Wow, I never though about it. Who needs developed economies when we have such a bright example? Afghanistan, that beacon of civilisation. They really got it. Craftsman shops everywhere is what we need for success!
It's fairly obvious that you never thought about it.
The poster's statements are perfectly valid in any capitalist society: "Being a businessman doesn't have to involve running a Fortune 500 company; it can a simple one man craft shop." "The difference is you work at your own pace instead of your life being dictated by the clock and the whip."
Since you are so brilliant and obviously have much better ideas on this that we do, why don't you share them with us so we can learn by your bright and shining example?
If everybody is a business man, who is left to do the work?
OK, not everyone will succeed. In fact, the vast majority will fail. So, in your dream society there's a little bunch of successful business men and a vast majority of frustrated, miserable losers who hate what they do because they all wanted to be business men. And they receive shit pay because they have "failed". Can't you see a systemic problem with this model?
First of all I was saying that there are alternatives to working for other people. I am myself a small business owner (and I do the work, to answer that question) and when I have more work than I can handle myself I subcontract it out to other small businesses and occasionally I hire someone who doesn't feel like owning a business.
Second, with respect to 'vast majority of frustrated, miserable losers' you assume that most people would fail but unless you have some reference for this I'll disagree with you because in my experience most of the people who actually try and go into business succeed - if not the first or second time, then perhaps the third or fourth but they do eventually succeed and I don't know any that would rather be doing what they were doing before than what they're doing now.
Third, you can go into business in just any field that exists so where do you get that people would 'hate what they do' as they can choose what they want to be doing and have a better level of control over their lives than a normal employee would have. Not to mention that in the worst case people would be doing the same work for themselves as they would as an employee somewhere so certainly they wouldn't be any more frustrated or unhappy than they are today.
Finally, my dream society is one where the people working for the company (of any size) own it and participate in the management of it to some degree, where quality of service and product are still worth putting your name on what you do (as I do), and where 'shareholder value' and executive greed don't take precedence over the well being of the employees of the company.
Not when your goal is to train up kids to own their own business and make themselves rich.
A lot of people who own small businesses work longer hours and still only make a middle-class existence. Plus, they assume the risk. Granted, they get to do what they love, but owning a business often leads to bankruptcy or scraping by.
It's still an alternative is it not?
I have my own business and I'm middle class but if I'm working my ass off at least I'm doing it for myself. On top of that, (American) middle class is a lot better than most of the world is doing.
One leaves the country...as I've done...or I suppose that when things get bad enough there'll be a revolution of some sort or another. Assuming things get worse instead of better and that they actually get bad enough that people do something to deal with the current political climate.
People in the west do not have to work this hard to survive.
FTFY
You need to keep in mind that just as we do today, today's kids are going to be directly competing for jobs against the East where people do have to work this hard and in fact, much harder, just to survive.
I'm not saying this is good. I don't want it to be the case. I want a world where my kids can work a 40 hour workweek (already no longer the case) and have a very high quality of life. Unfortunately, the way things are going I don't see that it will be any other way but the west continuing to lower our quality of life in the face of cheap competition from the east given that our politicians are owned by the very corporations that most people work for.
And yes, I agree that it's horrific but unless people change things it is reality and not just a dream of what things used to be like.
Who pays for the extra month(s) of school? Localities across the US are already strapped for cash. Increase teacher's salaries by 20% (ish) and things get worse. And when will they do their continuing ed to remain accredited or get higher degrees? Similar stories for custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc. In many (most?) school districts, only parts of the administration are 12 month employees. There's also an increase in electricity and possible retrofitting of AC in places that don't have it.
Excellent thinking - let's save money by not giving the kids the best education we can. That's not only good for the kids (more vacation!) but it's great for the society!
Hell for that matter why not cut the school year to save money!!!
Fuck it let's just stop providing free school to our kids...if the parents care enough they'll find the money to pay for their kids to go to school!
And suddenly we find ourselves a third world country without free education and only two classes - the rich who can shell it out and the rest who cannot. The US is already headed there anyway, at the rate it's going with University costs.
