Tenure-track professors typically have a time limit to prove their worthiness of tenure. At the end of that limit, they apply for tenure and either get accepted or practically fired. One way to prove your value is by publishing in "high-impact" journals. There are all sorts of methods to measure the impact of a journal objectively, such as how often its articles are cited in other articles whose impact scores are also measured. These professors that are in serious debt and have spent their entire lives aiming for this position are practically prisoners trying to get out of the whole they inadvertently dug themselves into. A lot of publications are by those professors, so they are aiming for the highest possible impact scores.
Another group is made up of highly acclaimed professors. They all know each other personally and sit on the editorial boards of those high impact journals. Before they officially submit an article, they send it to their colleague that's on the board or knows someone on the board for review, make revisions, then submit for publication. This likely leads to a bias I like to call "a hook up". These professors practically own the journal, so they have no reason to start a new one.
The rest of the professors (mid-level tenured professors) would be the ones likely to create a new journal that isn't privately owned by a publishing company. Being mid-level and tenured, their only drive to excel is their personal desire to improve the field, so they're not as driven by necessity as the tenure-track or personal drive to excel as the highly acclaimed professors. So the reason it doesn't happen is the ones that would make it happened are over-shadowed by the ones that promote the currently established ones.
I think for a new one to come out, we'd need a schism among high-level professors or some major systemic change in academia that impacts the drive for publication.
He was literally crucified. It's the main symbol of the religion. The whole point of Jesus was to be tortured to death. That's the whole fucking point. It's why we can be forgiven without a deadly sacrifice. WTF is she talking about???
I've been there with the disillusionment. It felt like everything I had heard about the US was complete bs. I was really upset with the education I had received and started learning a lot about other countries that had been villainized in American culture because I had felt lied to and wondered what the truth was. I think it is valid to do so when we realize that. I also think that criticizing our government is one of most important duties of every American. It's one of the founding principles. In fact, whenever I am in Washington DC, I make sure to go flick off the the Capitol. I even take pictures.
However, I think it's disingenuous and unhelpful to only criticize the US, both government and people. The US has done helpful things, regardless of supposed intention. The impact of policies and behaviors are the same. Additionally, something that is only criticized ultimately has no option but to not care about its impact on other and be solely selfish. Otherwise, I can only cease existing because there's no option to improve and be welcomed. Personally, I think a more helpful approach to concerns with the US would be to also celebrate what it does right. This allows for it to correct itself and aim to be a more just and enjoyable country. It also allows for unity and growth with Western countries at a time when it looks the world is headed for a war between major powers. Hate the US all you want, while Russia has its positive as most countries do, it is my opinion that it is magnitudes worse of a county to live in many areas of life, from government oppression to economic hardships. On the positive side, it does seem to have an interesting history, unique problem-solving approaches, strong patriotism, valuable contributions to science, and outstanding artistic capacity.
Oof, get ready for the backlash. I think that in summary, what you're going to receive is anger about the belief that a group of people based on ethnicity/nationality can expel or eradicate another group from their lands because the initial group supposedly used to live there millennia ago and experienced a recent genocide attempt elsewhere. From the perspective of an outsider, it seems like one group of people (i.e. Jewish) believe they can and have the mandate to genocide another group that had nothing to do with the genocide to avoid their own genocide that is no longer a threat. Imagine if Native Americans started genociding European Americans rn, particularly bombing schools and hospitals. That's what it would look like, except the Native Americans were here for millennia, were dominant much more recently depending on the specific location, and suffered a much much more extensive genocide over centuries.
Basically, the universal moral code that is being violated is that no one no matter what has the right to genocide anyone. There is no exception to that rule. Not culture, ethnicity, religion, or even genocide. In fact, it seems hypocritical to commit the genocide of a group of people that had absolutely nothing to do with the initial genocide while claiming that genocide is horrible. It's like saying, "John killed my child, so I get to kill Jenny's child." What?? No, you don't get to kill anyone.
That's because the whole thing is about geopolitics. Israel is practically a US military base. The Arabic countries are aligned more with Russia and China. This is why Biden didn't stop Israel and instead gave them more weapons. It was a show of force to neighboring Arabic countries while weakening their positions. While of course getting the ceasefire going is great for humanity, it's also good for Putin.
Disclaimer: I'm a conspiracy theorist that doesn't know anything about politics, so stop listening to me.
United States of Gulf & Mexico America