Poverty, by definition, is "not enough resources to adequately sustain life." We are importing *poor people*, not poverty. These people eat well, have a roof over their heads, and clothes on their back. While I wouldn't trade my life for it, it's not dictionary-definition poverty.
The only number I cite is average household income. I should have said "median". It's now up to $50K (look it up on wikipedia). At that number, a household doesn't pay enough in *total taxes* in a year to pay for a single child in public school. I'm not talking about the percentage of their taxes that actually fund schools - I'm saying if you took every single cent that they paid on every kind of tax that they pay, it wouldn't pay for the education of one single child in school.
I've seen your false-statistic about immigrant families (note - most people pushing drop the "illegal" part early on) costing us so much, because they narrow their range to the 20 years that people have kids in public schools to make their point.
Compared to a few trillion for wall street millionaires, this problem is completely irrelevant.
It costs ~$12k-$14k per kid. How many of these families generate enough income to cover just one kid?
Very few non-illegal-immigrant families pay enough in taxes each year to cover the public-school cost of their children's education. The average income is $46,000/household annually, which would pay only a few thousand dollars in income tax (not counting FICA), a thousand in property taxes (which are supposed to fund schools), and maybe some state income tax and sales taxes of another few thousand. All of that together wouldn't pay for school.
We have a huge illegal immigrant population here in Nashville, and I can tell you that there are enough without kids that it all works out, easily, that they're a net gain. We have no state income tax, so the *only* tax that they don't pay is federal income tax. At their income levels, they wouldn't owe it, anyway, only FICA. Given that they can't collect social security, I hardly see that as a problem.
One other thing - at this point it is just silly to be bitching about people who are scraping along illegally in this country, and working hard and actually contributing to the economy, when we have wall street, detroit, and whoever else can get their grubby hands in the treasury raping us for trillions of dollars. Corporate welfare is, at this point, so big that I don't even care anymore about the smaller things. It's obvious that we have to get rid of the rampant corruption in the federal government before they empty the treasury. We can worry about the smaller things after that.
Put another way - you are responsible for mitigating the damages and seeking relief as early as possible. Judge Judy probably has to explain this every other week or so.
Can people buy Macs with older versions of their OS?
Why would we? The issue here is that Microsoft's "progression" of operating systems is sometimes forward, sometimes backward. Apple seems to be consistently moving forward.
One other thing, as I've mentioned before, a retracted story resets the chances of truth to no more than 50/50. Think about it, you're saying that they were lying the first time, but now they're being 100% honest. One of their statements are false, there's no reason to believe one over the other just based on that.
Now, when we bring two other things into consideration, there *is* reason to disbelieve their retraction. First is the fact that this would make obama look bad, so they have far more reason to retract it than they had to run it in the first place. Second reason is that other sources, including the Trib, also reported on the meeting.
Um, read what you linked to. They said that the meeting had taken place, now they're saying that it didn't. These statements are mutually exclusive, at least one is a lie.
At best, there's a 50/50 chance that the meeting didn't take place based on the information that you have.
So, a governor is openly trying to pocket 7 figures in US $ in exchange for a senate seat (which legally pays, what, $200K/year) and questions regarding that are "stupid"? Wow.
And, by the way, I was originally replying to the kid who had the laptop stolen and had to talk to two department heads and all that. Just go to the police...
He's wrong - a teacher has the right to confiscate just about anything they want to,
We're talking about two different things, I should clarify. Yes, a teacher may confiscate something during the course of the school day, and give it back later. I saw kids bring things to school that they shouldn't have (noise makers, whatever) that the teacher would take from them, put it on their desk, then give it back to them after school and tell them to not bring it the next day.
Read the original story. She didn't temporarily "confiscate" the cds, she stole them. She has no intention of giving them back. That's not "confiscation", hence the quotes. She may *claim* that's what it is, since she doesn't want to say "I'm going to steal these", but using a euphemism for an illegal activity doesn't make it legal.
As I said elsewhere, the police need to be involved. You might let the principal handle it, but if you don't have the stolen property in hand within (literally) minutes of talking to him, it needs to be escalated. The reason I say that is that if this teacher has decided to do this, it's unlikely to be the first time and it's unlikely that the school system will do the right thing.
You go to the police first. They will go to the principal then. That way, you don't have the principal covering up for the teacher, and it'll make the local paper.
Ok, the teacher is misinformed and here email is a bit terse. Still, it was a chance to educate someone and make a friend; instead he chose to pen a rude reply and escalate the battle to the school's administration.
Maybe you missed the part where she stole his property? She would have been arrested had it been me or my kid.
The teacher has nothing to do with the NEA getting money from Microsoft. She's just a low-level drone who's only source of information was maybe an education tech conference she went to and the mainstream media.
Yeah. Gee, I wonder what union organization would put on just such an education tech conference....
