They can't because the world one learns about in law school, where courts are impartial arbiters of justice and where any tort deserves compensation, doesn't exist. We live in a world where Bush/Cheney's lawyers wrote the flimsiest of legal justifications for torturing prisoners and got away with it not because of their justifications but because of who they are.
Hey, I hate to interrupt your party-mandated two minutes of hate, but have you noticed what Obama's been up to lately? If you're whining about things more than half a decade in the past, I don't think you've been keeping up with current affairs- at least not in any intellectually honest fashion.
Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.
Not that having the elections matter about implementation. Obama isn't going to let a veto go through, and even if the Senate flips, there's going to be no way that there's enough votes to override a veto. Obamacare is here, get used to it.
I'm not so sure about that. The policymakers knew upfront the ruinous act would cost them elections, so they put off the effects two years. Now they still don't want to do the damage they knew the bill would cause, because they care about this election's results as well.
So as long as the elections are contested, they might keep putting off full implementation of Obamacare, rather than pay the price at the polls.
They like their seats more than they want full implementation of the Affordable (snicker) Care Act. This happens to align with the interests of the nation.
Where do you live that people react this way? I've honestly never seen this sort of personal-level trash talk about nice stuff. (I live in New England)
I've very occasionally heard people bitching about the luxury yachts of the ultra-rich, but I've never heard person to person criticism about having nice things.
He might want to play along (without ever making a false statement), and start saying things like "Adecco should pay this guy off; this is starting to become a problem."
BUT, these god-for-saken neo-cons need to be stopped.
It's not neocons telling NASA that their primary mission is to reach out to Muslims- instead of, say, completing projects related to Air & Space.
But then again, your tribe (that is to say, Leftists) needs to have folks out here on the internet screaming about 'Neocons' to distract from a president who is expanding on Bush-era policies most hated by the left. Your tribe needs to try to divert attention away from the endless stream of scandals that show the administration to be both malicious (the IRS) and incompetent & mendacious (Benghazi).
This is all we use in Canada for every election at every level. It works fine. You have 100% paper trail, electronic tallying speed, no "hanging chaff" nonsense. It's a tried and true technology that has been around for decades and decades and decades. I don't know why the US goofs around with these other systems, other then PORK PORK PORK PORK PORK
New Hampshire and a number of other states use the bubble sheets, for the reasons you state. Try to focus your smug, superior attitude on the State of New York.
What you're describing is fascism, not progressivism. Ever since Reagan, the USA has been going balls-out towards fascism. Lots of people would say that we're already there. Us progressives want to create a society that cares about its people instead of just the very rich and where it's possible for everyone to achieve a decent standard of living regardless of where they start at on the socioeconomic ladder.
You must mean the new sense of 'fascism', which is "things I don't like." Clearly you can't mean it in the traditional sense, because you'd know that 'brave dissidents' such as yourself would have been hauled off to concentration camps or simply executed in a truly fascist regime.
You must also mean the new sense of 'progressive', which means not an advocate of progress, but someone trying to implement ideas that have brought much of Europe to it's knees. (Real fascists did that by spilling blood.) The 'progressives' there have run out of other people's money to hand out that decent standard of living you're so keen on.
Really, it must be fun to re-assign words like fascist and progress to suit your political agenda, and be largely unchallenged on your mauling of the language.
But hey, I could be wrong. That next knock on the door could be the Neo-SS come to haul you off to a concentration camp for daring to criticize those in power. Good luck in there.
Whoa, slow down there: profiling is not persecution. That's all I'm saying. And this seems almost certainly to be profiling.
Nearly all conservatives I know approve of paying special attention to people with Muslim backgrounds when trying to root out terrorists. That doesn't seem to be considered as persecution, that's considered profiling too.
This just happens to be a case where conservatives are probably being profiled. And I say, good for the goose then good for the gander.
So, I assume you've got a list of actual tax dodging right wing political advocacy groups to back up your profiling comparison to Muslim radicals with a very real body count.
No?
Because a quick search (starting with Former Head Tax Collector & Tax dodger Timothy Geitner) will yield plenty of tax delinquents in, or on good terms with, the current administration.
The people you're trying to 'profile' still believe in the rule of law, even if the current law sucks. The people you defend don't; they believe in exercising power for the benefit of their team. Your comparison cannot be substantiated. Your defense is rationalization for your tribe, nothing more.
