Just because something isn't PC doesn't mean it isn't the truth. In 2004, only.00541% of the US population died from AIDS, about 15,798(on the decline) people.
Around 14,900 people fall to there deaths every year in the United States, over 43,000 die in automobile accidents. Over 1.3 million abortions were performed in 2002, over 700,000 died from heart disease, cancer took over 500,000, strokes took out over 150,000, doctors managed to take out 250,000, and Alzeheimers killed nearly 50,000.
Only 11% of men are exposed through heterosexual contact. That means, that if 100% of the people that died of AIDS were men, 1,738 died from heterosexual contact. That's 0.000588% of the population.
In short, if you don't want to get AIDS, avoid unprotected homosexual sex if you are a male, and unprotected anal sex if you are a female, and don't share injection drug needles. Additionally, don't have sex with people that are in the risk group. That should bring the odds down to a completely manageable level.
It takes massive ammounts of oil to run a war. The military is undoubtedly investigating alternative fuel sources with great interest. Remember that during WWII access to rubber was cut off so the military had to encourage the development of synthetics to replace the natural supply. The military is phenominal at contingency planning (they don't do nothing when there isn't an active war to fight), an oil shortage (or cutoff) has almost certainly been planned for.
Much of the Navy is nuclear powered. If the technology could be scaled (dollars and size) to Humvees and Fighter Jets, or another technology could replace the fuel they use now, it would be yet another massive American military advantage. Having to stop to gas up, the associated supply lines, and midair refueling are all costly, slow, and expensive. If you could just keep going your forces would be at a huge tactical advantage. A tank that never had to slow down or stop for gas, or a F22 that would never need to practically be refueled and could constantly run the afterburner would be massively powerful.
And outsourcing is not hurting the economy. Unemployment is at a new low while more people have entered the workforce. Forrester Research estimates that only 0.71% of all jobs lost (as in no longer exist, not as in you are fired) are due to outsourcing. Further, jobs entering the United States from other countries exceeds the rate at which jobs leave the United States.
In the not so distant past, a huge percentage of the population were farmers. Their jobs were replaced by machinery. Goods that used to be hand built were replaced by goods produced by machine. Yet, the population has grown and all of these lost jobs have been replaced by new jobs.
Oursourcing of a small number of jobs outside of America isn't a bad thing. I have been working with outsourcers regularly as of late. The quality is not anywhere near what we would expect from an American firm, so a large part of what our programmers now do is write specifications, send them overseas, then perform code reviews. This works fairly well, it greatly increases productivity. A single professional American programmer can be paired with a team of Indian programmers (who cost less than another American) and combined they can produce the same quality as three good programmers. The company makes more money, the product is of higher quality, the programmer works less hours and gets better bonuses. Further, because the cost of development is reduced, they are able to take on more projects than they would be able to otherwise (thus employing the other two american programmers, and two more overseas dev teams). Basically, as far as outsourcing goes, America is becoming the upper managment of the world, and the pay will probably reflect that.
In order to get a domain name of reasonable length and not violate any trademarks it is essentially necessary to make up a word. Dr. Seuss would make a fortune naming companies today.
First, you caught the word choice error, typing one thing while thinking another.
Second, we didn't have two bathrooms added. We had the master bath replaced, and a bedroom added under it on the ground floor (technically a little sitting room was also added to the master bedroom and a utility room next to the new bedroom). House size prior to the addition was 1900 square feet. After the addition it is 2700 square feet. Hardly a McMansion. You have to remember, that to add onto an existing house, you have to pour a new foundation, add additional HVAC capacity (we had to add a second unit), bring in additional electric lines (at least we did), and expand plumbing capacity (don't really know the correct terminology on this one - we had to have a second pipe ran to the main sewer pipe).
Bathrooms are also fairly expensive compared to a bedroom, tile costs significantly more than carpet, cabinetry and countertops aren't cheap, and neither is having additional plumbing installed (or moved). And that $50k only includes raw materials and an electrician, all of the other work (including the architectual design) was done by my father. A contractor wanted $100k to do the same work in the early ninetees. I'd imagine now the cost would be closer to $130k. That's around $65k or more for a moderately sized low tech bathroom without crazy shower heads, jacuzis (sp?) or anything else. Just a toilet, a large mirrored medicine cabinet, a sink, and a shower.