Okay, note to the other kids out there: if a teacher "confiscates" your property, you go file a police report. Then talk to the principal. They can reasonably confiscate a pack of cigarettes or a handgun, pretty much anything else constitutes strong-arm robbery.
If alcohol prohibition required an amendment to the constitution then how was the gov't suddenly able to prohibit another substance w/o changing the constitution?
Basically, the SCOTUS decided (wrongly) that the commerce clause gives the federal government the power to do anything it wants. We weren't pretending that when alcohol prohibition came into being, and the folks then rightly understood that it required a constitutional amendment.
Marijuana was outlawed a little at a time, starting with the stamp act and going from there. During the same time, the federal government began to amass more and more power under the New Deal thus pushing the Constitutional role of the government to the back seat while it started doing things like this.
Do you have to draw the line somewhere? Does the government actually have to step in and say, it's all right to put these substances in your body, but not those?
Here's where I draw the line: Thalidomide. It caused major birth defects in the children of mothers who took the drug. It was properly banned after that. (For those wondering about the birth defects, kids born with limbs that looked like seal flippers, and about as useful)
There are some substances that should be banned, but very, very, very few.
You have a group of islands which are really active volcanos with some habitable land around them, and you're burning oil for energy instead of sucking energy out of the molten rock?
In the Philippines, which has quite a few active volcanos (but far more non-volcano land area), they manage to get 25% of their electricity from geothermal. Given the size of the Hawaiian islands and the amount of geothermal available.... well, why are we even *having* this conversation?
Case 2:It's capable of the lower levels of human functionality. Say, somewhere between Forest Gump and a chimpanzee. Well, in this case, we have an intelligent being, who is a ward of the state, and who is unlike any other being on earth.
Forrest Gump had mild retardation. Chimpanzees are intelligent beings who have no problem living as non-wards of the state. This is a difficult concept, but don't think of chimps as having an IQ somewhere around 30, since that just doesn't apply.
The neanderthal would be an intelligent being, capable of fending for himself. Even if his intelligence scale were lower than that of us modern humans, he would have little or no trouble taking care of himself, particularly in a modern setting.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, my numbers aren't made up. I always argue from a numerically true position if we're talking about numerical things. Makes life easier...
Poverty, by definition, is "not enough resources to adequately sustain life." We are importing *poor people*, not poverty. These people eat well, have a roof over their heads, and clothes on their back. While I wouldn't trade my life for it, it's not dictionary-definition poverty.
The only number I cite is average household income. I should have said "median". It's now up to $50K (look it up on wikipedia). At that number, a household doesn't pay enough in *total taxes* in a year to pay for a single child in public school. I'm not talking about the percentage of their taxes that actually fund schools - I'm saying if you took every single cent that they paid on every kind of tax that they pay, it wouldn't pay for the education of one single child in school.
I've seen your false-statistic about immigrant families (note - most people pushing drop the "illegal" part early on) costing us so much, because they narrow their range to the 20 years that people have kids in public schools to make their point.
Compared to a few trillion for wall street millionaires, this problem is completely irrelevant.
It costs ~$12k-$14k per kid. How many of these families generate enough income to cover just one kid?
Very few non-illegal-immigrant families pay enough in taxes each year to cover the public-school cost of their children's education. The average income is $46,000/household annually, which would pay only a few thousand dollars in income tax (not counting FICA), a thousand in property taxes (which are supposed to fund schools), and maybe some state income tax and sales taxes of another few thousand. All of that together wouldn't pay for school.
We have a huge illegal immigrant population here in Nashville, and I can tell you that there are enough without kids that it all works out, easily, that they're a net gain. We have no state income tax, so the *only* tax that they don't pay is federal income tax. At their income levels, they wouldn't owe it, anyway, only FICA. Given that they can't collect social security, I hardly see that as a problem.
One other thing - at this point it is just silly to be bitching about people who are scraping along illegally in this country, and working hard and actually contributing to the economy, when we have wall street, detroit, and whoever else can get their grubby hands in the treasury raping us for trillions of dollars. Corporate welfare is, at this point, so big that I don't even care anymore about the smaller things. It's obvious that we have to get rid of the rampant corruption in the federal government before they empty the treasury. We can worry about the smaller things after that.
Put another way - you are responsible for mitigating the damages and seeking relief as early as possible. Judge Judy probably has to explain this every other week or so.
Can people buy Macs with older versions of their OS?
Why would we? The issue here is that Microsoft's "progression" of operating systems is sometimes forward, sometimes backward. Apple seems to be consistently moving forward.
is Rob Enderle right about something?
Oddly, your warning is the last post on my page.
One other thing, as I've mentioned before, a retracted story resets the chances of truth to no more than 50/50. Think about it, you're saying that they were lying the first time, but now they're being 100% honest. One of their statements are false, there's no reason to believe one over the other just based on that.
Now, when we bring two other things into consideration, there *is* reason to disbelieve their retraction. First is the fact that this would make obama look bad, so they have far more reason to retract it than they had to run it in the first place. Second reason is that other sources, including the Trib, also reported on the meeting.
