In other words, schools are now allowed to serve stuff that kids will actually eat again, making afternoon class teachers and any student with after school activities happy again.
Not only that, they can also eat *enough*. That was my kids' biggest problem: the amount of food that was served was nowhere near enough for a growing adolescent boy - the meals were perhaps 500 or 600 calories tops. I was eating 3000+ calories/day as a teenager, and weighed 128lbs. at 6ft. when I graduated high school.
My kids were always starving when they got home from school in middle school, thanks to Michelle Obama. They would tell me that when there were chicken nuggets they were allowed only 5 of them, so when the lunch lady would turn her back they would grab extras and put them in their pockets. After awhile I began to realize that the lunch lady was purposely turning completely around at intervals so the kids could steal nuggets. I never had the opportunity to thank her. But think of how pathetic that is.
I'm glad it's over. It's ridiculous, anyway. We're worried about the amount of "sodium" they get? I have never seen a study that links sodium intake in kids with any kind of ill effects. Ever. And fats? Kids *need* fats. Holy crap, how fucking stupid is this stuff? When the government started pushing the high-carb/low-fat diet we saw obesity sore, along with diabetes. Sigh.
No, farmers aren't. The agricultural industry, of which John Deere is a part, is. The giant conglomerates who control farming are. But the actual people who get upset when they're told they can't fix their John Deere tractor so it can run on methane have virtually no pull whatsoever.
What you're saying is akin to saying movie directors have huge amounts of political power because the studios do. They don't, and farmers don't either.
When in a hole, quit digging.
Ever heard of the Iowa caucus? Ever been to Iowa? That's a big part of the power of farmers.
Individual farmers may be furious at John Deere here, but there's a massive difference between that and a lobby big enough to actually get Congress to take action and pass laws.
LOL!!!!!!!
Somebody doesn't know about the agricultural lobbies.
Give you a clue: why do you think we have corn ethanol in all of our gasoline?
Republicans are conservatives so they only care for big established business, never for small business and startups unless they can show a huge profit or impact the trade balance.
Small businesses are the core Republican constituency. This silly lie never seems to go away. Big business contributes to Democrats almost exclusively because they offer more bang for the buck for rich folks.
Did you miss out on Obama getting paid $400K for a speech to Goldman Sachs?
What kind of pot are you smoking and why aren't you sharing with everyone? There have been senators and house reps that spoke up against large corporations off-shoring. For example Bernie sanders has been railing against it for over a decade. The majority of of both parties have supported off-shoring, since they are paying for their campaigns and "other" stuff. Go look at the voting record before you take a hit from the bong. You've been screwed by both parties. As an independent, I wish both parties would just die and go away already.
I get it, I'm an independent, also. But Republicans are the ones who have been talking properly about this on (with Trump actually doing something about it, by the way) while Democrats are assuring us that there is no problem. Hillary even wanted to expand the H-1B program.
Do you think we should not have an air force because there were no planes when the constitution was written?
It's part of the "armies".
Do you think cybersecurity needed to be enumerated explicitly?
Cybersecurity isn't a federal issue beyond the general interstate or international commerce implications.
If you think that the air force and nuclear arsenal are far less important because they were not envisioned in 1787, then perhaps you can consistently believe that modern healthcare should also be considered far less important.
But that internal consistency would still not make you correct.
Healthcare existed in the late 1700s, it wasn't invented in the last 100 years like airplanes and nuclear weapons. The fact that the founders never talked about providing healthcare means they didn't see it as part of something the federal government should do. And, it's actually not. The federal government has no authority to do anything with healthcare unless the Constitution is amended.
You should read it sometime. It's really not as difficult as people such as yourself make it out to be.
In what way does "The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" not imply the power to promote the general welfare? The founders undoubtedly didn't see what was coming, but they explicitly made it possible. Courts do consider original intent, but not typically to override what's printed in black and white.
Because "general welfare" is well-known to mean the actual general welfare of the country itself. It's not the welfare of individual people. This is much the same way your local police have a duty to generally keep the peace, but numerous court cases have established that they have no legal responsibility to any individual person.