I welcome your actual proof to the contrary; that is, examples of tax dodging by the sort of groups in question that would justify profiling.
This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense. If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes? Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?
Yeah, those tax-evading tea partiers like Timothy Geitner and a good portion of the white house staff.
It's about power, and exercising power to the detriment of your enemies and the benefit of your friends. The Rule of Law is not the point. It's Chicago style politics writ large.
There will always be people, like you, who will rationalize and defend the behavior as a method of servicing their ideological tribesmen. In generating excuses and furthering the degrade of the rule of law, you are a retrograde, who pushes humanity towards baser tribal behavior, and away from enlightenment values.
But f*ck it, they're on your team, so it's all good, right?
...does being smart lead to a more stressful life? Realizing how much you still don't understand
Thus one learns the need to delegate tasks, respect folks in their field of expertise (though perhaps not further), and do your own research when you have a need for specific knowledge on something.It strikes me as a rather adult thing to learn and accept your limitations, and how to accomplish what needs doing despite your limited capacity and knowledge.
, grasping the bad state of some things in world,
Here one should learn history to gain some perspective. Currently, I'm reading a biography of Winston Churchill, and I find myself astounded at how duplicitous, weak, and downright willfully ignorant Chamberlain's government was in the run up to World War 2. I think little of our current political leaders; it's heartening to know the free world has lived through worse. This, of course, applies to any human field one might become despondent about.
feeling the general existential pain and philosophizing things, and so on.
You're here. If you're not gonna put that pistol in your mouth and pull the trigger, you might as well do something with your time here. Get moving.
In any standardized intelligence test, I always scored north of the 95% percentile. In my travels, I've learned that intelligence alone accounts for little- your attitudes, habits, moral standards, and fortitude count tremendously, and your intellect might be best applied to improving your character in those other fields.
You, I think, have reinforced that point. You're smart. So what?
Take that as a challenge, not a sarcastic dismissal, and you'll do better.
And this is why people oppose nuclear power. It's harder to screw things up at such level with renewables. The simpsons greedy bastard running a nuke plant isn't a fiction. It's a damned archetype.
First, you're conflating weapons production (The Hanford mess) with electrical power generation. I imagine that's purposeful on your part, because you wouldn't have as much to talk about if you focused on electrical power production.
Now, I'd like to point out that this mess was created when the science involved was new, and there were a million unknown factors about the entire nuclear business- weapons and power production- that were completely unknown at the time. The science and processes became known through the work folks today degrade as 'nutty' and 'screw ups', though if we hadn't done that work, we wouldn't know anything. The discovery of new knowledge can be a messy business, but the acquisition of that knowledge allows us to be more sensible later on. You don't know what you don't know.
Further, the worst and greatest volume of the waste comes from plutonium production, not the refinement of uranium, which is what electricity-producing nuclear reactors use.
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
"Our public universities don't have a profit motive"
You don't follow college sports, do you?
I don't, but I'm under the impression that major sports programs often bring in surplus funds to the university, such that they wouldn't have an adverse affect on tuition rates.
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
Our public universities don't have a profit motive, but they're the worst offenders. They consume all the resources they can- state subsidies aren't used to lower tuition, but hire more administration, build fancy new facilities (that don't add to the instructional value.), or just have fun with the college kids at taxpayer's expense.
If they're getting state money, is there some particular reason why the state can't simply order them to lower tuition, or better yet remove it completely?
There isn't, hence the need to revamp the whole system. Texas is moving towards the $10,000 bachelors degree on this basis.
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
This is why Education should be funded by The People. If we took the profit motive out of education we wouldn't have to worry about the "administration" making several times what the instructors do for not even teaching.
Our public universities don't have a profit motive, but they're the worst offenders. They consume all the resources they can- state subsidies aren't used to lower tuition, but hire more administration, build fancy new facilities (that don't add to the instructional value.), or just have fun with the college kids at taxpayer's expense.
You essentially propose throwing more taxpayer money at the problem, but that hasn't helped the student so far, why would it now? The entire system- public universities especially- needs to be revamped.
Somethin' like a government body. And that'd be socialism (cue dramatic music).
The more powerful the regulators become, the more it is in the interest of those regulated to control or influence the regulators.
The incumbent regulated then use the regulators they influence or control to exclude competitors, fatten their profit margins, or extract subsidies.