The desire for a TV in the bathroom isn't limited to the rich. At one point, I lived in a frat house in which someone had ran a cable into the bathroom to a 13" color TV that sat adjacent to the toilet. The TV was used, regularly. The install looked like hell, I'd imagine a large part of the cost is in the install and making everything look professional.
Further, having a bathroom that expensive installed is actually pretty good for the economy. It's much better than having the person sit on the money to give to their kids. A contractor, the subcontractors, the architect, the carpenters (if they are going with custom cabinetry), and the raw material manufacturers all directly benefit from the project. All of those parties pay taxes as well, so a good chunk of the project goes to the government. That money also trickles down as they in turn spend it. (Don't quote me on this - I think at one point I read that the trickle effect is roughly x10, in other words a $200,000 luxury expenditure by a rich person equates to $2,000,000 into the economy with the trickle)
I don't think we really disagree that much. I too feel that spending $200,000 for a high tech bathroom is excessive, I said I would get one myself to make a point. On the other hand, if our bathroom would cost $65k today, then I don't really feel that $200k is an absolutely rediculous price to pay assuming the remainder of the house is equally grandiose.
AIDS isn't a great example. I read a study a couple of years ago that suggested that the vastest majority of AIDS cases in America could be attributed to needle drug users, and homosexual relationships between males. The study suggested that while the transfer of AIDS is possible between heterosexual partners, it is relatively unlikely (especially if your heterosexual partner happens to be female). By staying out of the risk group, and not fornicating with members of the risk group (this include promiscuous women that may fornicate with the aformentioned bisexual males and needle drug users) the odds of contracting AIDS, even without protection, is close to nill. My father always says, the squeeky wheel gets the grease, and in America the plight of homosexuals and needle drug users often goes unnoticed (I'm not saying this is right). An estimate 15,798 (on the decline) people died of AIDS in 2004 within the good old US of A. Compare that to how many people doctors kill a year:
12,000 -- unnecessary surgery 7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals 20,000 -- other errors in hospitals 80,000 -- infection
So where is the line then. A few years ago, we expanded our home to add another bedroom and replace/expand the master bath. The cost of the project was about $50,000. A bit over half of that was for the bathroom. Is this exhuberant; it is if you live in an apartment and can't afford anything else, but not if you live in a bigger house that already had a large master bath.
Likewise, undoubtedly the first indoor bathrooms were considered rediculous wastes of money. The first outhouses were probably seen that way as well. But at least in civilized countries, not too many people crap in the woods or in outhouses any more.
The real issue here is jealousy, and if it isn't, lead by example. Calculate the average worldwide annual income (I believe around $5k in 1999) and every cent you make over that, give to someone who earns less than that average. Socialism starts with you.
The fact that some peoples parents left them some money, and they want to use it on a bathroom, doesn't really bother me. I want to build a giant luxury home some day, it's a good goal to keep me motivated in my business.
The great thing about America, is that there is no dynasty or caste system. My grandfather started out living in the ghetto of Baltimore city. Through years of hard work, he moved out of the city into a nice area he could afford in the suburbs. He built the house himself so that he could afford it.
He motivated his sons to do better for themselves, and they went to college, got a good education, and good white collar jobs. They did the same with there sons. My cousin graduated from high school, college, and then law school first in his class thanks to his fathers motivations. He is now a very successful lawyer. I started a business with the help of my father, and am becoming successful as well. Every generation in our family has worked a little harder, been a little smarter, and tried a little harder to get where we are today.
My point is, if I make enough money to be able to afford a $200k bathroom someday, I am going to have a $200k bathroom, because I earned it. I fully expect that someday I'll be able to groom my son into being a self sufficient and successful person as well, hopefully even moreso than myself. All of those things you mentioned will ultimated be cured by capitalism. If AIDS becomes enough of a threat, it will become a big enough cash (or glory) cow to be worth curing. Alternate fuel sources are also starting to be addressed by the free market.
If you really have such a problem with people making lots of money and then spending it on, god forbid, themselves, and not societal issues, then please, show us the way, start a business, outcompete your competitors, and make a fortune. Then cure disease and do as much public domain research and world saving as possible. Live in a modest apartment and own nothing.
Your phrase "dregs of society" suggests that you think rich people are somehow better or more deserving than poor people.