You cite items 12, 13, and 14 of the appropriate section to show that Congress can maintain armies and a navy. They say nothing about an Air Force. The only way that can be Constitutionally justified is by the provision of the common Defense in item 1.
Ironically, the Army has more airplanes than the air force. But the US Air Force would be considered part of the armies that the US may maintain (note the plural).
If "provide for the common defense" can be used to justify spending as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined then perhaps "promote the general Welfare" might be considered to include keeping the citizens of the country healthy.
You're quoting the preamble, which simply explains why they wrote the Constitution. The actual powers of the federal government are vested in Article I, Section 8. Specifically, items 12, 13, and 14:
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
There is no specific power granted for "promote the general welfare". Item 1 may come close, saying that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", but the fact that the founders didn't start building hospitals means that they never meant it that way. It's something the states can do, much in the same way that states establish university systems.
I'm not a big government fan, but when it comes to services that have reached utility level (aka everyone needs them to function in society, like water, electricity, and now internet access) the profit driven "free market" approach only seems to create monopolies that drive up prices and lower the quality of service.
Sigh. Again, this isn't a free market. Remember "billions in subsidies"?
The other issue is that this isn't like water and electricity. The same standards of delivery for those services was the same 100 years ago. Broadband has changed dramatically in the last 5 years. There is simply no comparison.
I have no problem at all with municipal broadband competing in a market on a level playing field (meaning they also have to provide service to places that might not be lucrative), which is mostly what you see in Chattanooga. But it can't be an either/or.
they got billions (with a 'b') in subsidies while _also_ being allowed to charge extra fees to bring fiber to those poor neighborhoods.... Why the hell Americans are so obsessed with the "free" market...
And, yet again, we have cronyism being confused with a free market.
Hint: If they got billions in subsidies, it's not a free market.
Hint 2: If the government did it, they would be putting the finishing touches on their plan to roll ISDN out to those neighborhoods over the next 5 years.
Gee, wish we could force this to happen to cable tv providers and content...
Yeah, I don't care as much about Google as I do Comcast. They at least just added netflix to their set top box, but I don't think it'll do 4K video yet.
Please, please tell me why Google Play Music should be free while Bob's Music Shop down the street would cost to stream the exact same songs?
Because Google can store the music on servers on its own network and not rely on pulling data in from a peer.
This is why it probably makes sense to split such companies up into physical connection companies and content providers, since the physical connection companies have a built-in advantage for providing content.
Uh, yeah. You're the embarrassment who needs to educate yourself. The executive order is based on a law passed in 2015 and signed by Obama - and the seven countries are listed there. Even the loons at Politifact know this:
I can tell the article and website are biased by the first phrase. "In a bid to court working class voters..." No, it's not a bid for voters. It's fulfilling a campaign promise.
Right, which is supposed to be a good thing. And to further the point, Trump won because of working class voters. it's the coastal elites and their stooge (Hillary) who would have expanded the H-1B program to bring in more tech workers at lower wages.
The better question is what he's done right. So far he has signed an unconstitutional executive order,
If it's unconstitutional then so was Obama's, yet nobody seemed to get their panties in a wad when he stopped Iraqis from coming into the country for a period of time based on a law passed by Congress. The judge used Trump's campaign language as a basis for deciding that now the order is illegal - I'm frankly more concerned about the judge.
inflamed tensions with Russia
Wait, I thought he was a Russian stooge. So difficult to keep up with this stuff.
and North Korea,
Oh, bull fucking shit. Kim Jong Un is pissing off the world, including China. His biggest export is coal and China just cut him off to buy from America. Are they also "inflaming tensions", or is the asshole Kim doing it himself? We both know the answer. It's good to have a US President that is willing to stand up to Kim. The guy is soon going to be able to put nukes on missiles - it's time to take him seriously.
sent his press secretary out to blatantly and obviously lie to the press
It took this long to get to something substantive.
vacillated on his positions regarding Syria, China, and NATO, accused the previous administration of criminality with no proof or evidence, and acted surprised that things like health care legislation and international relations are complicated. He tweets at 3 AM about Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance at his old job, like some teenage girl jealous that Brian likes Becky now.
