where the US went beyond the initial goal of saving the South Koreans and turned a 3 month conflict into a 3 year conflict, and hot war against China that ended up costing quite a bit of blood and treasure, only to see the situation in Korea remain precisely where it would have been had the US stopped at the 38th parallel?

The Korean war might be a nice, conveninent example of American generosity, but it's also a prime example of extreme foreign policy imprudence.

Yes, I agree. It was mostly the latter that I was referring to. Although, it still amazes me how often people get hired because they attended the same Alma mater as the person doing the hiring; even on the regional level.

Regrettably, the elite privilege linked to attending one of the Ivies does not seem all that much less among conservative institutions. It most certainly does not among Republican Party institutions.

My recommendation will do you no good for your immediate need. That said, whenever you have time, I highly recommend you read Hans Morgenthau's Scientific Man vs Power Politics.

This argument doesn't really work for the war in Asia. America wasn't even really "isolationist" in the interwar years. It was non-interventionist in regards to European power politics.

Was the US holding a colony in the Philippines isolationist? Was the Stimson Doctrine isolationist? Was the fortification of Pearl Harbor before the attack isolationist? Was the American embargo against Japan isolationist?

The Japanese attacked America because it was a threat to their imperial designs in Asia--because America was in a relative position of strength there. Should the US have gone to war to defend China in 1937?

Nevertheless, I agree with you in that we need to be prudent in our foreign policy, not simply give it up entirely.

This approach seems to me just part of the continued effort to devolve university undergraduate education into extended  high school.

This is very common of middle age British actors, most of whom can act but more often get typecast into what I call the "Shakespearean gravitas" role. They each have their own version of it. A couple of you already mentioned Michael Caine, and Sean Connery, but you can include actors such as Patrick Stewart, Sean Bean, Christopher Lee, Liam Neeson (not british, but same idea), just off the top of my head.

Need Shakespearean gravitas in your comic book or fantasy film? Sign one of these guys up!

This is precisely the case with students at my campus. The only thing harder than getting them to debate in class  is getting them to read.