To actually answer your question, the extra school being discussed could easily be paid for by avoiding wars that don't need to be fought. Note that I am specifically saying wars that don't need to be fought, as opposed to wars that do need to be fought.
Putting aside the human cost of lives on both sides of the equation:
Sorry, but socialism isn't the answer to everything.
It's not actually clear to me what your statement is in response to, nor why it got a score of 5, Insightful other than people hearing the word socialism and reacting as they've been taught their whole lives, that Socialism is A Bad Thing.
Are you posting in response to fm6 who says that having money makes a difference in the opportunities that children have? Do you actually disagree with such a position or are you just throwing out the S word as a quick karma gain tactic?
Also, to more directly address your comment: Sorry, but lack of socialism isn't the answer to everything either. There has to be a balance between capitalism and socialism and when you have too much of either people lose - and when you have too little of either, people also lose.
Not when your goal is to train up kids to be drones, ready and willing to fall in line and slave away 80 hour work weeks to make their employer rich. That's why they don't teach critical thinking skills or financial education either.
Alternate: Not when your goal is to train up kids to own their own business and make themselves rich. AlternateAlternate: Not when you have to prepare your kids to have to compete against the Chinese and the Indians in the global marketplace.
I had financial education in school but I don't disagree that there could be more of it to help young people from falling into the debt trap. Unfortunately this is perceived as something parents should be teaching their kids and as the parents have bad habits, so then do the children.
In one corner, the defenders Iran and North Korea, stubborn to the end and willing to die for the cause...
In the other corner, all the resources of the west including but not limited to the NSA, the Israelis and Microsoft itself, willing to do anything to win...
My old department got hand-me-down trucks from the Texas Forest Service that we converted to brush trucks. We also got a 5000 gallon flight-line fuel truck from them that we converted to a mobile hydrant. The one "new" truck we bought, we bought as a used truck from a department in Chicago and had to take out a loan to pay for it. The bi-annual fundraising BBQ we held covered operating expenses, but that was just about it. Everything else came from handouts from the government.
The radio system? Patched together with stuff my dad & I bought at hamfests.
And there was more than a few times during the summer and we were fighting multihundred acre brush fires that I wish I knew exactly where each truck was, how much fuel and water they had onboard, and be able to set a waypoint for them to drive to for their next task.
That may not have all been able to have been done with an ad-hoc wireless system, but that would have helped immensely.
Sounds to me like your are meeting a need that should be met by the government.
I'm not knocking volunteers, don't get me wrong - I have the utmost respect for people who are willing to run into a fire (or whatever) to save a life. At the same time I think there's no good reason that the US government (at whatever level of government) doesn't fund whatever organisations are actually needed (such as yours, more than likely).
Where there are no burning issues at hand, human interest stories are a good tactic to keep a candidate in the news or at least in Twitterverse. Expect to learn more trivial, but harmless stuff like these "brewed" by the campaign strategists who work behind the scenes.
Somehow this only convinces me that come November a new occupant will fill that hopefully not empty Chair at the Oval Office.
No burning issues like the [ US World European ] economy? American Jobs? Civilian casualties in Syria? The ongoing [ American led ] war in Afganistan?
You're right that it's a tactic but it's a tactic to distract people from anything that actually matters, not that it takes much to distract Americans from anything happening outside America.
"Tweets in this case, can be picked up faster by researchers as compared to scientific alerts that may take up to 20 minutes."
First, 'up to' is bullshit that is useful in getting mobs to buy stuff but doesn't actually mean much at all.
From TFA: "Paul Caruso, from the US Geological Survery, said: 'We do have sensors and it usually takes about five minutes before the sensors will see the earthquake."
So already it's five minutes and not twenty.
Second, it seems that the scientists have a problem with their seismology equipment if such equipment takes five minutes to register a (7.6 magnitude in this instance) quake.
Agreed. So, what we should do away with pre-voting altogether. Simply draw names from a hat for the positions. We'll see how they do and vote 'em out afterwards if we don't like their service; Let someone else have a chance to fill the role for their limited time. This is more in line with the way voting works anyway (voting against instead of for issues or people). Additionally, it gives the people power to hold their leaders accountable. Screw up? You're fired. A probationary period could ensure it doesn't devolve into a person a day per office. Additionally, it would present opportunities for 3rd party folks to actually get in office -- Proportional to the actual number of candidates, not limited by an entrenched and obsolete party system.