The man is a boor and a buffoon, and an embarrassment to our country. I'm still slightly astounded that about 27% of the population doesn't recognize that.
He has a 50% approval rating. Sorry to let you know that.
And, frankly, he's no more of an embarrassment than Obama was. As a lefty, you probably didn't see that. Let me give you a clue - it got so bad that the President of the Philippines - long considered a vassal state to the US - openly mocked Obama last year. He was seen as a weak fool in Asia, which is why China wouldn't even give him the red carpet (don't bother with some stupid shit from media matters explaining that they actually did).
I'm not a Trump fan but I recognize why he won (clue: Hillary) and I have no delusions that we would have been better off in *any* way with Hillary in the White House.
Not to mention how clueless it is to put "education" spending under "secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity [sic]". It's silly enough to use the preamble for something like this (should use Article I, Section 8) but worse yet that so much of federal spending - such as education - isn't Constitutional.
For those who missed civics class or didn't have it - education is one of those things the states are supposed to handle, not the federal government. That's why there are no federal universities like the various state universities.
This is what happens when you let one party have a complete stranglehold on state government. The number of Republicans in the state senate are almost 6 to 1 in favor of Republicans. It's almost 3-1 in favor of Republicans in the state house. The governor in Republican and there's no accountability. Voters have shown consistently that the vast majority of them only care about whether a D or R is next to a candidate's name and everything else is negotiable. I'm sure we'll get a few "Throw the bums out" posts, but that's not going to happen. Most of the state governments in the southeastern USA have sizable Republican majorities. I've seen corrupt practices out of the Democrats too when they had strangleholds on states with huge majorities in the state legislature. It's what happens when one party gets entrenched and there's no hope of getting them out.
Unfortunately, that doesn't apply here. When we were fighting the SuperDMCA bill so many years ago, the cable lobby had Curtis Person (R) as the senator (his son headed the cable lobby here in TN, by the way) and Rob Briley (D) as their house boy. Basically, they own both parties and it's really difficult to get decent legislation passed that affects them.
I agree. I haven't even "learned" it but I was able to contribute to fixing a project that had it. In 2012 at a major pharmaceutical company merger I got tired of being told some mainframe cobol thing was working one way and seeing it work another. So we finally did a live code walkthrough and I easily spotted the logic error that was causing the actual behavior. Granted this COBOL was written and structured about as well as COBOL could ever be, but in the end it's just another set of terms and syntax to learn.
More than that, COBOL has far fewer features than any modern language, making it even easier to figure out what's going on. If you know any computer language you can easily determine exactly what 99% of all COBOL programs are doing simply by looking at them. That doesn't make you a COBOL programmer, but it's not like Ruby where you really have to know the language to a pretty good extent to figure out what a block of code does.
Is that the same as if Obama intervenes in Syria, it's a giant waste of military power and "losing to Putin" but if Trump bombs Syria to ill effect, it's a "show of strength"?
To be clear, I agree with the recent missile strike against the airbase in Syria. I just find it amusing how hypocrisy works.
Yeah, it's the left's turn, now. To be fair, Obama doesn't seem to have gotten much for the sheer amount of bombs he authorized.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, schools are now allowed to serve stuff that kids will actually eat again, making afternoon class teachers and any student with after school activities happy again.
Not only that, they can also eat *enough*. That was my kids' biggest problem: the amount of food that was served was nowhere near enough for a growing adolescent boy - the meals were perhaps 500 or 600 calories tops. I was eating 3000+ calories/day as a teenager, and weighed 128lbs. at 6ft. when I graduated high school.
My kids were always starving when they got home from school in middle school, thanks to Michelle Obama. They would tell me that when there were chicken nuggets they were allowed only 5 of them, so when the lunch lady would turn her back they would grab extras and put them in their pockets. After awhile I began to realize that the lunch lady was purposely turning completely around at intervals so the kids could steal nuggets. I never had the opportunity to thank her. But think of how pathetic that is.