Obviously some regulation and the accompanying trade offs are necessary for a well-functioning society, but the abuse I just described happens every single day in the United States.
I find it appalling that you wish to expand the corrupt system.
You say that like it's not feasible, from a religious perspective, that the concepts behind the Star Wars universe were divine inspiration bestowed upon mankind by some supernatural Force. That is, after all, no different to the root source of religious "knowledge" quoted by most (if not all) religions. The only difference is that other religions generally started with oral traditions and writing books, rather than going straight to cinema.
The Judeo-Christian tradition has shaped, and been shaped by, successful societies for two to six millennial. The Jedi religion is 'practiced' and supported by smarmists who, enamored with their cleverness in making superficial comparisons (as you have just done) are completely ignorant of what they've gained from the traditions they mock. It's easy and juvenile to mock religions as superstition and a cynical method of controlling the masses. I know because I've done it myself.
In time I've gained a bit of a better perspective on the matter by comparing our history (the Christian-based west) with the real alternatives out there.
One can imagine a utopia of enlightened atheists who practice pure rationality in all things regarding humanity. One cannot show this in practice or in history as any sort of enduring force for good. And no, the last 50 years of declining belief in western countries doesn't count as 'enduring' in the historical sense, especially as the demographic trend of newly secular western societies begins to circle the drain. Perhaps the next few hundred years will show the atheist's utopia is possible. Until then, conceit is unwarranted.
There are more sadistic SWAT teams that go by the motto 'Always shoot the dog' simply because they can get away with it. Wouldn't it be great if we could staff SWAT teams solely with officers who would never volunteer for it? We'd have a higher chance of getting officers who will do their duty, and a lower chance of getting sadistic assholes who want to play soldier-at-war in the homes of our fellow citizens.
To be fair, Michael Moore's shenanigans are juvenile and transparent. Noam Chomsky- let's just say there's a reason his fan base is perpetually 23 years old.
I'm not familiar with the work of Goodman and Greenwald.
Conservatives don't value freedom. During the Bush administration, we lost a ton of freedom, especially during the period where the GOP controlled everything. The only thing that temporarily arrested the slide was that Bush managed to piss off SCOTUS enough that they started to say no.
Conservatives value certain freedoms like the 2nd amendment, but are pretty hostile towards the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.
And how's Obama doing with all that stuff? Seems to me he's continued all of Bush's most hated policies.
Anything that can be bartered for a fiver isn't special, and wishing it so isn't going to change a damned thing.
Treating it as special, however, is one of the many things that separates us from the animals, and allows societies to advance beyond the primitive.
Much of that 'Holier than thou' stuff you dismiss outright serves an actual purpose, a purpose I don't expect to explain sufficiently in a slashdot comment. I only suggest that perhaps some reflection on the development of civilizations is in order; if you can get past your adolescent reflexive hatred of your forebears.
If you look at the great evils in the world today you can pretty much name them the USA, China, and Russia.
Yet Assange keeps his mouth shut about Russia- either because he doesn't care, or he knows the Russians won't hesitate to kill him if he tries this crap with them. Not so sure about the Chinese- but criticizing and screwing with America is pretty safe these days, which kind of makes the 'great evil' point of view rather silly.
In other news, global power politics don't really mesh with some folks kum-by-ya campfire song mentality. As President Obama has discovered, it's extraordinarily easy to criticize from the outside, but when you're the one with the responsibility, suddenly your predecessor's 'evil' ways start to make a lot more sense.
You would think that if all politicians cared about was their own greed, they'd be far better off than they are now no?
Why don't you check the delta on personal wealth before and after folks go into office and get back to me. It's worth checking out what kind of gigs they land after their elected official years, and what kind of favors they did for those very same companies whilst they held office.
Direct bribes are illegal. Trading on insider information is NOT illegal for legislators. Landing sinecures at companies that benefited from your legislation isn't illegal either. Employing the family members of legislators in comfy jobs is also perfectly legal.
Putting food stocks in our gas tanks raises the price of those food stocks for everyone. This hits the poor the hardest, of course. Yes, we can grow plenty. Yes, distribution is often a problem. The fact is there's still a consequence, and that consequence is price. You putting corn in your gas tank means the food budget for folks living on a few bucks a day goes up.
