It would also be dark out in the morning when I left for most of the year.
You know, the school schedule need not be cast in stone. When I was in school, we used to start school at 7 am during spring and autumn, and at 8 during the winter precisely for that reason.
What do you do if the child must walk through a dangerous neighborhood? Would you let your elementary school child do this?
I don't know. It depends on what you mean by "dangerous neighborhood". If there are bullets flying through that neighborhood, then probably not, otherwise yes. But where I grew up we would not call that a neighborhood, we would call it a war zone.
In my school district, even if a child lives within the acceptable walking distance, if there aren't sidewalks for them to walk on safely they must be bussed. It's a safety issue.
In the long run, it would definitely be cheaper to build sidewalks.
Since you've used the experience card, I shall too: I've lived in several Euro Countries, for years. I've followed debates in the national assembly of France in French, and of course Parliament in the UK. News in Dutch, and so on.
You are a real polyglot. Do you also speak Finnish? How about Hungarian?
Compare Harry Reid for example with another democrat, Lieberman.
Last time I checked Lieberman was an independent (one of only two in the Senate).
Maxine Waters is just one example of the 'out there' wing of the democratic party
Those are outliers. Every European parliament has its Ron Pauls and Maxine Waters too (Jean-Marie Le Pen and Alessandra Mussolini come to mind). That is not what I am talking about. When I think of ideology, I mean those core issues which a person or a party does not consider open for compromise. Here is an example: in 1999 the German Green Party was part of the governing coalition (with the Social-Democrats) at the time when Germany dispatched troops abroad for the first time since WWII, as part of the NATO deployment in Kosovo. This triggered a wave a mass resignations in the party, as nonviolence is one of the core issues of Green politics and many of its members did not see it as open for compromise. The party was also punished by its electorate in the next cycle of local elections
Now, you tell me which issues could trigger such cataclysmic events among Republicans or Democrats, and then we can discuss their differences, because everything else is just circumstantial.
If you honestly believe that the people in the US congress hold "a wide spectrum of views", you need to take a closer look at other parliaments out there. As a foreigner living in the US, I often get asked by my friends about the ideological differences between republicans and democrats and I am stumped by that question. The only significant difference that I can detect is that the republicans are rather ambivalent about the separation of church and state.
Of course many reps vote the straight party line anyway, but at least there's more independence and choice
I'm not sure what is the difference between a parliamentary system and the "US system" you are referring to, but I am sure that the reson people don't usually go against the party line in either is that the votes are not secret.
Actually, plane flights are so bad, that nothing can make them worse. Someone talking on the phone next to me is nothing compared to the 4 year old kid behind me kicking my seat for 7 hours in a row. At least now I can use the dead time to call my mother, who always complains I don't call enough. The only question is: will I be able to take my knees out of my mouth to reach for the phone in my pocket?
He was saying that RP could win NEXT election. He has a point too. Most people still don't know anything about RP and why he said the things he did. Yup, Ron Paul could win the next election. And so could RuPaul, provided that the US congress passes a law which makes pot smoking compulsory for every person of voting age.
I am stupendously well educated. What are you going to try to do to me to impose your views?
Nothing. I was just pointing out that cultures do evolve, and as they do, their values change. Just two centuries ago, owning slaves was seen as perfectly acceptable by a (vast) majority of people. Today, a person espousing such a belief would be considered an extremist, tolerated but marginalized. There is no clear argument that can be made against the possibility that (some) societies might move away from irrational beliefs through a similar, natural and gradual process.
If you were indeed as stupendously educated as you claim you are, you would have understood that I was not advocating a witch hunt, but merely pointing out that your original argument was invalidated by historical precedent.
So what's your prescription? Eliminate everybody who believes in God? Please explain to me how that's even remotely moral.
I'm not talking about eliminating people. I'm talking about eliminating irrationality. That can be accomplished through education. Do I need to explain why education is remotely moral?
I assert, and will defend, my right to believe as I wish. You don't get a vote. That's true for all values of "I" and "you".
religious modes of thought exist in every culture around the world Until relatively recently, some form of slavery existed in every culture around the world. Eliminating it was, however, a big step forward.
That's for closed primaries if you want to vote in them and anyway, you don't have to answer. I know that, but that is exactly the problem. Lets say you are politically engaged and you are a member of party X and, naturally, you want to vote in party X primaries. Then you must check the box, but once you do that, come election day (the real one, not primary), the official at the polling station knows your political affiliation, which in turn means that he/she knows how you are going to vote with 90% probability (or more). So much for secret ballots. I find that to be far more sinister than being asked if I believe in Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
1. The government is asking you what religion you are on your tax forms at all, and that they will be the instrument of collection for the "official" churches of Germany.
Not any crazier than when the government is asking what your political affiliation is, before they allow you to register to vote (as they do in the US).
military technology usually gets sold back to us in the commercial realm - see also GPS systems for one example. there are countless other toys and gadgets we all have used that probably came from battlefields of the past... or you could just cry and wring your hands more about our evil military.