No, I started out this as a joke, but what I found out while writing this is that ANYTHING is better than the system we have right now.
Hold politicians accountable for what they say. False advertising is false advertising, even if it's coming from a politician's mouth.
You know, I find it completely immoral that an insurance company might choose to deny payment for a necessary medical treatment...
and yet I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly that insurance companies shouldn't be obligated to pay for a disease that an individual acquired by intentionally denying routine vaccinations.
Ouch! The cognitive dissonance! It burrrns us!
The point of the article is that it's not only the non-immunized who get sick but that they put those around them at increased risk.
Leaving this up to corporations is a shit idea. There's already a law for this that worked fine before the general public started thinking that they understand medicine better than doctors do (which might be related to a completely fucked medical system in the US). The system around the law is broken and needs to be fixed by forcing parents to adhere to it. It's really not that complicated.
Uhhh...the US government covered up for a PMC that was SELLING LITTLE KIDS to get better arms deals. Oh and that was the SECOND TIME they had been caught pulling that shit, the first was in Kosovo.
I'm sorry but your right to get on a high horse dies when you cover up for child rapists, the end.
I have a standing desk. I find it most comfortable to use when I change my position frequently; I'll stand for a while, sit for a while, put my feet up on a cabinet for a while, go back to standing, etc. Half my postures (especially sitting) would probably make an ergonomics expert cringe. But I find it nice to change things up regularly. Sometimes I'm too lazy to stand for long, and I can tell, because my back gets sore. Once I spend a day or two standing more, I feel fine again. But only standing would never be comfortable for me either.
Maybe if I could be walking on a treadmill... I find walking much more comfortable than standing...
I find file cabinets to be useful if I get tired of sitting at the office.
There's nothing quite like working remotely by the pool though...
I guess then question becomes...can a family who does not have such skills and such access afford to live healthily on less than five dollars a day per person?
(And I think the prices they give for the homecooked meal are significantly higher than I would pay.)
The article compares eating at fast food restaurants to eating home cooked meals, whereas I am talking about junk food eaten at home. I do not disagree that some high percentage of American families would not eat healthily on any amount of money but that doesn't answer the original problem of feeding someone (who doesn't have your wife's cooking skills) on food stamps alone.
I suspect most American families would eat crap no matter how much money you gave them, because that is what our food culture has become. We gave it all over to the food processing companies. It seems like homecooking has really been looked down on in this country over the last 30 years or so. But if you want to eat healthily, you still have to cook.
I think we can also agree that such skill should be taught, one way or another - perhaps in school though I could perceive some pushback for 'the American way' (or whatever else those who breed and sell beef would come up with to fight such education). Access to healthy food at reasonable prices is, perhaps, more difficult to achieve in some areas but is probably doable across much of the country.
There are a lot of Home Economics skills that really should be taught to everyone. Everyone should learn the basics of financial management, cooking, and house keeping. None of these issues are that hard, for example, most of the things my wife makes are not complex. But if all the food you've ever eaten comes out of a cardboard box, how can you learn how to cook?
I have no idea what to do on the political end. It really annoys me that my daughter brings home all these preachy pamphlets about healthy eating from school, but what's on the school lunch menu? Beef Nachos and pepperoni pizza. Is that some kind of joke? But, of course, the food processing companies can write whatever they want into the laws, no matter who you elect.
I can only agree that educating young people correctly is important which, unfortunately, is not always a priority in our country and may not even be possible in situations where the parent(s) are so ignorant that whatever is taught the child is completely overridden. It would help, though, for those families who do want to feed their children well.
The only thing I could suggest around the school lunches there would be to get the other parents in the school to join you in complaining, assuming that they agree that beef nachos and pizza are not what kids should be eating.
I've removed my family from this equation by moving to France. My son eats very healthily at school and at home, though food prices are a bit higher here than in the US. At least neither you nor I are in Spain where there are regions that are planning to start charging kids who bring their lunch to school something like 3 USD per day for using the cafeteria.
