Free Healthcare. Not a right. It's a misunderstanding of rights to imagine it could be. Nothing that is 'given' can be a right. A right only allows, never gives. There is no right to housing, medical care, food, or tv. Only a right to not be restricted from obtaining any of those, if you could otherwise produce or trade for them.
Looks like someone hasn't cracked open a political science book since the 17th century.
The Bill of Rights is not an authoritative list of the rights that you have. As much as you seem to support the Constitution, you may need to check out Federalist #84.
My parents started teaching me how to read when I was less than two years old. By three I could read the King James Bible, and by five I was doing multiplication and playing "adult" video games. I still had plenty of time to play around, hell, I was a kid. That's basically all I wanted to do was play outside.
One of the cool things about kids is that they're interested in pretty much everything. If his son wants to play around with a computer, let him play around with the computer. If a child shows interest, no age is too early to try and teach them, as long as you are supportive and don't expect too much.
Just because they won't understand things on an adult level doesn't mean there's no reason to get them going early. And each child reaches certain stages of development at different times. You can't make sweeping statements that his son is not ready to start reading or playing with computers.
The markets are failing. The stock market had the bottom fall out of it. Nobody is lending money. Nobody is spending money. Nobody has any idea what real value means anymore. Credit markets are the tightest we've seen in decades. Nearly every measure of economic prosperity points to a worsening condition (and we're already in a pretty bad spot).
It doesn't mean that the idea of the free market system has failed entirely, but the collapse of the financial industry had fuck-all to do with protectionism.
Those "guts" that you're looking at are for linemen. There, strength and quickness are the most important abilites (in that order), running is not. Sprinting for more than twenty yards or so is pretty rare for any position, which is why receivers and defensive backs look like athletes from aerobic sports.
At my college (Utah) we had guys that weighed 350 lbs. that were as fast for short bursts as any other athletes I'd ever met. They are still in great shape by any reasonable measure. It's like saying sumo wrestlers or weight lifters are out of shape because they can't run a marathon. Or marathoners and cyclists are out of shape because they can't lift heavy weights. They just specialize their bodies to fit their sport.
And for you to claim that soccer has just as much physical contact, well, that's just demonstrably wrong. Soccer has occasional violent collisions and constant battling for position, but it's not even comparable to two people running head on into each other every play, while most of the other 20 people on the field are pushing each other around. Nearly every hit in the NFL would draw a yellow card in a soccer match. The only position that's really comparable would be wide receiver/db, but even then they get some extremely hard hits in at least three or four times a game.
Specialization is not weakness. I personally would love to see an NFL linebacker clean your clock for calling him out of shape.
It's not *designed* around advertisements. They just changed the rules of the game to put more advertisements in. Kind of like the difference between NHL hockey and Olympic hockey. College football and baseball have changed rules in the last couple years to make the game pass more quickly be (although they'll always average about three hours). That's because those two sports are as popular to see in person as on TV, and the NFL is primarily a TV sport. The problem is that the game clocks aren't constantly running (or in baseball it's not timed at all) so it usually benefits a team to milk as much real time out of the game clock as possible.
A mistake both you and the GP poster are making is not clearly distinguishing between gender and sex. Sexes are based on biological differences (although it's not binary like most people think), while gender is entirely dependent on culture. So while there are definite biological differences between men and women, behavior such as men choosing engineering over teaching and vice versa is demonstrably *not* because of biological differences. It's important to keep that in mind, even if you think our current gender roles are perfectly acceptable.
On the other hand, Lego is a socially responsible company with zero waste, excellent pay and bennies for all employees, and an all around good company.
They give all their employees excellent pay *and* drugs? I can't see how that would be socially responsible, but my resume is in the mail.
I don't know that it really worked that well for farmers back then, either. No matter what time the sun comes up, farmers are rising before then. Whether you call that time 5:30, 6:30 or 7:30, it doesn't really affect them. I think daylight saving time has always been intended for office/factory workers whose jobs are not tied to working outside.
You may argue that the second amendment is no longer *necessary*, but it absolutely does guarantee the rights of private citizens to own firearms. That is the only way it makes any sense. If you want to banish guns, abolish the second amendment. Otherwise you're pissing on the Constitution.
Most towns in Nevada are unincorporated so it doesn't matter, but there are brothels within the city limits of a few incorporated towns. I imagine in either case the revenues go to the county but I could be wrong.
