It is still possible. The jobs may not be in manufacturing but they are still out there.
Yeah, and it's also "possible" that they'll be a successful pro athlete/model/actor and have enough money to retire by the time they're 20. Is it remotely likely? Not so much.
Sorry, but in many cases both parents work because they want or expect a HIGHER standard of living.
Humanity wants a higher standard of living, else we wouldn't have invented indoor pluming and would still be grunting at eachother in caves. The problem isn't that the middle class has wanted more than they did before, the problem is that the middle class is making the same (or less) amount of money while the costs of fuel, housing, health care and secondary education have risen far faster than the rate of inflation. Meanwhile unions have been gutted by Right to Work (For Less) Laws, manufacturing has been sent to China, and the high tech jobs that were supposed to replace them are being offshoot or contracted out to temp agencies.
And why is this the case? Because our economy has been on a long trend of rewarding wealth instead of work. If the minimum wage had risen as the same rate as CEO pay, it would be over $50 an hour. It's why the wealth of the top 1% has tripped while the middle class has stagnated or declined.
Actually that is not a teaching of the Christianity.
Sure it is - see Joshua. You know, the part of the Bible where the Israelites go around and slaughter all their neighbors at the direction of Yahweh, sparing no one.
Absolutely incorrect on both counts, because we do not know how the school obtained the picture.
We know it was obtained through the school's use of the laptop's webcam, when the student was at his own home. We also know that they didn't have a warrant, or else the school would have said that already.
Boom, that's all we need to know that the school drastically overstepped their bounds. More details will only tell us whether this is a case of malicious incompetence or pedophilia, but wont do anything to change the fact that school. broke. the. law.
Since he's a right-wing-nut nothing happened of course, but you and I would have been in jail for a long time.
What are you talking about? Conservatives are always consistent in their morals and values. That's why they overwhelmingly voted for McCain over Bush in 2000, since they made it clear in 1992 how much they valued military service and despised draft dodgers. And why Mark Sanford was promptly impeached by the Republican legislature of South Carolina, as Sanford voted for Clinton's impeachment in 1998.
I once worked at a shop that made Wal-Mart look pro-union. There was an ex-Navy guy who liked to sexually harass younger ladies, going so far as tell one of them "I'd like to rape the shit out of you".
He was never fired. Therefore, private businesses shelter despicable, lazy people and should be banned ASAP.
For one thing I don't sit my kid in front of a TV, and then leave for hours on end like I see many mothers do.
Meh. You always see complaints about parents not taking time to spend with their kids as if it were simply a function of laziness. But one of the reasons parents were able spend more time with their kids "in the good old days" is due to a more subtle problem: economics. It used to be possible for a young man to graduate high school, get a good unionized job in manufacturing, and make enough money to buy a house, a car, and for his wife to to stay home with the kids or work part time.
Whereas now it's more common for both parents to work 40+ hours a week for the same or lesser lifestyle. And when you've been dealing with a stressful job all day, it becomes a lot easier to think "fuck it" and say "okay kids, go ahead and watch tv..."
Why do people continue to ask this lame question as if it settles an argument, as opposed to a qualitative or quantitative rebuttal? Everyone was a child once, and almost everyone had at least one parent raising them. So everyone has a perfectly valid perspective on raising children, whether or not they have kids.
That teachers union has done far more to hinder and disturb actual learning than any amount of speech by actual students.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. Teacher's unions protect "actual learning", by acting as a political barrier. Otherwise, you'll have children from Fine Upstanding Members of the Community get B's when they should get F's and get detention for misbehavior instead of expulsion.
All in the interest of not taking abuse while working for 70 hours a week on slave wages
IANAL but If I slandered my employer on facebook I would expect to be fired.
The First Amendment applies to the government, not private employers. And public schools, paid for with taxpayer dollars are a part of the government.
The school is well within it's rights to suspend a student who's publicly talking smack about a teacher.
How so? How do you justify the school having any jurisdiction over what happens off school property and after school hours?
IMHO the student made a libelous claim on a public forum.
Then the teacher can respond as any other private citizen can: by suing for libel. Not for using in school power in response to something outside of school.
Beautiful job by the lawyers in this case. They're the only winners. It is a class action where all students in the district are members of the class.
Who fucking cares if lawyers end up with money? Those who did your kid wrong are taken to the cleaners WITHOUT you having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys and appeals.
Then you've offered yourself up as a twit. The problem isn't that Obama hasn't listened to "opposing viewpoints", the problem is that's all he does. Ever. 13 months after the GOP voting against him on nearly every issue, and he's still bathering on about bipartisanship.
The Obama team last week was particularly impressive, after campaigning on how the Bush wiretapping program violated civil liberties they sent their lawyers to argue that they should be able to listen to celluar calls and collect geographic data from them without warrants.
Oh, he flipped flopped long before that. Just after the primaries were over in 2008, he went back on his promise to support a filibuster of telecom immunity to voting for it, both for cloture and then for the final bill with immunity in it.