I can see how frivolous lawsuits could potentially disrupt the jobs of federal officials. I could also see how non-frivolous lawsuits might also, more justifiably, disrupt what federal officials are doing if it is in fact illegal.
I could see being immune while in office to mitigate the first, but cannot justify total immunity because of the second. I want people in office to be held responsible for their actions as I think that the way things are at the moment leads to a general lack of accountability that can only lead so at least some people in such positions of power and authority, and with such immunity, doing things that they shouldn't be doing.
(disclaimer read and understood and a side note to say that I appreciate any lawyer who writes as clearly as you do)
Your original comment was 'opinions', which is general, and not 'party affiliation', which is specific. On top of that what I said can apply to party affiliation as much as to any other opinion - could post it or not, could post it as an AC.
finding a decent open proxy. They go down all the time with no warning. So pay up and get a commercial account or be prepared to make open proxy hunting a part of your daily/weekly routine.
I used to play a MMRPG that banned my entire continent's IP... I still remember the feeling of joy upon finding a fast open proxy outside my banned zone!
How do you feel about sharing the details of that proxy?:-)
You can also sue government officials in their individual capacities, but they typically enjoy some degree of immunity themselves (if they didn't, all the law suits would dissuade anyone from working as a federal official).
Fuck them. We need accountability and not immunity. If they can't be responsible and follow the law in what they do then they shouldn't be in the job in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I never though about it. Who needs developed economies when we have such a bright example? Afghanistan, that beacon of civilisation. They really got it. Craftsman shops everywhere is what we need for success!
It's fairly obvious that you never thought about it.
The poster's statements are perfectly valid in any capitalist society:
"Being a businessman doesn't have to involve running a Fortune 500 company; it can a simple one man craft shop."
"The difference is you work at your own pace instead of your life being dictated by the clock and the whip."
Since you are so brilliant and obviously have much better ideas on this that we do, why don't you share them with us so we can learn by your bright and shining example?
If everybody is a business man, who is left to do the work?
OK, not everyone will succeed. In fact, the vast majority will fail. So, in your dream society there's a little bunch of successful business men and a vast majority of frustrated, miserable losers who hate what they do because they all wanted to be business men. And they receive shit pay because they have "failed". Can't you see a systemic problem with this model?
First of all I was saying that there are alternatives to working for other people. I am myself a small business owner (and I do the work, to answer that question) and when I have more work than I can handle myself I subcontract it out to other small businesses and occasionally I hire someone who doesn't feel like owning a business.
Second, with respect to 'vast majority of frustrated, miserable losers' you assume that most people would fail but unless you have some reference for this I'll disagree with you because in my experience most of the people who actually try and go into business succeed - if not the first or second time, then perhaps the third or fourth but they do eventually succeed and I don't know any that would rather be doing what they were doing before than what they're doing now.
Third, you can go into business in just any field that exists so where do you get that people would 'hate what they do' as they can choose what they want to be doing and have a better level of control over their lives than a normal employee would have. Not to mention that in the worst case people would be doing the same work for themselves as they would as an employee somewhere so certainly they wouldn't be any more frustrated or unhappy than they are today.
Finally, my dream society is one where the people working for the company (of any size) own it and participate in the management of it to some degree, where quality of service and product are still worth putting your name on what you do (as I do), and where 'shareholder value' and executive greed don't take precedence over the well being of the employees of the company.
A lot of people who own small businesses work longer hours and still only make a middle-class existence. Plus, they assume the risk. Granted, they get to do what they love, but owning a business often leads to bankruptcy or scraping by.
It's still an alternative is it not?
I have my own business and I'm middle class but if I'm working my ass off at least I'm doing it for myself. On top of that, (American) middle class is a lot better than most of the world is doing.
One leaves the country...as I've done...or I suppose that when things get bad enough there'll be a revolution of some sort or another. Assuming things get worse instead of better and that they actually get bad enough that people do something to deal with the current political climate.
People in the west do not have to work this hard to survive.
FTFY
You need to keep in mind that just as we do today, today's kids are going to be directly competing for jobs against the East where people do have to work this hard and in fact, much harder, just to survive.