Of course, it's easy to tax brothels. I believe that one of the reasons why the Nevada cathouses have never been shut down is the fact that so much of the municipal government's revenue comes from taxing prostitution.
I grew up in rural Nevada where every small town has a couple brothels, and that's a big part of it, but the unique culture of Nevada plays into it as well. There are two things people in rural Nevada hate more than anything else, taxes and government regulation. They have the libertarian streak present in most of the rural US, but without the religious/moral aspect. That's why gambling and prostitution have never been illegal, we never really had a temperance movement. I fully expect Nevada to be the first state to wholly legalize marijuana. In 2006, full marijuana legalization was defeated at the polls by a 56-44 margin, which is unthinkably close compared to other states. It's a very interesting place to live if you've never been there.
The state and local governments are *more* to blame, but the federal gov't is not without blame. The army corp of engineers manages the levies. Bush did not declare the coastal provinces of Louisiana a disaster zone, even though coastal areas of Alabama and Mississippi were declared and Governor Blanco specifically requested it. He had appointed Michael Brown head of FEMA, even though he was grossly underqualified, and FEMA acted erratic and incompetent throughout the disaster relief and recovery. That's how it makes sense.
Yes. The only reason it's even considered insightful for you to say that is because they've been so incredibly incompetent, but a good government is much better than either a bad government or no government.
Not to mention the thousands of civilians that die each year in Iraq. If we're truly there as the allies of the Iraqi people, that number is the most important. But how many times have you heard an accurate number of civilian deaths/casualties in Iraq in the mainstream media? Has our government even attempted to publish it? Does *anybody* know how many Iraqis have died?
Well-put. I am generally a fan of P&T's Bullshit but they really screw up what should be an easy criticism of the Endangered Species Act. The problem with the ESA isn't that there is no need to protect endangered species, it's that the act is a really shitty, outdated, and ineffective bill that is fundamentally flawed.
Basically, the ESA has a bunch of provisions for telling you what you *can't* do regarding endangered species, with an emphasis on habitat control. But they have relatively few provisions for actually increasing an endangered population. What it does is sort of half-assedly manage the status quo. It only works for populations that are fundamentally healthy and just need humans to leave them alone for a couple years.
It contains no way to legally define different priorities of endangered species (should the bald eagle and the pupfish really be treated the same?). They give no incentive for rural landowners to help protect the species. It's a complete bureaucratic mess that is often passed off to landowners and developers. Most farmers/ranchers that see an endangered species would rather kill it and bury it than report it to the government, because of all the additional risk and potential cost involved with obeying the law.
For an example of a protection act that actually works (although the situation is much less complicated) look at the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Simple, clear, and effective.
As is often the case, though, stereotypes only actually fit the smallest minority of the group being classified.
But unfortunately for all of us, your so-called "minority" (McCain air quotes) of the group has been running this country for eight years, and have been influential to various degrees for the better part of the last two hundred. So whether or not they are an actual minority, they are making decisions for all of us.
I know many rational, thoughtful Christians that understand their religion very well, and they understand the essential secular nature of the US government. They don't try to push their views on others through government. But just because these people exist does not mean the GP poster was talking about a stereotype that accurately describes only a small percentage of the population.
At this exact moment in time, there are *actual* evangelical Christians who are *actively* suppressing the teaching of evolution and implementing their ideas of morality and justice in states all across the country. These measures would not pass if there weren't a substantial part of the electorate that has sympathetic views. These people exist in great numbers and they hold positions of great power.
My election ballot had about 15 candidates for president. Democrat, Republican, multiple socialist parties, the Green Party, Constitution party, Libertarian party, and multiple independents (HeartQuake '08!. I imagine it's similar where you live, so there should be *somebody* who shares your view.
Maybe I'm projecting others beliefs onto yours, but I doubt it. What you are essentially saying is that you believe you have no influence in government, and that the government as it functions today is illegitimate. But then you reject the *only* direct means of influencing said government. The great thing about democracy, and the US in particular, is that our system allows for great change from within. I'm not saying you have to vote for a Republicrat, but get off your lazy ass and vote for *somebody* you believe in.
Guess what? The people running the system are not scared of you, because they know people like you do not matter. They would like nothing more than to see you sit this one out. That means they have to spend less money trying to convince you to vote for them.
