"Harder" is relative. My dad lived a comfortable middle-class life in the early 70s. You'd think that, with us making 10x as much, we'd be in much higher strata now. We're not, we're also in a middle-class life. Which is fine, it just doesn't jibe with making as much as we do.
Besides which, you're living nicely only if you're living just for today. We put a big chunk of our income into retirement savings, just like my father did. We drive late model cars (an '03 and an '06), have a modestily sized house, are putting two kids through college and have two more at home, and pay cash for everything. We do go on better vacations than our friends, but that's only because my wife travels for work and we use her American and Hilton points for vacation. Other than that, it's a very boring and routine middle-class life. Again, not what you'd expect from a $200k household income.
Oh, and we live in Texas. I can't imagine what things would be like in New York or the Bay Area.
First off, economics isn't science, so saying that any school of economics can be discredited scientifically is absurd.
Second, the central tenant of the Austrian School is "central banks bad, money based on commodities good"; I can't see how that's been proven incorrect, given the drubbing the central banks have given to the world economy over the last century. Or are you one of those people who thinks we've actually grown wealthier as our currency is consistently debased? Here's a factoid: my wife and I make a combined income of over $200,000 per year, and yet have a harder time providing for our family than my dad did when he was my age, making $20,000 per year (with a full-time housewife, I might add). So explain to me how a given amount of money today is somehow worth less than 10x that amount was 30 years ago is a good thing?
Invading Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to hand over Al Qaeda was the right move. That doesn't mean the police surveillance in the US and other countries was justified, nor does it mean it makes a lot of sense to stay in Afghanistan once the Taliban were toppled. But don't forget that Al Qaeda had more state support than even the IRA had at their height and that we had very little choice on how to end that support short of a full-on invasion.
Why split hairs? Both the US and Chinese governments suck, they just suck in different ways and in different degrees. But neither one is concerned in the least bit with protecting individual freedoms.
This has got to stop. To that end, I just sent this letter to both my Representative and Senator (names obscured to protect the guilty):
Dear (Rep|Sen). Soandso,
I am writing today about the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), specifically regarding your support in defunding and disbanding this agency.
The TSA is notorious among travelers for being arrogant, rude, and invasive. They routinely conduct searches on the flimsiest of grounds, during the course of which they subject citizens to degrading conduct. The rationale given for all of this behavior is that they are "keeping us safe" from terrorists.
I consider this argument to be absurd. First of all, prior to 9/11, there had only been a handful of plane hijackings in American history. The last one, FedEx Flight 705, was hijacked by a FedEx employee. The TSA would not have helped in this instance. The only commercial flights hijacked within the United States prior to 9/11 were in the 60s and 70s. Given that it had been more than 20 years between the last of those in 1978 and 9/11, it's unfair to say that the TSA have made a difference in hijackings between 9/11 and now.
Secondly, none of the airplane bomb threats to emerge over the last 10 years have been foiled by the TSA. They've all been foiled by a combination of effective intelligence and alert and responsive passengers. There is nothing the TSA has done to make us safer.
Thirdly, even if they did make us safer, I believe very strongly that Dr. Franklin was right: we should not sacrifice liberty for safety, as we will end up with neither.
The last straw, for me, happened recently, when I learned of a young woman, Meg McLain, in Florida being arrested and having her ticket torn up because she did not want to submit to a full-body scan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig). This is an outrage. If we can't protect the dignity of our people to be safe from invasion by the government, why did our ancestors fight off the British in the first place?
When I was young, during the Cold War, I remember being shocked at some of the things I heard about living in the Soviet Union. That citizens had to carry passports at all times; that they had to register with the government before they could travel; that they had no right to privacy when traveling; and that their political opinions could result in their being unable to travel. What does it say about our country that every single one of these abhorrent practices are now common place in the United States of America?
I hope you'll agree with me that enough is enough and it's time to return our nation to one of liberty, to make us once again the "land of the free and the home of the brave".
So the thief who breaks into people's homes and disrupts their tranquility, and possibly emotionally/mentally scars them for life, deserves your sympathy, but not the home owner who fears for their safety and eliminates a perceived threat? Where do you live? Sociopathville?
Pure and utter bullshit, in the UK you are always allowed to defend yourself (and family). It's when you arm and prepare yourself in advance with intent to kill unarmed burglars that you get in trouble, a la Tony Whatsisname, Martin.
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this concept: you're allowed to defend yourself, but not to do anything in preparation of defending yourself? Can you shed some light on this apparent contradiction?
The counter-example is equally terrifying. Someone shoots a kid in their kitchen who had snuck in through the pet door to steal some food, and automatically gets off by claiming "self defense". Note that most of the cowboys in this discussions are insisting that they should be able to do this.
If someone is breaking into your home, you can't possibly know their intent. Since they've demonstrated a willingness to ignore one law by breaking and entering, you should assume they're willing to break other laws. Until they do something else to prove they're not a threat, you have to assume they are one, and treat them appropriately.