Oh, great! I can't wait for the day the MOAB will go on sale at the local fireworks shack. There goes the neighborhood!
But patent reform is a lot like campaign finance reform, everyone agrees there's a problem but no one really has anything they can realistically take to congress. The congress is there to represent the People, not to rubberstamp bills crafted by corporations. As such, there is no need for them to wait for the private sector to take the initiative. They should just sit down, on their enlightened, elected asses, and come up with a law that really promotes the "Progress of Science and the useful Arts".
If you can afford the house, buy it, if you cannot, there is nothing wrong with renting.
Monthly payments for a mortgage are only marginally more expensive than rent. If you cannot afford one, you probably cannot afford the other either.
If you cannot afford to feed a family maybe you shouldn't have one.
Agreed. Tell that to the pro-life crowd.
Nevertheless, if you already have a family that is starving, talk to your local church or charity, they will help you.
They will help you if you happen to share their religious beliefs. Besides, that's a strange recommendation to make after making such an impassioned argument against handouts.
The gist of the matter is this: there was a time when one could make a living from manual labor. That time is long gone. A college degree is pretty much required these days. By providing that education the government would ensure that more people are capable of leading productive lives rather than relying on handouts, be they from the government, the church, or any other source. You know, the old "teach a man to fish..." principle
nobody is forcing Americans to take out those loans. You do need a PhD if you want to become a brain researcher, but McDonnalds does not require college education for most positions there.
Good luck buying a house or feeding your family on a McDonnalds salary.
Society as a whole benefitting, Sir, is the very definition of a lofty socialist ideal.
Then, I guess, free trade and free speech are lofty socialist ideals too, since society as a whole benefits from them.
You can work your way through college and come out of it with little or no debt. You won't have time for partying, but it can certainly be done.
You really hold your fellow Americans in very low regard. Study after study have shown that the US has one of the lowest upward social mobility rates in the western world (only the UK is lower). I think that this is in great part due to these outrageous loans Americans are forced to acquire early in life. You think they are just lazier than the rest of the world.
Providing easy and universal access to education is not just a lofty socialist ideal. Society, as a whole benefits from such an approach. Sergey Korolev, the architect of the Soviet space program, was born in a poor, dysfunctional family, yet he attended the MVTU, Russa's MIT if you want. Had he not had access to free education, maybe the Americans would have won the space race.
You have a better chance of being murdered as a citizen of Washington DC than a soldier has of being killed in combat in Iraq.
Can you back that up with numbers? 'cuz I think you just pulled that "fact" out of your ass. Here are my numbers:
DC (2006): population 581,530; 169 murders => probability of death: 0.0003.
Iraq (2006): troops 168,530; 791 deaths => probability of death 0.0047.
In other words you would be 16 times more likely to be killed in Iraq than in DC. The data I used came from
here,
here and here.
Sure - aquit the police officers who did the shooting. Fine them, demote them, fire them, send them back to the academy for supplimental training, transfer to permanent desk job. Something. Meanwhile send the whole department back to usage of force training.
Why? Either they acted correctly, in which case nothing should happen to them, not even a fine, or they used excessive force in which case negligent manslaughter charges and jail time would be in order.
Slashdot Mirror
It would also be dark out in the morning when I left for most of the year.
You know, the school schedule need not be cast in stone. When I was in school, we used to start school at 7 am during spring and autumn, and at 8 during the winter precisely for that reason.
What do you do if the child must walk through a dangerous neighborhood? Would you let your elementary school child do this?
I don't know. It depends on what you mean by "dangerous neighborhood". If there are bullets flying through that neighborhood, then probably not, otherwise yes. But where I grew up we would not call that a neighborhood, we would call it a war zone.
In my school district, even if a child lives within the acceptable walking distance, if there aren't sidewalks for them to walk on safely they must be bussed. It's a safety issue.
In the long run, it would definitely be cheaper to build sidewalks.
Since you've used the experience card, I shall too: I've lived in several Euro Countries, for years. I've followed debates in the national assembly of France in French, and of course Parliament in the UK. News in Dutch, and so on.
You are a real polyglot. Do you also speak Finnish? How about Hungarian?
Compare Harry Reid for example with another democrat, Lieberman.
Last time I checked Lieberman was an independent (one of only two in the Senate).
Maxine Waters is just one example of the 'out there' wing of the democratic party
Those are outliers. Every European parliament has its Ron Pauls and Maxine Waters too (Jean-Marie Le Pen and Alessandra Mussolini come to mind). That is not what I am talking about. When I think of ideology, I mean those core issues which a person or a party does not consider open for compromise. Here is an example: in 1999 the German Green Party was part of the governing coalition (with the Social-Democrats) at the time when Germany dispatched troops abroad for the first time since WWII, as part of the NATO deployment in Kosovo. This triggered a wave a mass resignations in the party, as nonviolence is one of the core issues of Green politics and many of its members did not see it as open for compromise. The party was also punished by its electorate in the next cycle of local elections
Now, you tell me which issues could trigger such cataclysmic events among Republicans or Democrats, and then we can discuss their differences, because everything else is just circumstantial.