This is exactly the problem. My argument is the opposite. Rich people are no better or more deserving then anyone else. They just work harder or are smarter than people that don't make as much money (unless they are rich through inheritance, in which case they usually end up pissing it all away - see the parable of the rich man's idiot son). My phrase "dregs of society" suggests that people that are incapable of taking care of themselves, and making enough money to survive, shouldn't expect the rest of society, those that are capable of taking care of themselves, to bail them out because they can afford lavish bathrooms.
You're right, it is reprehensible that in a free society people are allowed to use their money, the money they worked for, however they want. Bring on the nytimes and the socialist overlords so the people that are willing to work themselves into success can be stripped of the fruits of their labor for redistribution to the dregs of society. You must work in academia...
That's right. These people should donate all of their money to people that don't have the drive and determination that they do. It's not like they worked for it.
I haven't seen any information that suggests shared storage is necessary. I skimmed this paper on the subject, and it appears that all that is necessary is a network connection so that the memory can be transferred.
Apparently they found it to be responsive enough to even work effectively with Quake 3 servers, taking about 60ms to get the new node operating. If you are talking about the data that must be accessed on disk, then how does VMWare skirt around the issue? Reliable shared storage may be expensive, but a virtualization cluster isn't exactly cheap either.
Xen can also move live VMs between hardware nodes (only non-responsive for tens of milliseconds). It's going to be a very powerful tool once all chips have virtualization capabilities.
Perjury can be commited in an official congressional hearing by lying, as defined by Title 18 of the US Code. Lying to the police, however, is not a crime. Lying to another person, is not a crime.
Title 18 of the US Code Section 1001: "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any judicial matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both."
Basically, unless you are in an official hearing and/or have sworn to tell the truth, lying is not a crime, regardless of the official.
What has humaninty ever done that didn't generate heat? Breathing, eating, sleeping, walking, talking, and cooking have generated heat since man has been around. Why is cyclic climate change so out of the question? Isn't a 100 year sample size ridiculously small considering the age of the earth, even if every single last measurment is accurate?
The natural order of life seems to be that species that are not well adapted die off. Now that we are able to monitor such things, is it really necessary to hit the freeze frame button and make sure that nothing that's alive today doesn't die off?
The fact of the matter is, human beings aren't particularly well adapted to any climate. Leave a person in the desert or in the snow without provisions, and most won't last a long time. We can't outrun lions or tigers or bears. The reason human beings have such a long shelf life is that we aren't adapted to our environment, our environment is adapted to us. If every polar bear dies off, it's just the death of a species that evolved in the wrong way. Look at desert animals, if it suddenly got very cold, they would probably die off.
Would you mind elaborating on this a bit. How do you find clients? How long did it take to get your workload up to a sustainable level? Anything else you can think of.
I couldn't agree more. I had a philosophy (- biggest mistake in my academic history) teacher that insisted that liberalism, and then ultimately, communism was the only government that could ever possibly work in the long term. Redistribution of wealth was necessary for the United States to survive. Lots of people would sit and listen to her, then talk about how enlightening she was.
I couldn't stand it, and neither could a conservative friend of mine. She would spout her liberal happy place nonsense, and then we would hipcheck her back to reality. When she insisted communism was the only form of government that would ever last, we pointed out how long it did last. When she pointed out that capitalism "discriminates" against people that are not capable of working high paying jobs, we pointed out that communism discriminates against those that are.
The real problem with wealth redistribution is that it takes away from the most capable of society to give to the least. The reason capitalism works so well is that the people that are "discriminated" against, really aren't very capable of doing anything about it. The people that make the most money tend to be the smartest, most well adapted individuals. When you tell them they have to work in demanding fields for long hours to receive the same as the guy flipping burgers, these are the people that are capable of, and will ultimately, rise up and do something about it.
Leftist professors should leave there "political insight" at the door and teach the class.
Only in America, where you aren't a racist as long as you only support discrimination (read affirmative action) against white males. From this day forward I demand to be called a Irish-German American, and anyone who doesn't refer to me as such is clearly a racist.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because something isn't PC doesn't mean it isn't the truth. In 2004, only .00541% of the US population died from AIDS, about 15,798(on the decline) people.
Around 14,900 people fall to there deaths every year in the United States, over 43,000 die in automobile accidents. Over 1.3 million abortions were performed in 2002, over 700,000 died from heart disease, cancer took over 500,000, strokes took out over 150,000, doctors managed to take out 250,000, and Alzeheimers killed nearly 50,000.