I'm not saying this is good. I don't want it to be the case. I want a world where my kids can work a 40 hour workweek (already no longer the case) and have a very high quality of life. Unfortunately, the way things are going I don't see that it will be any other way but the west continuing to lower our quality of life in the face of cheap competition from the east given that our politicians are owned by the very corporations that most people work for.
And yes, I agree that it's horrific but unless people change things it is reality and not just a dream of what things used to be like.
Who pays for the extra month(s) of school? Localities across the US are already strapped for cash. Increase teacher's salaries by 20% (ish) and things get worse. And when will they do their continuing ed to remain accredited or get higher degrees? Similar stories for custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc. In many (most?) school districts, only parts of the administration are 12 month employees. There's also an increase in electricity and possible retrofitting of AC in places that don't have it.
Excellent thinking - let's save money by not giving the kids the best education we can. That's not only good for the kids (more vacation!) but it's great for the society!
Hell for that matter why not cut the school year to save money!!!
Fuck it let's just stop providing free school to our kids...if the parents care enough they'll find the money to pay for their kids to go to school!
And suddenly we find ourselves a third world country without free education and only two classes - the rich who can shell it out and the rest who cannot. The US is already headed there anyway, at the rate it's going with University costs.
To actually answer your question, the extra school being discussed could easily be paid for by avoiding wars that don't need to be fought. Note that I am specifically saying wars that don't need to be fought, as opposed to wars that do need to be fought.
Putting aside the human cost of lives on both sides of the equation:
"...the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
Spending in USD billions: 2011 2012
Education 29.8 121.1
Defense 964.8 925.2
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/defense_budget_2012_3.html
Sorry, but socialism isn't the answer to everything.
It's not actually clear to me what your statement is in response to, nor why it got a score of 5, Insightful other than people hearing the word socialism and reacting as they've been taught their whole lives, that Socialism is A Bad Thing.
Are you posting in response to fm6 who says that having money makes a difference in the opportunities that children have? Do you actually disagree with such a position or are you just throwing out the S word as a quick karma gain tactic?
Also, to more directly address your comment: Sorry, but lack of socialism isn't the answer to everything either. There has to be a balance between capitalism and socialism and when you have too much of either people lose - and when you have too little of either, people also lose.
Saturday school? Seriously? Is nothing sacred?
Not when your goal is to train up kids to be drones, ready and willing to fall in line and slave away 80 hour work weeks to make their employer rich. That's why they don't teach critical thinking skills or financial education either.
Alternate: Not when your goal is to train up kids to own their own business and make themselves rich.
AlternateAlternate: Not when you have to prepare your kids to have to compete against the Chinese and the Indians in the global marketplace.
I had financial education in school but I don't disagree that there could be more of it to help young people from falling into the debt trap. Unfortunately this is perceived as something parents should be teaching their kids and as the parents have bad habits, so then do the children.
In one corner, the defenders Iran and North Korea, stubborn to the end and willing to die for the cause...
In the other corner, all the resources of the west including but not limited to the NSA, the Israelis and Microsoft itself, willing to do anything to win...
I know where I'd put my bet.
My old department got hand-me-down trucks from the Texas Forest Service that we converted to brush trucks. We also got a 5000 gallon flight-line fuel truck from them that we converted to a mobile hydrant. The one "new" truck we bought, we bought as a used truck from a department in Chicago and had to take out a loan to pay for it. The bi-annual fundraising BBQ we held covered operating expenses, but that was just about it. Everything else came from handouts from the government.
The radio system? Patched together with stuff my dad & I bought at hamfests.
And there was more than a few times during the summer and we were fighting multihundred acre brush fires that I wish I knew exactly where each truck was, how much fuel and water they had onboard, and be able to set a waypoint for them to drive to for their next task.
That may not have all been able to have been done with an ad-hoc wireless system, but that would have helped immensely.
Sounds to me like your are meeting a need that should be met by the government.