That said, if it was a young kid sneaking in through a doggy door, I'd probably just grab them by their ear and hold them until the police and/or their parents came to collect them.
What's particularly galling about that attitude is, by any objective measure, nearly everyone who frequents/. is "rich". So the idiots on here who proclaim we should "eat the rich" are targeting themselves for extinction.
No, they're using the recession as a convenient time to buy up or smash the competition so that when customers start buying again, they'll only buy from Oracle. From a business point of view, it's genius.
Seriously, how the fuck is describing a family unit that is headed by two females in any way, shape, or form "family unfriendly"? What the fuck is wrong with the world?
I hope the Human Rights Campaign (which my wife and I donate regularly to) takes note of this and lowers Google's ranking over it. It's just disgusting that they would act this way.
Not that there's anything wrong with this approach. The tier 1 schools are tier 1 for a reason, and, all else being equal, one should assume that new attorneys from those schools are going to be better at their profession than someone from a lower-ranked school. Five years into their careers, this might no longer hold, but it's impossible to know that right after graduating.
I've always heard that unless you go to one of the top schools in the nation for your degree, it doesn't really matter where you go. So while Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford, and a handful of others are excellent, there's no point spending the money on a Vanderbilt, USC, or SMU when you can go to a state school or University of Phoenix. I suppose there are regional exceptions (if you plan on staying in North Texas, SMU can be worth the money) or certain professions (USC is a much better choice for budding Speilbergs than just about any other college in the country), but outside of those two specifics it just doesn't matter a whole lot.
No kidding. The Navy managed to get me addicted to a particular CNS stimulant not only through ready access for 12 years, but by encouraging a culture in which consumption of it was the norm. I now can't go more than 24 hours without at least two tablespoons of it, diluted in hot water (and sometimes flavored with pumpkin spice, French vanilla, or hazelnut, depending on the season and my mood). It's a killer, that one.
yes, you shouldn't do lines of coke to be better at your job
Except, of course, for those rare individuals for whom doing coke is a part of their job. Used car salesmen, comedians, politicians, that sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Harder" is relative. My dad lived a comfortable middle-class life in the early 70s. You'd think that, with us making 10x as much, we'd be in much higher strata now. We're not, we're also in a middle-class life. Which is fine, it just doesn't jibe with making as much as we do.
Besides which, you're living nicely only if you're living just for today. We put a big chunk of our income into retirement savings, just like my father did. We drive late model cars (an '03 and an '06), have a modestily sized house, are putting two kids through college and have two more at home, and pay cash for everything. We do go on better vacations than our friends, but that's only because my wife travels for work and we use her American and Hilton points for vacation. Other than that, it's a very boring and routine middle-class life. Again, not what you'd expect from a $200k household income.
Oh, and we live in Texas. I can't imagine what things would be like in New York or the Bay Area.
First off, economics isn't science, so saying that any school of economics can be discredited scientifically is absurd.
Second, the central tenant of the Austrian School is "central banks bad, money based on commodities good"; I can't see how that's been proven incorrect, given the drubbing the central banks have given to the world economy over the last century. Or are you one of those people who thinks we've actually grown wealthier as our currency is consistently debased? Here's a factoid: my wife and I make a combined income of over $200,000 per year, and yet have a harder time providing for our family than my dad did when he was my age, making $20,000 per year (with a full-time housewife, I might add). So explain to me how a given amount of money today is somehow worth less than 10x that amount was 30 years ago is a good thing?
Invading Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to hand over Al Qaeda was the right move. That doesn't mean the police surveillance in the US and other countries was justified, nor does it mean it makes a lot of sense to stay in Afghanistan once the Taliban were toppled. But don't forget that Al Qaeda had more state support than even the IRA had at their height and that we had very little choice on how to end that support short of a full-on invasion.
Why split hairs? Both the US and Chinese governments suck, they just suck in different ways and in different degrees. But neither one is concerned in the least bit with protecting individual freedoms.
What?!? Arresting someone for suggesting they'd want to blow up an airport?! That's an outrage, I think I'll go blow up an airport in protest.
This has got to stop. To that end, I just sent this letter to both my Representative and Senator (names obscured to protect the guilty):
Dear (Rep|Sen). Soandso,
I am writing today about the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), specifically regarding your support in defunding and disbanding this agency.
The TSA is notorious among travelers for being arrogant, rude, and invasive. They routinely conduct searches on the flimsiest of grounds, during the course of which they subject citizens to degrading conduct. The rationale given for all of this behavior is that they are "keeping us safe" from terrorists.
I consider this argument to be absurd. First of all, prior to 9/11, there had only been a handful of plane hijackings in American history. The last one, FedEx Flight 705, was hijacked by a FedEx employee. The TSA would not have helped in this instance. The only commercial flights hijacked within the United States prior to 9/11 were in the 60s and 70s. Given that it had been more than 20 years between the last of those in 1978 and 9/11, it's unfair to say that the TSA have made a difference in hijackings between 9/11 and now.
