If he is really good at a subject, why take a course on it to begin with? The entire purpose of education is to make someone "really good" at a subject, is it not?
One of the oft-repeated problems with the education system in the United States is the push for "higher education for all" that ends up harming both schools and students alike. If you want your precious child to be learning how to design websites, take said child out of high school and put him into a vocational/technical school.
The classical education provided by high school is still quite valuable in this day and age, but not for everyone. Our cultural disdain for vo-tech and the related push for a "one size fits all" secondary education helps nobody.
When marriage is strictly a contract between two private parties (and Libertarians want everything to be contracts between two private parties), there is no incentive for any third parties (employers, service providers, etc.) to even recognize it, let alone respect it.
Libertarians just have some ideas that are more congruent with the republican party than the democratic party. On many issues libertarians are much more liberal than Democrats will ever be. Gay marriage for example... Libertarians don't even think marriage should be something the government has anything to do with.
Yes, in a Libertarian Utopia, you would be free to marry a member of the same sex. And then your private employer would be free to fire you for doing so, and your private insurer would be free to deny benefits to your chosen spouse, and private hospitals would be free to deny visitation, and private orphanages would be free to deny adoption, etc, rendering the entire exercise pointless for anyone who isn't independently wealthy.
Libertarians ultimately believe that all rights have a price tag, and you are only truly entitled to exercise the rights you can monetarily afford. This so-called "fiscal conservatism" overrides any claims of "social liberalism" Libertarians attempt to make, firmly establishing themselves as the GOP's ilk.
and then he has the right to make a big stink about it
He obviously does not have that right. He has, at best, the "right" to make a rather insignificant stink, one that is easily ignored by everyone. Even if we assume that he has persuasiveness and charisma on his side (and his own poll numbers suggest otherwise), he only has the right to make a big stink if he has the money to reach a big audience.
Big stinks, in this regard, are the sole domain of those who can afford their own airtime.
Just because you're libertarian doesn't mean you want to shut down public schools and start selling missile launchers at the local walmart tomorrow. There's plenty of middle ground.
What you call "middle ground" others would call "willful ignorance of consequences." Avoiding both of those scenarios requires government coercion, which Libertarian philosophy necessarily considers the greatest of all evils.
It's an election year. Don't believe anything they say.
He's a House member. House members have districts drawn to be non-competitive. As far as he's concerned, the only election he had to worry about was his primary back in March.
And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests.
Only for a very narrow definition of "undisturbed." Why go through the effort of enforcement en masse when you can make an example of a relative few? And there is more than one way to force someone out of an organization than take official action.
In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues.
War, capital punishment, poverty: occasional letters. Homosexuality, abortion, contraception: months-long, well-funded, nationwide lobbying campaigns.
I guess they really are the same!
John Paul II opposed the Iraq War.
Nobody was ever denied communion for a war vote.
The Church is not asking the LCWR to "focus less on social justice"
They're not "asking" anything; they're sending in bishops to tell them what to do.
stop moving "beyond Jesus" (their words)
Their actions suggest they take greater issue with the "beyond the Church" portion of that line.
Like the billion+ Catholics who do not break into abortion clinics? How many of those are excommunicated?
The laity don't get the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a/k/a the Inquisition) coming after them like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious have. The nuns are clearly held to a higher standard when it comes to focusing less on social justice and more on social conservatism.
Just because it won't be destroyed next Tuesday, or even next galactic year, doesn't mean it won't be snuffed out well before its time in a cosmic time frame.
Guilt or innocence hasn't even been established yet, and the judge is ordering the defendant to perform activities that may be detrimental to her (even if just perceived) well-being.
She had an alternative: cool her heels in jail. There's zero indication that her right to a speedy trial was at risk of being violated.
Way out of bounds there.
