I know this is a positive thing (it really is!) but to me it just serves as a reminder that employer-provided health coverage is a fucking weird system.

Maybe it will be more all the secrecy Tony is against, like we saw in Avengers, maybe his argument will be that the people of the world deserves to know what sort of shit is going down,

Of course not, and it would be presumptuous of me to even try given that I'm neither black nor American. But that doesn't mean there aren't other (valid) ways of looking at something and one of those is from the viewpoint that history - even the awful parts - needs to be preserved.

there are still aren't enough super powered people to give that storyline any sort of weight

This. I don't need Iron Man co-starring in my Captain America movie. They're called stand alone films for a reason. There's such an unresolved story with Cap and Bucky (and Sam too). I'd rather have that story by 1000% than have to watch RDJ smarm at me, sorry.

Seriously, do any of the existing MCU superheroes have secret identities? No.

Stark's screw up with Ultron is going to threaten the entire world and this time the Avengers don't have SHIELD to cover for them.

For one thing, there aren't enough superheroes in the MCU to justify it, let alone enough with secret identities. Seriously, do any of the existing MCU superheroes have secret identities? No.

Civil War, like most Marvel crossover events, started strong but ended stupidly. That said, there aren't enough heroes in the Marvel universe to justify Tony even making an order for everyone to reveal their identities and sign up with the US government. I cannot even fathom RDJ as Iron Man doing that after his own…

We've already kind of dealt with that with the first Avengers film. And the Winter Soldier. And we got the superhero vs. superhero thing in the Avengers.

It's very possible that they'll focus more on the "agree to act as a police force for the authorities" more than the whole "reveal your identity" thing.

This makes NO SENSE.

It's a historical artefact. Lots of museums and private collections include similar objects, the interest in owning such a piece doesn't necessarily mean the person supports slavery or wants to go back to it. It could be some history buff who collects all kinds of objects from that period - including objects related…

The only thing I would say to this is that many, many southerners of the time did not own slaves. They couldn't afford them. Like today, there was a huge gap between the wealthy and the poor. With a tiny minority of really wealthy people, a small middle class, and a ton of poor people. Arguably a woman could be a…

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the anti-vaxxers, but as with any large group of 'special interest' people, it's a group of people who share a similar core belief or at least concern - not a hive mind of people who all believe the exact same thing - especially not all the related bits and pieces.

So.... in the name…

You can't say that here. Go to Gawker for facts /wit /humiliation. Jezebel gang-piles anyone who is beautiful and white, or dares to point out and discuss actual facts.

I'm referring to the 2/3rds of the population that weren't slave owners, merchants, lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. There weren't really that many plantation owners.

The Hot Zone isn't universally loved among the doctors and epidemiologists I've spoken with. But yes, interviewing Robin Cook is about on par with them interviewing Tom Clancy the morning of 9/11/2001. They're decent authors, but there's a hell of a lot of people with more authority on their given subjects who could…

Also, the phrase "antebellum" clearly serves to distinguish the period before (ante) the war (bellum) and the period after the war. Did things change a ton for the non-slave owning white people of the south after the war, in any way that is not related to the abolition of slavery? This is a genuine question.

To be fair to Jason, 2/3's of southern families did not own any slaves. I'm sure they were complicit in the system, but I also agree that it is a stretch to directly link all women of the time period, even women of status, to slave owners.