Outis

El conflicto actual entre los cómodos y los que luchan por una sociedad justa, entre los que usan el fantasma del matrimonio homosexual para conservar el poder de los patriarcas y los que entienden que la cultura gay solamente amenaza el mito del macho omnipotente, se desarolla en una manera más y más explícita e irónica cada día:

“El obispo de Tortosa despide a un profesor de Religión por pedir 84 días de baja por maternidad.“

Santa María. Que estáis solamente en el cielo.

La propuesta homosexual—la igualdad entre el hombre y la mujer—está a punto de derrotar al patriarcado en el “tribunal de la cultura popular,” el de los jóvenes, el del futuro.

De ahí surge esta última hola de rencor y de miedo: el rencor de ellos que ven, plenamente, que el mito de la correspondencia natural entre el género masculino y el sexo macho, entre el sexo macho y el rol activo, entre el pater familias y la familia, ya no tendrá el respaldo del estado; el miedo de los que temen el cambio a pesar de que la justicia no se regala y la búsqueda de la verdad (es decir, el actuar con razón) siempre incomoda.

Like my friend who lives in France, I have had many difficulties adjusting to the culture of commerce here in Spain, specifically, and in Europe, generally.

In particular, shopping for electronic goods can be downright frustrating if not, at times, simply impossible.

Online shopping within the EU in 2005 is not unlike online shopping in the U.S. circa 1995. Not only are many of the barriers to improving this horrendous status quo quite significant—credit card companies do not offer fraud insurance to their clients, bank transfers are often the only way to pay for online purchases, though these can take days to complete—this woeful state of affairs serves as a negative feedback cycle.

Few people are interested in shopping online because online shopping often sucks; online shopping often sucks because few people are interested in shopping online.

Apart from a general lack of competition among vendors and a pervasive lack of choice between products (and prices), there are cultural reasons for this relative inferiority.

First, U.S. firms place a far greater emphasis on customer service than many of their European counterparts. “The customer is always right,” in the U.S. That is not always the case here in Spain.

Moreover, this attitude is not restricted to, nor does it spring from, actual store employees. Rather, it’s a principle woven into the institutional practices—the protocols and procedures—of far too many vendors. (If you speak Spanish, this story is a must-read.)

Second, U.S. firms have a much longer tradition of selling “at-a-distance.” Modern mail-older shopping goes back nearly 150 years in the U.S., giving American firms like Sears (or LL Bean or Sweetwater) an enormous advantage when it comes the know-how of managing a virtual shopping experience.

During the 20th century, these differences were hardly felt at all by most middle class European consumers. But the Internet has lifted that veil.

Today’s Europeans might find out about a product from the same web site (or blog) as their U.S. counterparts. The frustration the former will surely encounter upon attempting to buy same product in the EU cannot be staved off forever.

Right now, we live in a world where the Internet makes it possible for us to see everywhere but only touch (i.e., purchase) things within specific regions.

That is already changing, as is evinced by two different yet related links below:

· Private import costs so high! (Japan)

· Buy-Proxy.com (Euro-U.S. zone)

A brief history of modern mail-order in the U.S.:

· The World’s First Mail-Order Business, Illinois Periodicals Online

· Mail-Order Houses, Houghton Mifflin

I love my family. But I also recognize that my family is like no other. Moreover, I also understand that the entity called “family” has changed radically over the last 10,000 years.

Only those who wish to ignore history would claim that “the” family (or marriage, for that matter) is natural and ahistorical.

On the contrary, the construct of family and the institution of marriage have evolved. In fact, both of these inventions have improved.

As an example, I offer this tiny excerpt from “The Feudal Mutation: Military and Economic Transformations of the Ethnosphere in the Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries”

Familia should not be seen here in the sense of the extended household—that is, only the noble or his knightly house—but in a much larger sense: familia included the knightly households, who had taken the oath, its cadets, and its dependent peasants. Regarding the peasants, familia referred to what in the German literature is called the “Schutz und Schirm“: the right to retain and to exercise rights on a bundle of claims of the house on jurisdiction, hence on the land revenues and the labour of peasants on these plots. The lords essentially took upon themselves the obligation to protect the peasants from feuding and unrest, whereas the peasants swore themselves to their lords.

Those of us who wish to further improve upon the notion of “family” and its social implications (legal, political, economic) would do well to study history.

Nothing stops so-called traditionalists faster than an actual citation of history.

Contexto: Después del Papa, agua mineral

Contexto: madrid 2012 vs. madrid 1220