She is charged with jeopardizing life and limb (and fleeing the scene thereof). The people are entitled to act through the commonwealth to both ensure that she will be around to answer the serious charges as well as ensure that it doesn't happen again. Her flippant Facebook post strongly suggested that putting her back in jail was the only way to accomplish one or both of those goals.
Hypothetical extreme example: If you met a girl at a bar, went to bed with her, only to discover later (via arrest) that she was jailbait, and a judge demanded that you get a castration in order to avoid 10-15 years in prison, would you do it? Many (I daresay most) would, while others would not.
Apples and oranges. You're discussing sentencing options after conviction/plea deal. TFA is about a bail hearing.
The judge in question wanted the offending Facebook post removed as an indication that the defendant was "taking it seriously" and would, in fact, show up for her trial; it was a bail condition, not a sentence.
Just as tanks and helicopters don't preclude the necessity of infantry, missile batteries do not preclude the necessity of being able to occupy territory.
Cost of living - it would be misleading to compare Chicago or NYC salaries to rural areas of the country.
That might justify the qualifier if the parent was talking about the lowest-paid urban teachers; the highest-paid urban teachers should be highest overall, making the qualifier redundant.
Provided, of course, that such urban teachers do actually earn more than even those teaching in opulent suburbs.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely, the most valuable thing up there is not the satellite, it's the position it's occupying.
Like the real estate agents say, "location, location, location."
At all. Ever. No surveys, no non-profits, no political ads, no nothing.
Simplify the regulations so that there isn't anywhere even a whiff of a loophole, and suddenly enforcement will become easier as well.
which he could be really good at
If he is really good at a subject, why take a course on it to begin with? The entire purpose of education is to make someone "really good" at a subject, is it not?
One of the oft-repeated problems with the education system in the United States is the push for "higher education for all" that ends up harming both schools and students alike. If you want your precious child to be learning how to design websites, take said child out of high school and put him into a vocational/technical school.
The classical education provided by high school is still quite valuable in this day and age, but not for everyone. Our cultural disdain for vo-tech and the related push for a "one size fits all" secondary education helps nobody.
Those big whirly things on top, and especially that big old flat one on the back, aren't the most stealthy things on earth.
The comparison was to a C-130.
Helicopters can be refueled mid-flight and have a radar signature that's bit more... subtle.
Teleporter's most likely.
Or, y'know, a helicopter.
All those things would be illegal
When marriage is strictly a contract between two private parties (and Libertarians want everything to be contracts between two private parties), there is no incentive for any third parties (employers, service providers, etc.) to even recognize it, let alone respect it.
Libertarians just have some ideas that are more congruent with the republican party than the democratic party. On many issues libertarians are much more liberal than Democrats will ever be. Gay marriage for example... Libertarians don't even think marriage should be something the government has anything to do with.
Yes, in a Libertarian Utopia, you would be free to marry a member of the same sex. And then your private employer would be free to fire you for doing so, and your private insurer would be free to deny benefits to your chosen spouse, and private hospitals would be free to deny visitation, and private orphanages would be free to deny adoption, etc, rendering the entire exercise pointless for anyone who isn't independently wealthy.
Libertarians ultimately believe that all rights have a price tag, and you are only truly entitled to exercise the rights you can monetarily afford. This so-called "fiscal conservatism" overrides any claims of "social liberalism" Libertarians attempt to make, firmly establishing themselves as the GOP's ilk.
and then he has the right to make a big stink about it
He obviously does not have that right. He has, at best, the "right" to make a rather insignificant stink, one that is easily ignored by everyone. Even if we assume that he has persuasiveness and charisma on his side (and his own poll numbers suggest otherwise), he only has the right to make a big stink if he has the money to reach a big audience.
Big stinks, in this regard, are the sole domain of those who can afford their own airtime.
Just because you're libertarian doesn't mean you want to shut down public schools and start selling missile launchers at the local walmart tomorrow. There's plenty of middle ground.