I'm not knocking volunteers, don't get me wrong - I have the utmost respect for people who are willing to run into a fire (or whatever) to save a life. At the same time I think there's no good reason that the US government (at whatever level of government) doesn't fund whatever organisations are actually needed (such as yours, more than likely).
http://project-byzantium.org/
I have to wonder though, what's wrong with good old fashioned radios.
Email - this is for the volunteer department man...they have jobs to keep!
(yes I am joking - IANAF but I can't see what need they'd have beyond good radio either)
Where there are no burning issues at hand, human interest stories are a good tactic to keep a candidate in the news or at least in Twitterverse. Expect to learn more trivial, but harmless stuff like these "brewed" by the campaign strategists who work behind the scenes.
Somehow this only convinces me that come November a new occupant will fill that hopefully not empty Chair at the Oval Office.
No burning issues like the [ US World European ] economy? American Jobs? Civilian casualties in Syria? The ongoing [ American led ] war in Afganistan?
You're right that it's a tactic but it's a tactic to distract people from anything that actually matters, not that it takes much to distract Americans from anything happening outside America.
"Tweets in this case, can be picked up faster by researchers as compared to scientific alerts that may take up to 20 minutes."
First, 'up to' is bullshit that is useful in getting mobs to buy stuff but doesn't actually mean much at all.
From TFA:
"Paul Caruso, from the US Geological Survery, said: 'We do have sensors and it usually takes about five minutes before the sensors will see the earthquake."
So already it's five minutes and not twenty.
Second, it seems that the scientists have a problem with their seismology equipment if such equipment takes five minutes to register a (7.6 magnitude in this instance) quake.
Agreed. So, what we should do away with pre-voting altogether. Simply draw names from a hat for the positions. We'll see how they do and vote 'em out afterwards if we don't like their service; Let someone else have a chance to fill the role for their limited time. This is more in line with the way voting works anyway (voting against instead of for issues or people). Additionally, it gives the people power to hold their leaders accountable. Screw up? You're fired. A probationary period could ensure it doesn't devolve into a person a day per office. Additionally, it would present opportunities for 3rd party folks to actually get in office -- Proportional to the actual number of candidates, not limited by an entrenched and obsolete party system.
No, I started out this as a joke, but what I found out while writing this is that ANYTHING is better than the system we have right now.
Hold politicians accountable for what they say. False advertising is false advertising, even if it's coming from a politician's mouth.
Election promises mean less than nothing.
You know, I find it completely immoral that an insurance company might choose to deny payment for a necessary medical treatment...
and yet I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly that insurance companies shouldn't be obligated to pay for a disease that an individual acquired by intentionally denying routine vaccinations.
Ouch! The cognitive dissonance! It burrrns us!
The point of the article is that it's not only the non-immunized who get sick but that they put those around them at increased risk.
Leaving this up to corporations is a shit idea. There's already a law for this that worked fine before the general public started thinking that they understand medicine better than doctors do (which might be related to a completely fucked medical system in the US). The system around the law is broken and needs to be fixed by forcing parents to adhere to it. It's really not that complicated.
Uhhh...the US government covered up for a PMC that was SELLING LITTLE KIDS to get better arms deals. Oh and that was the SECOND TIME they had been caught pulling that shit, the first was in Kosovo.
I'm sorry but your right to get on a high horse dies when you cover up for child rapists, the end.
References?
Wired is good for us but this news needs to be on the majors, such as they are.
Anyone know anyone at the NY Times, CNN, whatever?
I have a standing desk. I find it most comfortable to use when I change my position frequently; I'll stand for a while, sit for a while, put my feet up on a cabinet for a while, go back to standing, etc. Half my postures (especially sitting) would probably make an ergonomics expert cringe. But I find it nice to change things up regularly. Sometimes I'm too lazy to stand for long, and I can tell, because my back gets sore. Once I spend a day or two standing more, I feel fine again. But only standing would never be comfortable for me either.
Maybe if I could be walking on a treadmill... I find walking much more comfortable than standing...
I find file cabinets to be useful if I get tired of sitting at the office.
There's nothing quite like working remotely by the pool though...
...and Apple is working on the iPad X, Samsung is working on their Galaxy Y and (name your vendor) is working on their (name their tablet) Z.
How is this news?