He does have to prove that he is eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States which may well mean that he needs to show the records
See you're living up to your name again. Obama has proved it, over and over and over and over again.
It's better that people think your head is lodged deep in your ass, than start spouting the most debunked conspiracy theory in history and remove all doubt.
It always strikes me as funny when people try to claim GW was uneducated or a moron yet he graduated from Yale and Harvard.
Yes, you are funny. George Bush got through school the same way he was handed top executive positions in business ventures despite running them into the ground. It's the same reason his brother Neil was paid handsomely by a semiconductor company despite knowing jack about the industry:
"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown.
"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded in the March 4 deposition, a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents.
"And you have absolutely over the last 10, 15, 20 years not a lot of demonstrable business experience that would bring about a company investing $2 million in you?"
"I personally would object to the assumption that they're investing $2 million in me," said Bush, who went on to explain that he knew a lot about business and had been working in Asia for years.
...and had hot women knock on his door at night, who just happened to want to have sex with him:
The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them.
"Mr. Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.
"It was very unusual," Bush said.
To borrow Clinton's line on the economy....it's the last name, stupid.
Nature is not and has never been in equilibrium. The world is constantly changing.
At a vastly slower rate than with human intervention. Sea life can adjust for a 2 degree temperature swing over a few thousand years. In a hundred? Not so much.
Another fact that you conveniently leave out is that large, natural swings in climate tend to result in mass extinctions.
The planet is greener now than it used to be because of Man's activities.
Do 3" high lawns trap more or less carbon than 3' high grasslands? Does a square mile of wheat/corn trap more or less carbon than a square mile of dense forest with 40' trees?
The democrats are trying to do something most Americans don't actually want, and that is a government takeover of healthcare (or a single payer system, if you prefer to call it that).
Other than the fact that they DO want it, of course. 80% of Americans, and even a majority of Republican voters (when separated from the Death Panel BS) supported the public option. And even 53% of Americans supported single payer.
Single payer provides better care for less money than any system you care to mention. Single payer is the MOST fiscally conservative option.
Slashdot Mirror
It is still possible. The jobs may not be in manufacturing but they are still out there.
Yeah, and it's also "possible" that they'll be a successful pro athlete/model/actor and have enough money to retire by the time they're 20. Is it remotely likely? Not so much.
Sorry, but in many cases both parents work because they want or expect a HIGHER standard of living.
Humanity wants a higher standard of living, else we wouldn't have invented indoor pluming and would still be grunting at eachother in caves. The problem isn't that the middle class has wanted more than they did before, the problem is that the middle class is making the same (or less) amount of money while the costs of fuel, housing, health care and secondary education have risen far faster than the rate of inflation. Meanwhile unions have been gutted by Right to Work (For Less) Laws, manufacturing has been sent to China, and the high tech jobs that were supposed to replace them are being offshoot or contracted out to temp agencies.
And why is this the case? Because our economy has been on a long trend of rewarding wealth instead of work. If the minimum wage had risen as the same rate as CEO pay, it would be over $50 an hour. It's why the wealth of the top 1% has tripped while the middle class has stagnated or declined.
Which is why the question gets asked.
Except that's not why it gets asked. It's asked so the person has a trump card to dismiss any arguments out of hand "because you're not a parent".
The only reason anyone ever asks this question is to use it as a trump card so they can dismiss an argument out of hand rather than rebutting it.
To show you just how bad this logic is, lets say you meet President Obama and tell him....
Actually that is not a teaching of the Christianity.
Sure it is - see Joshua. You know, the part of the Bible where the Israelites go around and slaughter all their neighbors at the direction of Yahweh, sparing no one.
Absolutely incorrect on both counts, because we do not know how the school obtained the picture.
We know it was obtained through the school's use of the laptop's webcam, when the student was at his own home. We also know that they didn't have a warrant, or else the school would have said that already.
Boom, that's all we need to know that the school drastically overstepped their bounds. More details will only tell us whether this is a case of malicious incompetence or pedophilia, but wont do anything to change the fact that school. broke. the. law.
Period.
Since he's a right-wing-nut nothing happened of course, but you and I would have been in jail for a long time.
What are you talking about? Conservatives are always consistent in their morals and values. That's why they overwhelmingly voted for McCain over Bush in 2000, since they made it clear in 1992 how much they valued military service and despised draft dodgers. And why Mark Sanford was promptly impeached by the Republican legislature of South Carolina, as Sanford voted for Clinton's impeachment in 1998.
I once worked at a shop that made Wal-Mart look pro-union. There was an ex-Navy guy who liked to sexually harass younger ladies, going so far as tell one of them "I'd like to rape the shit out of you".
He was never fired. Therefore, private businesses shelter despicable, lazy people and should be banned ASAP.
You have to ask yourself why he stopped at 400 million years.