Only 11% of men are exposed through heterosexual contact. That means, that if 100% of the people that died of AIDS were men, 1,738 died from heterosexual contact. That's 0.000588% of the population.
In short, if you don't want to get AIDS, avoid unprotected homosexual sex if you are a male, and unprotected anal sex if you are a female, and don't share injection drug needles. Additionally, don't have sex with people that are in the risk group. That should bring the odds down to a completely manageable level.
It never had to end. Contracting aids through heterosexual non-anal sex is highly unlikely.
It takes massive ammounts of oil to run a war. The military is undoubtedly investigating alternative fuel sources with great interest. Remember that during WWII access to rubber was cut off so the military had to encourage the development of synthetics to replace the natural supply. The military is phenominal at contingency planning (they don't do nothing when there isn't an active war to fight), an oil shortage (or cutoff) has almost certainly been planned for.
Much of the Navy is nuclear powered. If the technology could be scaled (dollars and size) to Humvees and Fighter Jets, or another technology could replace the fuel they use now, it would be yet another massive American military advantage. Having to stop to gas up, the associated supply lines, and midair refueling are all costly, slow, and expensive. If you could just keep going your forces would be at a huge tactical advantage. A tank that never had to slow down or stop for gas, or a F22 that would never need to practically be refueled and could constantly run the afterburner would be massively powerful.
And outsourcing is not hurting the economy. Unemployment is at a new low while more people have entered the workforce. Forrester Research estimates that only 0.71% of all jobs lost (as in no longer exist, not as in you are fired) are due to outsourcing. Further, jobs entering the United States from other countries exceeds the rate at which jobs leave the United States.
In the not so distant past, a huge percentage of the population were farmers. Their jobs were replaced by machinery. Goods that used to be hand built were replaced by goods produced by machine. Yet, the population has grown and all of these lost jobs have been replaced by new jobs.
Oursourcing of a small number of jobs outside of America isn't a bad thing. I have been working with outsourcers regularly as of late. The quality is not anywhere near what we would expect from an American firm, so a large part of what our programmers now do is write specifications, send them overseas, then perform code reviews. This works fairly well, it greatly increases productivity. A single professional American programmer can be paired with a team of Indian programmers (who cost less than another American) and combined they can produce the same quality as three good programmers. The company makes more money, the product is of higher quality, the programmer works less hours and gets better bonuses. Further, because the cost of development is reduced, they are able to take on more projects than they would be able to otherwise (thus employing the other two american programmers, and two more overseas dev teams). Basically, as far as outsourcing goes, America is becoming the upper managment of the world, and the pay will probably reflect that.
War is historically good for the economy. Think of it as a massive public works project. Debt that kick starts the economy is healthy.
In order to get a domain name of reasonable length and not violate any trademarks it is essentially necessary to make up a word. Dr. Seuss would make a fortune naming companies today.
First, you caught the word choice error, typing one thing while thinking another.
Second, we didn't have two bathrooms added. We had the master bath replaced, and a bedroom added under it on the ground floor (technically a little sitting room was also added to the master bedroom and a utility room next to the new bedroom). House size prior to the addition was 1900 square feet. After the addition it is 2700 square feet. Hardly a McMansion. You have to remember, that to add onto an existing house, you have to pour a new foundation, add additional HVAC capacity (we had to add a second unit), bring in additional electric lines (at least we did), and expand plumbing capacity (don't really know the correct terminology on this one - we had to have a second pipe ran to the main sewer pipe).
Bathrooms are also fairly expensive compared to a bedroom, tile costs significantly more than carpet, cabinetry and countertops aren't cheap, and neither is having additional plumbing installed (or moved). And that $50k only includes raw materials and an electrician, all of the other work (including the architectual design) was done by my father. A contractor wanted $100k to do the same work in the early ninetees. I'd imagine now the cost would be closer to $130k. That's around $65k or more for a moderately sized low tech bathroom without crazy shower heads, jacuzis (sp?) or anything else. Just a toilet, a large mirrored medicine cabinet, a sink, and a shower.
The desire for a TV in the bathroom isn't limited to the rich. At one point, I lived in a frat house in which someone had ran a cable into the bathroom to a 13" color TV that sat adjacent to the toilet. The TV was used, regularly. The install looked like hell, I'd imagine a large part of the cost is in the install and making everything look professional.