I'm glad it's over. It's ridiculous, anyway. We're worried about the amount of "sodium" they get? I have never seen a study that links sodium intake in kids with any kind of ill effects. Ever. And fats? Kids *need* fats. Holy crap, how fucking stupid is this stuff? When the government started pushing the high-carb/low-fat diet we saw obesity sore, along with diabetes. Sigh.
No, farmers aren't. The agricultural industry, of which John Deere is a part, is. The giant conglomerates who control farming are. But the actual people who get upset when they're told they can't fix their John Deere tractor so it can run on methane have virtually no pull whatsoever.
What you're saying is akin to saying movie directors have huge amounts of political power because the studios do. They don't, and farmers don't either.
When in a hole, quit digging.
Ever heard of the Iowa caucus? Ever been to Iowa? That's a big part of the power of farmers.
http://people.howstuffworks.co...
Individual farmers may be furious at John Deere here, but there's a massive difference between that and a lobby big enough to actually get Congress to take action and pass laws.
LOL!!!!!!!
Somebody doesn't know about the agricultural lobbies.
Give you a clue: why do you think we have corn ethanol in all of our gasoline?
Farmers are *very* powerful.
If you think these companies don't pay for their Internet connections, you are deluded.
Likewise, if you think Github is going to go out of business if net neutrality is overturned, you are similarly deluded.
Republicans are conservatives so they only care for big established business, never for small business and startups unless they can show a huge profit or impact the trade balance.
Small businesses are the core Republican constituency. This silly lie never seems to go away. Big business contributes to Democrats almost exclusively because they offer more bang for the buck for rich folks.
Did you miss out on Obama getting paid $400K for a speech to Goldman Sachs?
What kind of pot are you smoking and why aren't you sharing with everyone? There have been senators and house reps that spoke up against large corporations off-shoring. For example Bernie sanders has been railing against it for over a decade. The majority of of both parties have supported off-shoring, since they are paying for their campaigns and "other" stuff. Go look at the voting record before you take a hit from the bong. You've been screwed by both parties. As an independent, I wish both parties would just die and go away already.
I get it, I'm an independent, also. But Republicans are the ones who have been talking properly about this on (with Trump actually doing something about it, by the way) while Democrats are assuring us that there is no problem. Hillary even wanted to expand the H-1B program.
Do you think we should not have an air force because there were no planes when the constitution was written?
It's part of the "armies".
Do you think cybersecurity needed to be enumerated explicitly?
Cybersecurity isn't a federal issue beyond the general interstate or international commerce implications.
If you think that the air force and nuclear arsenal are far less important because they were not envisioned in 1787, then perhaps you can consistently believe that modern healthcare should also be considered far less important.
But that internal consistency would still not make you correct.
Healthcare existed in the late 1700s, it wasn't invented in the last 100 years like airplanes and nuclear weapons. The fact that the founders never talked about providing healthcare means they didn't see it as part of something the federal government should do. And, it's actually not. The federal government has no authority to do anything with healthcare unless the Constitution is amended.
You should read it sometime. It's really not as difficult as people such as yourself make it out to be.
In what way does "The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" not imply the power to promote the general welfare? The founders undoubtedly didn't see what was coming, but they explicitly made it possible. Courts do consider original intent, but not typically to override what's printed in black and white.
Because "general welfare" is well-known to mean the actual general welfare of the country itself. It's not the welfare of individual people. This is much the same way your local police have a duty to generally keep the peace, but numerous court cases have established that they have no legal responsibility to any individual person.
You cite items 12, 13, and 14 of the appropriate section to show that Congress can maintain armies and a navy. They say nothing about an Air Force. The only way that can be Constitutionally justified is by the provision of the common Defense in item 1.
Ironically, the Army has more airplanes than the air force. But the US Air Force would be considered part of the armies that the US may maintain (note the plural).
"University of California IT Workers Replaced By Offshore Outsourcing "
I've been assured by Democrats that this *never* happens. Surely they wouldn't be lying, would they?
If "provide for the common defense" can be used to justify spending as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined then perhaps "promote the general Welfare" might be considered to include keeping the citizens of the country healthy.