Secondly, none of the airplane bomb threats to emerge over the last 10 years have been foiled by the TSA. They've all been foiled by a combination of effective intelligence and alert and responsive passengers. There is nothing the TSA has done to make us safer.
Thirdly, even if they did make us safer, I believe very strongly that Dr. Franklin was right: we should not sacrifice liberty for safety, as we will end up with neither.
The last straw, for me, happened recently, when I learned of a young woman, Meg McLain, in Florida being arrested and having her ticket torn up because she did not want to submit to a full-body scan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig). This is an outrage. If we can't protect the dignity of our people to be safe from invasion by the government, why did our ancestors fight off the British in the first place?
When I was young, during the Cold War, I remember being shocked at some of the things I heard about living in the Soviet Union. That citizens had to carry passports at all times; that they had to register with the government before they could travel; that they had no right to privacy when traveling; and that their political opinions could result in their being unable to travel. What does it say about our country that every single one of these abhorrent practices are now common place in the United States of America?
I hope you'll agree with me that enough is enough and it's time to return our nation to one of liberty, to make us once again the "land of the free and the home of the brave".
Sincerely,
corbettw
It's shame your obvious irony was modded Flamebait.
So the thief who breaks into people's homes and disrupts their tranquility, and possibly emotionally/mentally scars them for life, deserves your sympathy, but not the home owner who fears for their safety and eliminates a perceived threat? Where do you live? Sociopathville?
Pure and utter bullshit, in the UK you are always allowed to defend yourself (and family). It's when you arm and prepare yourself in advance with intent to kill unarmed burglars that you get in trouble, a la Tony Whatsisname, Martin.
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this concept: you're allowed to defend yourself, but not to do anything in preparation of defending yourself? Can you shed some light on this apparent contradiction?
Really wish I hadn't run out of modpoints this morning, you deserve an Insightful nod.
The counter-example is equally terrifying. Someone shoots a kid in their kitchen who had snuck in through the pet door to steal some food, and automatically gets off by claiming "self defense". Note that most of the cowboys in this discussions are insisting that they should be able to do this.
If someone is breaking into your home, you can't possibly know their intent. Since they've demonstrated a willingness to ignore one law by breaking and entering, you should assume they're willing to break other laws. Until they do something else to prove they're not a threat, you have to assume they are one, and treat them appropriately.
That said, if it was a young kid sneaking in through a doggy door, I'd probably just grab them by their ear and hold them until the police and/or their parents came to collect them.
Said the guy posting on Slashdot.
Breaking in, stealing components, gutting computers. Who's the CEO over? Joe Arpaio's little brother?
What's particularly galling about that attitude is, by any objective measure, nearly everyone who frequents /. is "rich". So the idiots on here who proclaim we should "eat the rich" are targeting themselves for extinction.
No, they're using the recession as a convenient time to buy up or smash the competition so that when customers start buying again, they'll only buy from Oracle. From a business point of view, it's genius.
Seriously, how the fuck is describing a family unit that is headed by two females in any way, shape, or form "family unfriendly"? What the fuck is wrong with the world?
I hope the Human Rights Campaign (which my wife and I donate regularly to) takes note of this and lowers Google's ranking over it. It's just disgusting that they would act this way.
Not that there's anything wrong with this approach. The tier 1 schools are tier 1 for a reason, and, all else being equal, one should assume that new attorneys from those schools are going to be better at their profession than someone from a lower-ranked school. Five years into their careers, this might no longer hold, but it's impossible to know that right after graduating.
I've always heard that unless you go to one of the top schools in the nation for your degree, it doesn't really matter where you go. So while Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford, and a handful of others are excellent, there's no point spending the money on a Vanderbilt, USC, or SMU when you can go to a state school or University of Phoenix. I suppose there are regional exceptions (if you plan on staying in North Texas, SMU can be worth the money) or certain professions (USC is a much better choice for budding Speilbergs than just about any other college in the country), but outside of those two specifics it just doesn't matter a whole lot.
<img src="thatsthejoke.jpg">
No kidding. The Navy managed to get me addicted to a particular CNS stimulant not only through ready access for 12 years, but by encouraging a culture in which consumption of it was the norm. I now can't go more than 24 hours without at least two tablespoons of it, diluted in hot water (and sometimes flavored with pumpkin spice, French vanilla, or hazelnut, depending on the season and my mood). It's a killer, that one.
yes, you shouldn't do lines of coke to be better at your job
Except, of course, for those rare individuals for whom doing coke is a part of their job. Used car salesmen, comedians, politicians, that sort of thing.
And how, pray tell, do we learn more without screwing around in the first place?
If you're fiscally conservative and want to end the all-war-all-the-time state of things, there's only one party you should be voting for.
Why'd they change it? Did people just like it better that way?
Yes, it is flawed, you haven't found such a person. Trust me, all women want men to change, some are just more subtle about it than others.