What you call "middle ground" others would call "willful ignorance of consequences." Avoiding both of those scenarios requires government coercion, which Libertarian philosophy necessarily considers the greatest of all evils.
start think for yourself for a change.
Heal thyself.
His point is that Slashdot should totally be his personal army.
Libertarians are only against interference that doesn't work in their favor.
"Must?" "Designed?" I don't think you quite understand what the "free" in "free market" means.
It's an election year. Don't believe anything they say.
He's a House member. House members have districts drawn to be non-competitive. As far as he's concerned, the only election he had to worry about was his primary back in March.
And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests.
Only for a very narrow definition of "undisturbed." Why go through the effort of enforcement en masse when you can make an example of a relative few? And there is more than one way to force someone out of an organization than take official action.
In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues.
War, capital punishment, poverty: occasional letters.
Homosexuality, abortion, contraception: months-long, well-funded, nationwide lobbying campaigns.
I guess they really are the same!
John Paul II opposed the Iraq War.
Nobody was ever denied communion for a war vote.
The Church is not asking the LCWR to "focus less on social justice"
They're not "asking" anything; they're sending in bishops to tell them what to do.
stop moving "beyond Jesus" (their words)
Their actions suggest they take greater issue with the "beyond the Church" portion of that line.
Like the billion+ Catholics who do not break into abortion clinics? How many of those are excommunicated?
The laity don't get the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a/k/a the Inquisition) coming after them like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious have. The nuns are clearly held to a higher standard when it comes to focusing less on social justice and more on social conservatism.
The punchline will be when the nun is excommunicated for not breaking into an abortion clinic instead, being more anti-war than she is pro-life.
The Ferris Wheel would only be second in popularity to the Line Ride at any of the borough's fine bridges!
But Fox couldn't have known that it was about to air a suicide
"Who could possibly have known?"
This sounds like orbit not destruction. It's like how the earth and moon can orbit the sun without being destroyed.
Bad analogy disproves your point, as the solar system is fundamentally chaotic. Consider, for example, the Nice Model.
Just because it won't be destroyed next Tuesday, or even next galactic year, doesn't mean it won't be snuffed out well before its time in a cosmic time frame.
The proper response is "You insensitive clods!"
Guilt or innocence hasn't even been established yet, and the judge is ordering the defendant to perform activities that may be detrimental to her (even if just perceived) well-being.
She had an alternative: cool her heels in jail. There's zero indication that her right to a speedy trial was at risk of being violated.
Way out of bounds there.
She is charged with jeopardizing life and limb (and fleeing the scene thereof). The people are entitled to act through the commonwealth to both ensure that she will be around to answer the serious charges as well as ensure that it doesn't happen again. Her flippant Facebook post strongly suggested that putting her back in jail was the only way to accomplish one or both of those goals.
Hypothetical extreme example: If you met a girl at a bar, went to bed with her, only to discover later (via arrest) that she was jailbait, and a judge demanded that you get a castration in order to avoid 10-15 years in prison, would you do it? Many (I daresay most) would, while others would not.
Apples and oranges. You're discussing sentencing options after conviction/plea deal. TFA is about a bail hearing.
The judge in question wanted the offending Facebook post removed as an indication that the defendant was "taking it seriously" and would, in fact, show up for her trial; it was a bail condition, not a sentence.
... isn't the same as being able to replace it.
Just as tanks and helicopters don't preclude the necessity of infantry, missile batteries do not preclude the necessity of being able to occupy territory.
We are the generation of incompetent politicians.
What's this "we" stuff? I don't know about you, but I'm not a Boomer.
Cost of living - it would be misleading to compare Chicago or NYC salaries to rural areas of the country.
That might justify the qualifier if the parent was talking about the lowest-paid urban teachers; the highest-paid urban teachers should be highest overall, making the qualifier redundant.
Provided, of course, that such urban teachers do actually earn more than even those teaching in opulent suburbs.
Given that the DOD takes the brunt of the cuts
Don't hold your breath.