If you don't do *anything* to try and change the system, either from within or without, and sit there bitching about it that does not make you a free thinker. That makes you a coward who hides your cowardice and inability to influence the world we live in behind anti-government rants on the internet. If you really feel that strongly about where our government is headed get off your ass and do something about it. It's your moral obligation.
Maybe I can clarify the position about why your point about your vote not counting is wrong. I just got done yelling at one of my best friends for an hour about the issue (we live in a heavily Republican part of Utah, so basically the entire Republican ticket will win no matter what). And I understand you said you will vote, I am half addressing it at you and half addressing it at others who share your viewpoint but not your feeling of obligation, so sorry in advance if I make generalizations that aren't necessarily your viewpoint.
The problem isn't that you're not necessarily incorrect, *your* specific vote will probably not change anything, no matter where you live. But that would be true in any election decided by more than one vote. In a democracy our size, that will never happen. So what you're implying is that your vote will *never* matter, and that means you do not believe in democracy. But the votes *are* counted, and the people *do* choose their representatives.
I have to ask a question of you. At what point will the election be close enough for you to vote? Because Ross Perot was nowhere near being elected in either '92 or '96. By your reasoning your vote didn't count then either.
We get it, you think voting sucks. Guess what? We all think it sucks. Nobody but party leaders and the elected themselves are ever satisfied with the results of an election. Democracy is dirty and ugly and it makes everybody get upset and yell at each other, but it kind of works. For most people, voting is the only way to get their voice heard.
People have worked, fought, and died for generations to give you the right to vote on Tuesday. Is it really that hard to stand in line for ten minutes and check a box on a piece of paper?
There are lots of reasons why a person may not be competitive in the job market. Not everyone is able-bodied, able-minded with above average intelligence. They might be handicapped or simply an average person who was raised in a poor situation, but they simply *will not* be competitive in a free job market. Should we let them starve, or forced to slave 60-80 hours a week simply to put food on the table?
Living on minimum wage is not a comfortable middle class living standard, it doesn't matter where you live. We're not talking about paying somebody above average for below average productivity. We aren't talking about handing out checks to people sitting on their asses and not contributing. Someone living on minimum wage is almost definitely working harder than most of us. We aren't talking about paying a person well enough to afford a nice care and take foreign vacations twice a year. We are talking about paying somebody a wage that they can afford to live on. As in pay rent, buy food, that sort of thing.
What you are advocating is leaving people who are not competitive in the job market to the whims of good fortune and the kindness of strangers. That doesn't work, and it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't work. There's no reason in the wealthiest country to ever exist that some people have to work 60-80 hours a week to simply make ends meet. It's a self-sustaining system of poverty, and it's why we have some of the highest rates of poverty and lowest education standards in the industrialized world. It's goddamn shameful.
Nothing in Apple's *recent* history. They used to be very friendly to hobbyists, even going so far as shipping the Apple II with full schematics. It's sad they've gone so far in the other direction.
Federal minimum wage is $6.55. At 40 hrs./week that's $13624. That is doable by yourself if you live in a pretty cheap area of the country, but raising children would be out of the question. New York minimum wage is $7.15. That is $14827 a year for 40 hrs./week. Do you honestly think that someone can live in New York city without aid on $14827 a year? There's *definitely* no way they could accrue any sort of savings or raise a family.
Maybe, but whatever the actual effectiveness of the policy, the purpose of minimum wage is to give low-skilled people a wage they can live on. They're mostly non-effective at that right now, which means that the program has failed at its intended purpose, regardless of that purposes validity.
If you want to look at what MTV should be, head on over to Pitchfork TV. Good music, lots of which you've never heard of, live performances, interviews, basically everything MTV used to be. *Somebody* out there still thinks they can make money playing good music.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like someone hasn't cracked open a political science book since the 17th century.
The Bill of Rights is not an authoritative list of the rights that you have. As much as you seem to support the Constitution, you may need to check out Federalist #84.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
My parents started teaching me how to read when I was less than two years old. By three I could read the King James Bible, and by five I was doing multiplication and playing "adult" video games. I still had plenty of time to play around, hell, I was a kid. That's basically all I wanted to do was play outside.
One of the cool things about kids is that they're interested in pretty much everything. If his son wants to play around with a computer, let him play around with the computer. If a child shows interest, no age is too early to try and teach them, as long as you are supportive and don't expect too much.