Developing countries imported 280 million tons of corn between 2006 and 2011, and spent $6.6 billion more than they otherwise would have because of the U.S. biofuels mandate. Mexico assumed the greatest burden of any countryâ"$1.1 billion more than it otherwise would have, driving up domestic costs for corn and corn products, Wise writes. The cost of tortillas, for instance, has risen 69 percent since 2005. Many Central American countries were equally adversely affected because they feed their growing populations with imported corn. The rising demand for corn that is used to manufacture fuel has spillover effects: prices for other food staples, such as soybeans and wheat, have also gone up, according to the GDAE report.
Do you propose that the term 'intellectual' could never be appropriated in a manner contrary to your definition, for partisan ends?
Or, somewhat more generously,do you propose the term would never be used by folks who mistake their dorm-room bullshit sessions, which lack a foundation in relevant real-world experience, for 'intellectualism' ?
The term 'Intellectual' is now merely a label appropriated by folks with an agenda. Oppose the cock-eyed plans of self-labeled 'intellectuals', and you get called an 'anti-intellectual'- despite the lack of intellectual basis for the agenda at hand.
In the abstract, Asimov was correct. In the real world, the term 'intellectual' is just another plaything for partisan politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I hate to interrupt your party-mandated two minutes of hate, but have you noticed what Obama's been up to lately? If you're whining about things more than half a decade in the past, I don't think you've been keeping up with current affairs- at least not in any intellectually honest fashion.
Not sure where the uncertainty is. Says right there - January 1, 2015.
Not that having the elections matter about implementation. Obama isn't going to let a veto go through, and even if the Senate flips, there's going to be no way that there's enough votes to override a veto. Obamacare is here, get used to it.
I'm not so sure about that. The policymakers knew upfront the ruinous act would cost them elections, so they put off the effects two years. Now they still don't want to do the damage they knew the bill would cause, because they care about this election's results as well. So as long as the elections are contested, they might keep putting off full implementation of Obamacare, rather than pay the price at the polls. They like their seats more than they want full implementation of the Affordable (snicker) Care Act. This happens to align with the interests of the nation.
Where do you live that people react this way? I've honestly never seen this sort of personal-level trash talk about nice stuff. (I live in New England) I've very occasionally heard people bitching about the luxury yachts of the ultra-rich, but I've never heard person to person criticism about having nice things.
He might want to play along (without ever making a false statement), and start saying things like "Adecco should pay this guy off; this is starting to become a problem."
It's not neocons telling NASA that their primary mission is to reach out to Muslims- instead of, say, completing projects related to Air & Space.
But then again, your tribe (that is to say, Leftists) needs to have folks out here on the internet screaming about 'Neocons' to distract from a president who is expanding on Bush-era policies most hated by the left. Your tribe needs to try to divert attention away from the endless stream of scandals that show the administration to be both malicious (the IRS) and incompetent & mendacious (Benghazi).
This is all we use in Canada for every election at every level. It works fine. You have 100% paper trail, electronic tallying speed, no "hanging chaff" nonsense. It's a tried and true technology that has been around for decades and decades and decades. I don't know why the US goofs around with these other systems, other then PORK PORK PORK PORK PORK
New Hampshire and a number of other states use the bubble sheets, for the reasons you state. Try to focus your smug, superior attitude on the State of New York.
What you're describing is fascism, not progressivism. Ever since Reagan, the USA has been going balls-out towards fascism. Lots of people would say that we're already there. Us progressives want to create a society that cares about its people instead of just the very rich and where it's possible for everyone to achieve a decent standard of living regardless of where they start at on the socioeconomic ladder.
You must mean the new sense of 'fascism', which is "things I don't like." Clearly you can't mean it in the traditional sense, because you'd know that 'brave dissidents' such as yourself would have been hauled off to concentration camps or simply executed in a truly fascist regime. You must also mean the new sense of 'progressive', which means not an advocate of progress, but someone trying to implement ideas that have brought much of Europe to it's knees. (Real fascists did that by spilling blood.) The 'progressives' there have run out of other people's money to hand out that decent standard of living you're so keen on.
Really, it must be fun to re-assign words like fascist and progress to suit your political agenda, and be largely unchallenged on your mauling of the language.
But hey, I could be wrong. That next knock on the door could be the Neo-SS come to haul you off to a concentration camp for daring to criticize those in power. Good luck in there.