You're quoting the preamble, which simply explains why they wrote the Constitution. The actual powers of the federal government are vested in Article I, Section 8. Specifically, items 12, 13, and 14:
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
There is no specific power granted for "promote the general welfare". Item 1 may come close, saying that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", but the fact that the founders didn't start building hospitals means that they never meant it that way. It's something the states can do, much in the same way that states establish university systems.
If the government did it, they would be putting the finishing touches on their plan to roll ISDN
Like they did in Chattanooga, TN, Longmont, CO, and tens of other cities across the US? Oh wait, you said ISDN, not Gigabit fibre.
I'm not a big government fan, but when it comes to services that have reached utility level (aka everyone needs them to function in society, like water, electricity, and now internet access) the profit driven "free market" approach only seems to create monopolies that drive up prices and lower the quality of service.
Sigh. Again, this isn't a free market. Remember "billions in subsidies"?
The other issue is that this isn't like water and electricity. The same standards of delivery for those services was the same 100 years ago. Broadband has changed dramatically in the last 5 years. There is simply no comparison.
I have no problem at all with municipal broadband competing in a market on a level playing field (meaning they also have to provide service to places that might not be lucrative), which is mostly what you see in Chattanooga. But it can't be an either/or.
they got billions (with a 'b') in subsidies while _also_ being allowed to charge extra fees to bring fiber to those poor neighborhoods. ... Why the hell Americans are so obsessed with the "free" market...
And, yet again, we have cronyism being confused with a free market.
Hint: If they got billions in subsidies, it's not a free market.
Hint 2: If the government did it, they would be putting the finishing touches on their plan to roll ISDN out to those neighborhoods over the next 5 years.
It's difficult to find the winning path.
Oregon hasn't been controlled by Republicans in 30 years. This is Democrats doing this shit.
As usual. And, as usual, we have a Democrat voter who is blaming it on Republicans.
In Oregon, of all places.
Because Google can store the music on servers on its own network and not rely on pulling data in from a peer.
And that network is not behind my connection to my ISP? Since otherwise it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever not to count it toward my data cap.
They pay less to carry that traffic because they don't have to bring it in through a peer.
Gee, wish we could force this to happen to cable tv providers and content...
Yeah, I don't care as much about Google as I do Comcast. They at least just added netflix to their set top box, but I don't think it'll do 4K video yet.
Please, please tell me why Google Play Music should be free while Bob's Music Shop down the street would cost to stream the exact same songs?
Because Google can store the music on servers on its own network and not rely on pulling data in from a peer.
This is why it probably makes sense to split such companies up into physical connection companies and content providers, since the physical connection companies have a built-in advantage for providing content.
Apparently you don't know what the fuck you're talking about since that's not remotely close to being true.
Please educate yourself. You're embarrassing all the other asshats on Slashdot.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-majority-countries-donald-trump-travel-ban-immigration-entry-visa-three-main-countries-exempt-a7552526.html
Uh, yeah. You're the embarrassment who needs to educate yourself. The executive order is based on a law passed in 2015 and signed by Obama - and the seven countries are listed there. Even the loons at Politifact know this:
http://www.politifact.com/wisc...
I can tell the article and website are biased by the first phrase.
"In a bid to court working class voters..."
No, it's not a bid for voters. It's fulfilling a campaign promise.
Right, which is supposed to be a good thing. And to further the point, Trump won because of working class voters. it's the coastal elites and their stooge (Hillary) who would have expanded the H-1B program to bring in more tech workers at lower wages.
What exactly has he done wrong so far?