I guess then question becomes...can a family who does not have such skills and such access afford to live healthily on less than five dollars a day per person?
I think the first question you have to answer is if an average American family will eat healthily on any amount of money. Despite widespread belief, junk food is not cheap. See this NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?pagewanted=all
(And I think the prices they give for the homecooked meal are significantly higher than I would pay.)
The article compares eating at fast food restaurants to eating home cooked meals, whereas I am talking about junk food eaten at home. I do not disagree that some high percentage of American families would not eat healthily on any amount of money but that doesn't answer the original problem of feeding someone (who doesn't have your wife's cooking skills) on food stamps alone.
I suspect most American families would eat crap no matter how much money you gave them, because that is what our food culture has become. We gave it all over to the food processing companies. It seems like homecooking has really been looked down on in this country over the last 30 years or so. But if you want to eat healthily, you still have to cook.
I think we can also agree that such skill should be taught, one way or another - perhaps in school though I could perceive some pushback for 'the American way' (or whatever else those who breed and sell beef would come up with to fight such education). Access to healthy food at reasonable prices is, perhaps, more difficult to achieve in some areas but is probably doable across much of the country.
Grocery Outlet produces a pamphlet on feeding your family on $3 a day: http://www.groceryoutlet.com/default/bargainistablog/09-09-14/Feed_your_Family_on_3_a_Day.aspx
The food doesn't sound terribly appealing to me, but I'm sure it's much better than many families are eating. Maybe such things should come with the food stamps check. Maybe such things do.
There are a lot of Home Economics skills that really should be taught to everyone. Everyone should learn the basics of financial management, cooking, and house keeping. None of these issues are that hard, for example, most of the things my wife makes are not complex. But if all the food you've ever eaten comes out of a cardboard box, how can you learn how to cook?
I have no idea what to do on the political end. It really annoys me that my daughter brings home all these preachy pamphlets about healthy eating from school, but what's on the school lunch menu? Beef Nachos and pepperoni pizza. Is that some kind of joke? But, of course, the food processing companies can write whatever they want into the laws, no matter who you elect.
I can only agree that educating young people correctly is important which, unfortunately, is not always a priority in our country and may not even be possible in situations where the parent(s) are so ignorant that whatever is taught the child is completely overridden. It would help, though, for those families who do want to feed their children well.
The only thing I could suggest around the school lunches there would be to get the other parents in the school to join you in complaining, assuming that they agree that beef nachos and pizza are not what kids should be eating.
I've removed my family from this equation by moving to France. My son eats very healthily at school and at home, though food prices are a bit higher here than in the US. At least neither you nor I are in Spain where there are regions that are planning to start charging kids who bring their lunch to school something like 3 USD per day for using the cafeteria.
Thank you for your reply -
I can see how frivolous lawsuits could potentially disrupt the jobs of federal officials. I could also see how non-frivolous lawsuits might also, more justifiably, disrupt what federal officials are doing if it is in fact illegal.
I could see being immune while in office to mitigate the first, but cannot justify total immunity because of the second. I want people in office to be held responsible for their actions as I think that the way things are at the moment leads to a general lack of accountability that can only lead so at least some people in such positions of power and authority, and with such immunity, doing things that they shouldn't be doing.
(disclaimer read and understood and a side note to say that I appreciate any lawyer who writes as clearly as you do)
Your original comment was 'opinions', which is general, and not 'party affiliation', which is specific. On top of that what I said can apply to party affiliation as much as to any other opinion - could post it or not, could post it as an AC.
finding a decent open proxy. They go down all the time with no warning. So pay up and get a commercial account or be prepared to make open proxy hunting a part of your daily/weekly routine.
I used to play a MMRPG that banned my entire continent's IP... I still remember the feeling of joy upon finding a fast open proxy outside my banned zone!
How do you feel about sharing the details of that proxy? :-)
You can also sue government officials in their individual capacities, but they typically enjoy some degree of immunity themselves (if they didn't, all the law suits would dissuade anyone from working as a federal official).
Fuck them. We need accountability and not immunity. If they can't be responsible and follow the law in what they do then they shouldn't be in the job in the first place.