Actually I'm asking myself if this is good snark, or if not, how anyone this dumb could have enough brain power to keep his lungs functioning.
For one thing I don't sit my kid in front of a TV, and then leave for hours on end like I see many mothers do.
Meh. You always see complaints about parents not taking time to spend with their kids as if it were simply a function of laziness. But one of the reasons parents were able spend more time with their kids "in the good old days" is due to a more subtle problem: economics. It used to be possible for a young man to graduate high school, get a good unionized job in manufacturing, and make enough money to buy a house, a car, and for his wife to to stay home with the kids or work part time.
Whereas now it's more common for both parents to work 40+ hours a week for the same or lesser lifestyle. And when you've been dealing with a stressful job all day, it becomes a lot easier to think "fuck it" and say "okay kids, go ahead and watch tv..."
Why do people continue to ask this lame question as if it settles an argument, as opposed to a qualitative or quantitative rebuttal? Everyone was a child once, and almost everyone had at least one parent raising them. So everyone has a perfectly valid perspective on raising children, whether or not they have kids.
You know there are these things called case law and precedent that courts look at, right?
That teachers union has done far more to hinder and disturb actual learning than any amount of speech by actual students.
As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. Teacher's unions protect "actual learning", by acting as a political barrier. Otherwise, you'll have children from Fine Upstanding Members of the Community get B's when they should get F's and get detention for misbehavior instead of expulsion.
All in the interest of not taking abuse while working for 70 hours a week on slave wages
FTFY.
IANAL but If I slandered my employer on facebook I would expect to be fired.
The First Amendment applies to the government, not private employers. And public schools, paid for with taxpayer dollars are a part of the government.
The school is well within it's rights to suspend a student who's publicly talking smack about a teacher.
How so? How do you justify the school having any jurisdiction over what happens off school property and after school hours?
IMHO the student made a libelous claim on a public forum.
Then the teacher can respond as any other private citizen can: by suing for libel. Not for using in school power in response to something outside of school.
That's funny, because every second hand PC game that I've ever purchased worked just fine.
That's funny, you think the games you've bought are representative of all games. How many second hand Steam games have you bought again?
Bullshit. If you buy the CD, you're not going to have any problems...at least 99% of the time.
Unless of course it's a Steam game or one of those with activation limits. You bullshit.
Beautiful job by the lawyers in this case. They're the only winners. It is a class action where all students in the district are members of the class.
Who fucking cares if lawyers end up with money? Those who did your kid wrong are taken to the cleaners WITHOUT you having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys and appeals.
You do understand that there are scientific theory in alternate to the current theory of evolution right?
Except there aren't.
Then you've offered yourself up as a twit. The problem isn't that Obama hasn't listened to "opposing viewpoints", the problem is that's all he does. Ever. 13 months after the GOP voting against him on nearly every issue, and he's still bathering on about bipartisanship.
The Obama team last week was particularly impressive, after campaigning on how the Bush wiretapping program violated civil liberties they sent their lawyers to argue that they should be able to listen to celluar calls and collect geographic data from them without warrants.
Oh, he flipped flopped long before that. Just after the primaries were over in 2008, he went back on his promise to support a filibuster of telecom immunity to voting for it, both for cloture and then for the final bill with immunity in it.
He does have to prove that he is eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States which may well mean that he needs to show the records
See you're living up to your name again. Obama has proved it, over and over and over and over again.
It's better that people think your head is lodged deep in your ass, than start spouting the most debunked conspiracy theory in history and remove all doubt.
It always strikes me as funny when people try to claim GW was uneducated or a moron yet he graduated from Yale and Harvard.
Yes, you are funny. George Bush got through school the same way he was handed top executive positions in business ventures despite running them into the ground. It's the same reason his brother Neil was paid handsomely by a semiconductor company despite knowing jack about the industry:
To borrow Clinton's line on the economy....it's the last name, stupid.
Nature is not and has never been in equilibrium. The world is constantly changing.
At a vastly slower rate than with human intervention. Sea life can adjust for a 2 degree temperature swing over a few thousand years. In a hundred? Not so much.
Another fact that you conveniently leave out is that large, natural swings in climate tend to result in mass extinctions.
The planet is greener now than it used to be because of Man's activities.
Do 3" high lawns trap more or less carbon than 3' high grasslands? Does a square mile of wheat/corn trap more or less carbon than a square mile of dense forest with 40' trees?
Except, of course, that climate change isn't waiting for voter consensus.
The democrats are trying to do something most Americans don't actually want, and that is a government takeover of healthcare (or a single payer system, if you prefer to call it that).
Other than the fact that they DO want it, of course. 80% of Americans, and even a majority of Republican voters (when separated from the Death Panel BS) supported the public option. And even 53% of Americans supported single payer.
Single payer provides better care for less money than any system you care to mention. Single payer is the MOST fiscally conservative option.
How about astronomers vs those who question heliocentrism? Since you want to "cover both sides of the debate", and all.