Um, I'm not a Republican, little or otherwise. Sorry. Again.
Except that they apparently have talked about his senate seat:
Chicago Tribune article referenced Obama-Blago discussions on Senate Seat
Sorry, little obama supporter, I know this hurts.
Um, read what you linked to. They said that the meeting had taken place, now they're saying that it didn't. These statements are mutually exclusive, at least one is a lie. At best, there's a 50/50 chance that the meeting didn't take place based on the information that you have.
So, a governor is openly trying to pocket 7 figures in US $ in exchange for a senate seat (which legally pays, what, $200K/year) and questions regarding that are "stupid"? Wow.
And, by the way, I was originally replying to the kid who had the laptop stolen and had to talk to two department heads and all that. Just go to the police...
He's wrong - a teacher has the right to confiscate just about anything they want to,
We're talking about two different things, I should clarify. Yes, a teacher may confiscate something during the course of the school day, and give it back later. I saw kids bring things to school that they shouldn't have (noise makers, whatever) that the teacher would take from them, put it on their desk, then give it back to them after school and tell them to not bring it the next day.
Read the original story. She didn't temporarily "confiscate" the cds, she stole them. She has no intention of giving them back. That's not "confiscation", hence the quotes. She may *claim* that's what it is, since she doesn't want to say "I'm going to steal these", but using a euphemism for an illegal activity doesn't make it legal.
As I said elsewhere, the police need to be involved. You might let the principal handle it, but if you don't have the stolen property in hand within (literally) minutes of talking to him, it needs to be escalated. The reason I say that is that if this teacher has decided to do this, it's unlikely to be the first time and it's unlikely that the school system will do the right thing.
You go to the police first. They will go to the principal then. That way, you don't have the principal covering up for the teacher, and it'll make the local paper.
Any response that contains crude personal attacks
unsupported claims
Microsoft has pumped tens of millions of dollars into your union.
Search for "bill melinda gates site:nea.org". Oh, here. "Tens of millions" looks like a seriously low estimate.
Ok, the teacher is misinformed and here email is a bit terse. Still, it was a chance to educate someone and make a friend; instead he chose to pen a rude reply and escalate the battle to the school's administration.
Maybe you missed the part where she stole his property? She would have been arrested had it been me or my kid.
The teacher has nothing to do with the NEA getting money from Microsoft. She's just a low-level drone who's only source of information was maybe an education tech conference she went to and the mainstream media.
Yeah. Gee, I wonder what union organization would put on just such an education tech conference....
Okay, note to the other kids out there: if a teacher "confiscates" your property, you go file a police report. Then talk to the principal. They can reasonably confiscate a pack of cigarettes or a handgun, pretty much anything else constitutes strong-arm robbery.
If alcohol prohibition required an amendment to the constitution then how was the gov't suddenly able to prohibit another substance w/o changing the constitution?
Basically, the SCOTUS decided (wrongly) that the commerce clause gives the federal government the power to do anything it wants. We weren't pretending that when alcohol prohibition came into being, and the folks then rightly understood that it required a constitutional amendment.
Marijuana was outlawed a little at a time, starting with the stamp act and going from there. During the same time, the federal government began to amass more and more power under the New Deal thus pushing the Constitutional role of the government to the back seat while it started doing things like this.
Do you have to draw the line somewhere? Does the government actually have to step in and say, it's all right to put these substances in your body, but not those?
Here's where I draw the line: Thalidomide. It caused major birth defects in the children of mothers who took the drug. It was properly banned after that. (For those wondering about the birth defects, kids born with limbs that looked like seal flippers, and about as useful)
There are some substances that should be banned, but very, very, very few.
You have a group of islands which are really active volcanos with some habitable land around them, and you're burning oil for energy instead of sucking energy out of the molten rock?
In the Philippines, which has quite a few active volcanos (but far more non-volcano land area), they manage to get 25% of their electricity from geothermal. Given the size of the Hawaiian islands and the amount of geothermal available.... well, why are we even *having* this conversation?
I hate to stand up for Windows, but "this process has been idle for 16 hours" is hardly a "poor job of deciding what to page".
Depends on what you call "par", but for my values of "par", MySQL has never been there.
Case 2:It's capable of the lower levels of human functionality. Say, somewhere between Forest Gump and a chimpanzee. Well, in this case, we have an intelligent being, who is a ward of the state, and who is unlike any other being on earth.
Forrest Gump had mild retardation. Chimpanzees are intelligent beings who have no problem living as non-wards of the state. This is a difficult concept, but don't think of chimps as having an IQ somewhere around 30, since that just doesn't apply.
The neanderthal would be an intelligent being, capable of fending for himself. Even if his intelligence scale were lower than that of us modern humans, he would have little or no trouble taking care of himself, particularly in a modern setting.