Whoa, slow down there: profiling is not persecution. That's all I'm saying. And this seems almost certainly to be profiling. Nearly all conservatives I know approve of paying special attention to people with Muslim backgrounds when trying to root out terrorists. That doesn't seem to be considered as persecution, that's considered profiling too. This just happens to be a case where conservatives are probably being profiled. And I say, good for the goose then good for the gander.
So, I assume you've got a list of actual tax dodging right wing political advocacy groups to back up your profiling comparison to Muslim radicals with a very real body count. No? Because a quick search (starting with Former Head Tax Collector & Tax dodger Timothy Geitner) will yield plenty of tax delinquents in, or on good terms with, the current administration.
The people you're trying to 'profile' still believe in the rule of law, even if the current law sucks. The people you defend don't; they believe in exercising power for the benefit of their team. Your comparison cannot be substantiated. Your defense is rationalization for your tribe, nothing more.
I welcome your actual proof to the contrary; that is, examples of tax dodging by the sort of groups in question that would justify profiling.
This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense. If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes? Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?
Yeah, those tax-evading tea partiers like Timothy Geitner and a good portion of the white house staff. It's about power, and exercising power to the detriment of your enemies and the benefit of your friends. The Rule of Law is not the point. It's Chicago style politics writ large. There will always be people, like you, who will rationalize and defend the behavior as a method of servicing their ideological tribesmen. In generating excuses and furthering the degrade of the rule of law, you are a retrograde, who pushes humanity towards baser tribal behavior, and away from enlightenment values. But f*ck it, they're on your team, so it's all good, right?
...does being smart lead to a more stressful life? Realizing how much you still don't understand
Thus one learns the need to delegate tasks, respect folks in their field of expertise (though perhaps not further), and do your own research when you have a need for specific knowledge on something.It strikes me as a rather adult thing to learn and accept your limitations, and how to accomplish what needs doing despite your limited capacity and knowledge.
, grasping the bad state of some things in world,
Here one should learn history to gain some perspective. Currently, I'm reading a biography of Winston Churchill, and I find myself astounded at how duplicitous, weak, and downright willfully ignorant Chamberlain's government was in the run up to World War 2. I think little of our current political leaders; it's heartening to know the free world has lived through worse. This, of course, applies to any human field one might become despondent about.
feeling the general existential pain and philosophizing things, and so on.
You're here. If you're not gonna put that pistol in your mouth and pull the trigger, you might as well do something with your time here. Get moving.
In any standardized intelligence test, I always scored north of the 95% percentile. In my travels, I've learned that intelligence alone accounts for little- your attitudes, habits, moral standards, and fortitude count tremendously, and your intellect might be best applied to improving your character in those other fields.
You, I think, have reinforced that point. You're smart. So what? Take that as a challenge, not a sarcastic dismissal, and you'll do better.
And this is why people oppose nuclear power. It's harder to screw things up at such level with renewables. The simpsons greedy bastard running a nuke plant isn't a fiction. It's a damned archetype.
First, you're conflating weapons production (The Hanford mess) with electrical power generation. I imagine that's purposeful on your part, because you wouldn't have as much to talk about if you focused on electrical power production.
Now, I'd like to point out that this mess was created when the science involved was new, and there were a million unknown factors about the entire nuclear business- weapons and power production- that were completely unknown at the time. The science and processes became known through the work folks today degrade as 'nutty' and 'screw ups', though if we hadn't done that work, we wouldn't know anything. The discovery of new knowledge can be a messy business, but the acquisition of that knowledge allows us to be more sensible later on. You don't know what you don't know.
Further, the worst and greatest volume of the waste comes from plutonium production, not the refinement of uranium, which is what electricity-producing nuclear reactors use.
"Our public universities don't have a profit motive" You don't follow college sports, do you?
I don't, but I'm under the impression that major sports programs often bring in surplus funds to the university, such that they wouldn't have an adverse affect on tuition rates.
If they're getting state money, is there some particular reason why the state can't simply order them to lower tuition, or better yet remove it completely?
There isn't, hence the need to revamp the whole system. Texas is moving towards the $10,000 bachelors degree on this basis.
Our public universities don't have a profit motive, but they're the worst offenders. They consume all the resources they can- state subsidies aren't used to lower tuition, but hire more administration, build fancy new facilities (that don't add to the instructional value.), or just have fun with the college kids at taxpayer's expense. You essentially propose throwing more taxpayer money at the problem, but that hasn't helped the student so far, why would it now? The entire system- public universities especially- needs to be revamped.