The better question is what he's done right. So far he has signed an unconstitutional executive order,
If it's unconstitutional then so was Obama's, yet nobody seemed to get their panties in a wad when he stopped Iraqis from coming into the country for a period of time based on a law passed by Congress. The judge used Trump's campaign language as a basis for deciding that now the order is illegal - I'm frankly more concerned about the judge.
inflamed tensions with Russia
Wait, I thought he was a Russian stooge. So difficult to keep up with this stuff.
and North Korea,
Oh, bull fucking shit. Kim Jong Un is pissing off the world, including China. His biggest export is coal and China just cut him off to buy from America. Are they also "inflaming tensions", or is the asshole Kim doing it himself? We both know the answer. It's good to have a US President that is willing to stand up to Kim. The guy is soon going to be able to put nukes on missiles - it's time to take him seriously.
sent his press secretary out to blatantly and obviously lie to the press
It took this long to get to something substantive.
vacillated on his positions regarding Syria, China, and NATO, accused the previous administration of criminality with no proof or evidence, and acted surprised that things like health care legislation and international relations are complicated. He tweets at 3 AM about Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance at his old job, like some teenage girl jealous that Brian likes Becky now.
The man is a boor and a buffoon, and an embarrassment to our country. I'm still slightly astounded that about 27% of the population doesn't recognize that.
He has a 50% approval rating. Sorry to let you know that.
And, frankly, he's no more of an embarrassment than Obama was. As a lefty, you probably didn't see that. Let me give you a clue - it got so bad that the President of the Philippines - long considered a vassal state to the US - openly mocked Obama last year. He was seen as a weak fool in Asia, which is why China wouldn't even give him the red carpet (don't bother with some stupid shit from media matters explaining that they actually did).
I'm not a Trump fan but I recognize why he won (clue: Hillary) and I have no delusions that we would have been better off in *any* way with Hillary in the White House.
Not to mention how clueless it is to put "education" spending under "secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity [sic]". It's silly enough to use the preamble for something like this (should use Article I, Section 8) but worse yet that so much of federal spending - such as education - isn't Constitutional.
For those who missed civics class or didn't have it - education is one of those things the states are supposed to handle, not the federal government. That's why there are no federal universities like the various state universities.
...we would all be mocking it's unrealistic plot.
Or bitching about your grammar.
Yeah, that explains all the rough-looking guys with tattoos suddenly showing up on Upwork with, ahem, unique skill sets.
This is what happens when you let one party have a complete stranglehold on state government. The number of Republicans in the state senate are almost 6 to 1 in favor of Republicans. It's almost 3-1 in favor of Republicans in the state house. The governor in Republican and there's no accountability. Voters have shown consistently that the vast majority of them only care about whether a D or R is next to a candidate's name and everything else is negotiable. I'm sure we'll get a few "Throw the bums out" posts, but that's not going to happen. Most of the state governments in the southeastern USA have sizable Republican majorities. I've seen corrupt practices out of the Democrats too when they had strangleholds on states with huge majorities in the state legislature. It's what happens when one party gets entrenched and there's no hope of getting them out.
Unfortunately, that doesn't apply here. When we were fighting the SuperDMCA bill so many years ago, the cable lobby had Curtis Person (R) as the senator (his son headed the cable lobby here in TN, by the way) and Rob Briley (D) as their house boy. Basically, they own both parties and it's really difficult to get decent legislation passed that affects them.
I agree. I haven't even "learned" it but I was able to contribute to fixing a project that had it. In 2012 at a major pharmaceutical company merger I got tired of being told some mainframe cobol thing was working one way and seeing it work another. So we finally did a live code walkthrough and I easily spotted the logic error that was causing the actual behavior. Granted this COBOL was written and structured about as well as COBOL could ever be, but in the end it's just another set of terms and syntax to learn.
More than that, COBOL has far fewer features than any modern language, making it even easier to figure out what's going on. If you know any computer language you can easily determine exactly what 99% of all COBOL programs are doing simply by looking at them. That doesn't make you a COBOL programmer, but it's not like Ruby where you really have to know the language to a pretty good extent to figure out what a block of code does.
Is that the same as if Obama intervenes in Syria, it's a giant waste of military power and "losing to Putin" but if Trump bombs Syria to ill effect, it's a "show of strength"?
To be clear, I agree with the recent missile strike against the airbase in Syria. I just find it amusing how hypocrisy works.
Yeah, it's the left's turn, now. To be fair, Obama doesn't seem to have gotten much for the sheer amount of bombs he authorized.