Further, having a bathroom that expensive installed is actually pretty good for the economy. It's much better than having the person sit on the money to give to their kids. A contractor, the subcontractors, the architect, the carpenters (if they are going with custom cabinetry), and the raw material manufacturers all directly benefit from the project. All of those parties pay taxes as well, so a good chunk of the project goes to the government. That money also trickles down as they in turn spend it. (Don't quote me on this - I think at one point I read that the trickle effect is roughly x10, in other words a $200,000 luxury expenditure by a rich person equates to $2,000,000 into the economy with the trickle)
I don't think we really disagree that much. I too feel that spending $200,000 for a high tech bathroom is excessive, I said I would get one myself to make a point. On the other hand, if our bathroom would cost $65k today, then I don't really feel that $200k is an absolutely rediculous price to pay assuming the remainder of the house is equally grandiose.
AIDS isn't a great example. I read a study a couple of years ago that suggested that the vastest majority of AIDS cases in America could be attributed to needle drug users, and homosexual relationships between males. The study suggested that while the transfer of AIDS is possible between heterosexual partners, it is relatively unlikely (especially if your heterosexual partner happens to be female). By staying out of the risk group, and not fornicating with members of the risk group (this include promiscuous women that may fornicate with the aformentioned bisexual males and needle drug users) the odds of contracting AIDS, even without protection, is close to nill. My father always says, the squeeky wheel gets the grease, and in America the plight of homosexuals and needle drug users often goes unnoticed (I'm not saying this is right). An estimate 15,798 (on the decline) people died of AIDS in 2004 within the good old US of A. Compare that to how many people doctors kill a year:
12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infection
So where is the line then. A few years ago, we expanded our home to add another bedroom and replace/expand the master bath. The cost of the project was about $50,000. A bit over half of that was for the bathroom. Is this exhuberant; it is if you live in an apartment and can't afford anything else, but not if you live in a bigger house that already had a large master bath.
Likewise, undoubtedly the first indoor bathrooms were considered rediculous wastes of money. The first outhouses were probably seen that way as well. But at least in civilized countries, not too many people crap in the woods or in outhouses any more.
The real issue here is jealousy, and if it isn't, lead by example. Calculate the average worldwide annual income (I believe around $5k in 1999) and every cent you make over that, give to someone who earns less than that average. Socialism starts with you.
The fact that some peoples parents left them some money, and they want to use it on a bathroom, doesn't really bother me. I want to build a giant luxury home some day, it's a good goal to keep me motivated in my business.
The great thing about America, is that there is no dynasty or caste system. My grandfather started out living in the ghetto of Baltimore city. Through years of hard work, he moved out of the city into a nice area he could afford in the suburbs. He built the house himself so that he could afford it.
He motivated his sons to do better for themselves, and they went to college, got a good education, and good white collar jobs. They did the same with there sons. My cousin graduated from high school, college, and then law school first in his class thanks to his fathers motivations. He is now a very successful lawyer. I started a business with the help of my father, and am becoming successful as well. Every generation in our family has worked a little harder, been a little smarter, and tried a little harder to get where we are today.
My point is, if I make enough money to be able to afford a $200k bathroom someday, I am going to have a $200k bathroom, because I earned it. I fully expect that someday I'll be able to groom my son into being a self sufficient and successful person as well, hopefully even moreso than myself. All of those things you mentioned will ultimated be cured by capitalism. If AIDS becomes enough of a threat, it will become a big enough cash (or glory) cow to be worth curing. Alternate fuel sources are also starting to be addressed by the free market.
If you really have such a problem with people making lots of money and then spending it on, god forbid, themselves, and not societal issues, then please, show us the way, start a business, outcompete your competitors, and make a fortune. Then cure disease and do as much public domain research and world saving as possible. Live in a modest apartment and own nothing.
Yes, if only we could redistribute all of that trust fund wealth to people that really needed it. But this has nothing to do with socialism.
Your phrase "dregs of society" suggests that you think rich people are somehow better or more deserving than poor people.