The more powerful the regulators become, the more it is in the interest of those regulated to control or influence the regulators.
The incumbent regulated then use the regulators they influence or control to exclude competitors, fatten their profit margins, or extract subsidies.
Obviously some regulation and the accompanying trade offs are necessary for a well-functioning society, but the abuse I just described happens every single day in the United States.
I find it appalling that you wish to expand the corrupt system.
The Judeo-Christian tradition has shaped, and been shaped by, successful societies for two to six millennial.
The Jedi religion is 'practiced' and supported by smarmists who, enamored with their cleverness in making superficial comparisons (as you have just done) are completely ignorant of what they've gained from the traditions they mock.
It's easy and juvenile to mock religions as superstition and a cynical method of controlling the masses. I know because I've done it myself.
In time I've gained a bit of a better perspective on the matter by comparing our history (the Christian-based west) with the real alternatives out there.
One can imagine a utopia of enlightened atheists who practice pure rationality in all things regarding humanity. One cannot show this in practice or in history as any sort of enduring force for good. And no, the last 50 years of declining belief in western countries doesn't count as 'enduring' in the historical sense, especially as the demographic trend of newly secular western societies begins to circle the drain.
Perhaps the next few hundred years will show the atheist's utopia is possible. Until then, conceit is unwarranted.
There are more sadistic SWAT teams that go by the motto 'Always shoot the dog' simply because they can get away with it.
Wouldn't it be great if we could staff SWAT teams solely with officers who would never volunteer for it? We'd have a higher chance of getting officers who will do their duty, and a lower chance of getting sadistic assholes who want to play soldier-at-war in the homes of our fellow citizens.
To be fair, Michael Moore's shenanigans are juvenile and transparent.
Noam Chomsky- let's just say there's a reason his fan base is perpetually 23 years old.
I'm not familiar with the work of Goodman and Greenwald.
And how's Obama doing with all that stuff? Seems to me he's continued all of Bush's most hated policies.
Treating it as special, however, is one of the many things that separates us from the animals, and allows societies to advance beyond the primitive.
Much of that 'Holier than thou' stuff you dismiss outright serves an actual purpose, a purpose I don't expect to explain sufficiently in a slashdot comment. I only suggest that perhaps some reflection on the development of civilizations is in order; if you can get past your adolescent reflexive hatred of your forebears.
Yet Assange keeps his mouth shut about Russia- either because he doesn't care, or he knows the Russians won't hesitate to kill him if he tries this crap with them.
Not so sure about the Chinese- but criticizing and screwing with America is pretty safe these days, which kind of makes the 'great evil' point of view rather silly.
In other news, global power politics don't really mesh with some folks kum-by-ya campfire song mentality.
As President Obama has discovered, it's extraordinarily easy to criticize from the outside, but when you're the one with the responsibility, suddenly your predecessor's 'evil' ways start to make a lot more sense.
Why don't you check the delta on personal wealth before and after folks go into office and get back to me. It's worth checking out what kind of gigs they land after their elected official years, and what kind of favors they did for those very same companies whilst they held office.
Direct bribes are illegal. Trading on insider information is NOT illegal for legislators. Landing sinecures at companies that benefited from your legislation isn't illegal either. Employing the family members of legislators in comfy jobs is also perfectly legal.
Putting food stocks in our gas tanks raises the price of those food stocks for everyone. This hits the poor the hardest, of course.
Yes, we can grow plenty. Yes, distribution is often a problem.
The fact is there's still a consequence, and that consequence is price.
You putting corn in your gas tank means the food budget for folks living on a few bucks a day goes up.
Source
Do you propose that the term 'intellectual' could never be appropriated in a manner contrary to your definition, for partisan ends?
Or, somewhat more generously,do you propose the term would never be used by folks who mistake their dorm-room bullshit sessions, which lack a foundation in relevant real-world experience, for 'intellectualism' ?
The term 'Intellectual' is now merely a label appropriated by folks with an agenda. Oppose the cock-eyed plans of self-labeled 'intellectuals', and you get called an 'anti-intellectual'- despite the lack of intellectual basis for the agenda at hand.
In the abstract, Asimov was correct. In the real world, the term 'intellectual' is just another plaything for partisan politics.