If you honestly believe that the people in the US congress hold "a wide spectrum of views", you need to take a closer look at other parliaments out there. As a foreigner living in the US, I often get asked by my friends about the ideological differences between republicans and democrats and I am stumped by that question. The only significant difference that I can detect is that the republicans are rather ambivalent about the separation of church and state.
Of course many reps vote the straight party line anyway, but at least there's more independence and choice
I'm not sure what is the difference between a parliamentary system and the "US system" you are referring to, but I am sure that the reson people don't usually go against the party line in either is that the votes are not secret.
No, what was it the US government always swore to defend, again?
The Bible, of course. After all, the president does not put his hand on the Constitution when sworn in, does he?
I stopped caring when they stopped making adventure games
Apparently Dick Cheney agrees with this, as he had his residence pixelated on Google Maps
Actually, plane flights are so bad, that nothing can make them worse. Someone talking on the phone next to me is nothing compared to the 4 year old kid behind me kicking my seat for 7 hours in a row. At least now I can use the dead time to call my mother, who always complains I don't call enough. The only question is: will I be able to take my knees out of my mouth to reach for the phone in my pocket?
If he's a FORTRAN programmer maybe he should run for the House of COMMONs instead
(there's the sarcasm, by the way.)
There is no doubt that there are still irrational people left on Earth. You are living proof of that (assuming that you are, indeed, from Earth).
Nothing. I was just pointing out that cultures do evolve, and as they do, their values change. Just two centuries ago, owning slaves was seen as perfectly acceptable by a (vast) majority of people. Today, a person espousing such a belief would be considered an extremist, tolerated but marginalized. There is no clear argument that can be made against the possibility that (some) societies might move away from irrational beliefs through a similar, natural and gradual process.
If you were indeed as stupendously educated as you claim you are, you would have understood that I was not advocating a witch hunt, but merely pointing out that your original argument was invalidated by historical precedent.
I'm not talking about eliminating people. I'm talking about eliminating irrationality. That can be accomplished through education. Do I need to explain why education is remotely moral?
I assert, and will defend, my right to believe as I wish. You don't get a vote. That's true for all values of "I" and "you".Been there. Done that. The North won.
1. The government is asking you what religion you are on your tax forms at all, and that they will be the instrument of collection for the "official" churches of Germany.
Not any crazier than when the government is asking what your political affiliation is, before they allow you to register to vote (as they do in the US).
Oh, great! I can't wait for the day the MOAB will go on sale at the local fireworks shack. There goes the neighborhood!
- [...]
- Paint it black
Or they could turn their heads until their darkness goes...Monthly payments for a mortgage are only marginally more expensive than rent. If you cannot afford one, you probably cannot afford the other either.
If you cannot afford to feed a family maybe you shouldn't have one.Agreed. Tell that to the pro-life crowd.
Nevertheless, if you already have a family that is starving, talk to your local church or charity, they will help you.They will help you if you happen to share their religious beliefs. Besides, that's a strange recommendation to make after making such an impassioned argument against handouts.
The gist of the matter is this: there was a time when one could make a living from manual labor. That time is long gone. A college degree is pretty much required these days. By providing that education the government would ensure that more people are capable of leading productive lives rather than relying on handouts, be they from the government, the church, or any other source. You know, the old "teach a man to fish..." principle
Good luck buying a house or feeding your family on a McDonnalds salary.
Society as a whole benefitting, Sir, is the very definition of a lofty socialist ideal.Then, I guess, free trade and free speech are lofty socialist ideals too, since society as a whole benefits from them.
You really hold your fellow Americans in very low regard. Study after study have shown that the US has one of the lowest upward social mobility rates in the western world (only the UK is lower). I think that this is in great part due to these outrageous loans Americans are forced to acquire early in life. You think they are just lazier than the rest of the world.
Providing easy and universal access to education is not just a lofty socialist ideal. Society, as a whole benefits from such an approach. Sergey Korolev, the architect of the Soviet space program, was born in a poor, dysfunctional family, yet he attended the MVTU, Russa's MIT if you want. Had he not had access to free education, maybe the Americans would have won the space race.
Can you back that up with numbers? 'cuz I think you just pulled that "fact" out of your ass. Here are my numbers:
DC (2006): population 581,530; 169 murders => probability of death: 0.0003.
Iraq (2006): troops 168,530; 791 deaths => probability of death 0.0047.
In other words you would be 16 times more likely to be killed in Iraq than in DC. The data I used came from here, here and here.
Sure - aquit the police officers who did the shooting. Fine them, demote them, fire them, send them back to the academy for supplimental training, transfer to permanent desk job. Something. Meanwhile send the whole department back to usage of force training.Why? Either they acted correctly, in which case nothing should happen to them, not even a fine, or they used excessive force in which case negligent manslaughter charges and jail time would be in order.