This is exactly the problem. My argument is the opposite. Rich people are no better or more deserving then anyone else. They just work harder or are smarter than people that don't make as much money (unless they are rich through inheritance, in which case they usually end up pissing it all away - see the parable of the rich man's idiot son). My phrase "dregs of society" suggests that people that are incapable of taking care of themselves, and making enough money to survive, shouldn't expect the rest of society, those that are capable of taking care of themselves, to bail them out because they can afford lavish bathrooms.
You're right, it is reprehensible that in a free society people are allowed to use their money, the money they worked for, however they want. Bring on the nytimes and the socialist overlords so the people that are willing to work themselves into success can be stripped of the fruits of their labor for redistribution to the dregs of society. You must work in academia...
That's right. These people should donate all of their money to people that don't have the drive and determination that they do. It's not like they worked for it.
I haven't seen any information that suggests shared storage is necessary. I skimmed this paper on the subject, and it appears that all that is necessary is a network connection so that the memory can be transferred.
Apparently they found it to be responsive enough to even work effectively with Quake 3 servers, taking about 60ms to get the new node operating. If you are talking about the data that must be accessed on disk, then how does VMWare skirt around the issue? Reliable shared storage may be expensive, but a virtualization cluster isn't exactly cheap either.
Xen can also move live VMs between hardware nodes (only non-responsive for tens of milliseconds). It's going to be a very powerful tool once all chips have virtualization capabilities.
Perjury can be commited in an official congressional hearing by lying, as defined by Title 18 of the US Code. Lying to the police, however, is not a crime. Lying to another person, is not a crime.
Title 18 of the US Code Section 1001: "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any judicial matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both."
Basically, unless you are in an official hearing and/or have sworn to tell the truth, lying is not a crime, regardless of the official.
When the public lies to an official, it is a lie. When anyone lies under oath, it is perjury.
I fully expect the US Armed Forces to secure my Canadian citizenship should anything begin to hit the fan.
Yes, but isn't the ICANN domain fee currently only $.25 per year anyway. Even if it doubled, it's still not very expensive.
What has humaninty ever done that didn't generate heat? Breathing, eating, sleeping, walking, talking, and cooking have generated heat since man has been around. Why is cyclic climate change so out of the question? Isn't a 100 year sample size ridiculously small considering the age of the earth, even if every single last measurment is accurate?
The natural order of life seems to be that species that are not well adapted die off. Now that we are able to monitor such things, is it really necessary to hit the freeze frame button and make sure that nothing that's alive today doesn't die off?
The fact of the matter is, human beings aren't particularly well adapted to any climate. Leave a person in the desert or in the snow without provisions, and most won't last a long time. We can't outrun lions or tigers or bears. The reason human beings have such a long shelf life is that we aren't adapted to our environment, our environment is adapted to us. If every polar bear dies off, it's just the death of a species that evolved in the wrong way. Look at desert animals, if it suddenly got very cold, they would probably die off.
Would you mind elaborating on this a bit. How do you find clients? How long did it take to get your workload up to a sustainable level? Anything else you can think of.
Fine, the reason capitalism in America works so well
I couldn't agree more. I had a philosophy (- biggest mistake in my academic history) teacher that insisted that liberalism, and then ultimately, communism was the only government that could ever possibly work in the long term. Redistribution of wealth was necessary for the United States to survive. Lots of people would sit and listen to her, then talk about how enlightening she was.
I couldn't stand it, and neither could a conservative friend of mine. She would spout her liberal happy place nonsense, and then we would hipcheck her back to reality. When she insisted communism was the only form of government that would ever last, we pointed out how long it did last. When she pointed out that capitalism "discriminates" against people that are not capable of working high paying jobs, we pointed out that communism discriminates against those that are.
The real problem with wealth redistribution is that it takes away from the most capable of society to give to the least. The reason capitalism works so well is that the people that are "discriminated" against, really aren't very capable of doing anything about it. The people that make the most money tend to be the smartest, most well adapted individuals. When you tell them they have to work in demanding fields for long hours to receive the same as the guy flipping burgers, these are the people that are capable of, and will ultimately, rise up and do something about it.
Leftist professors should leave there "political insight" at the door and teach the class.
Only in America, where you aren't a racist as long as you only support discrimination (read affirmative action) against white males. From this day forward I demand to be called a Irish-German American, and anyone who doesn't refer to me as such is clearly a racist.
The government paying for the national defense is a bit different than the government paying for a search engine.
Brand Name != Product Name
Nobody is obligated to give anybody anything.