Just because they won't understand things on an adult level doesn't mean there's no reason to get them going early. And each child reaches certain stages of development at different times. You can't make sweeping statements that his son is not ready to start reading or playing with computers.
The markets are failing. The stock market had the bottom fall out of it. Nobody is lending money. Nobody is spending money. Nobody has any idea what real value means anymore. Credit markets are the tightest we've seen in decades. Nearly every measure of economic prosperity points to a worsening condition (and we're already in a pretty bad spot).
It doesn't mean that the idea of the free market system has failed entirely, but the collapse of the financial industry had fuck-all to do with protectionism.
Those "guts" that you're looking at are for linemen. There, strength and quickness are the most important abilites (in that order), running is not. Sprinting for more than twenty yards or so is pretty rare for any position, which is why receivers and defensive backs look like athletes from aerobic sports.
At my college (Utah) we had guys that weighed 350 lbs. that were as fast for short bursts as any other athletes I'd ever met. They are still in great shape by any reasonable measure. It's like saying sumo wrestlers or weight lifters are out of shape because they can't run a marathon. Or marathoners and cyclists are out of shape because they can't lift heavy weights. They just specialize their bodies to fit their sport.
And for you to claim that soccer has just as much physical contact, well, that's just demonstrably wrong. Soccer has occasional violent collisions and constant battling for position, but it's not even comparable to two people running head on into each other every play, while most of the other 20 people on the field are pushing each other around. Nearly every hit in the NFL would draw a yellow card in a soccer match. The only position that's really comparable would be wide receiver/db, but even then they get some extremely hard hits in at least three or four times a game.
Specialization is not weakness. I personally would love to see an NFL linebacker clean your clock for calling him out of shape.
It's not *designed* around advertisements. They just changed the rules of the game to put more advertisements in. Kind of like the difference between NHL hockey and Olympic hockey. College football and baseball have changed rules in the last couple years to make the game pass more quickly be (although they'll always average about three hours). That's because those two sports are as popular to see in person as on TV, and the NFL is primarily a TV sport. The problem is that the game clocks aren't constantly running (or in baseball it's not timed at all) so it usually benefits a team to milk as much real time out of the game clock as possible.
A mistake both you and the GP poster are making is not clearly distinguishing between gender and sex. Sexes are based on biological differences (although it's not binary like most people think), while gender is entirely dependent on culture. So while there are definite biological differences between men and women, behavior such as men choosing engineering over teaching and vice versa is demonstrably *not* because of biological differences. It's important to keep that in mind, even if you think our current gender roles are perfectly acceptable.
They give all their employees excellent pay *and* drugs? I can't see how that would be socially responsible, but my resume is in the mail.
I don't know that it really worked that well for farmers back then, either. No matter what time the sun comes up, farmers are rising before then. Whether you call that time 5:30, 6:30 or 7:30, it doesn't really affect them. I think daylight saving time has always been intended for office/factory workers whose jobs are not tied to working outside.
You may argue that the second amendment is no longer *necessary*, but it absolutely does guarantee the rights of private citizens to own firearms. That is the only way it makes any sense. If you want to banish guns, abolish the second amendment. Otherwise you're pissing on the Constitution.
Most towns in Nevada are unincorporated so it doesn't matter, but there are brothels within the city limits of a few incorporated towns. I imagine in either case the revenues go to the county but I could be wrong.
I grew up in rural Nevada where every small town has a couple brothels, and that's a big part of it, but the unique culture of Nevada plays into it as well. There are two things people in rural Nevada hate more than anything else, taxes and government regulation. They have the libertarian streak present in most of the rural US, but without the religious/moral aspect. That's why gambling and prostitution have never been illegal, we never really had a temperance movement. I fully expect Nevada to be the first state to wholly legalize marijuana. In 2006, full marijuana legalization was defeated at the polls by a 56-44 margin, which is unthinkably close compared to other states. It's a very interesting place to live if you've never been there.
The state and local governments are *more* to blame, but the federal gov't is not without blame. The army corp of engineers manages the levies. Bush did not declare the coastal provinces of Louisiana a disaster zone, even though coastal areas of Alabama and Mississippi were declared and Governor Blanco specifically requested it. He had appointed Michael Brown head of FEMA, even though he was grossly underqualified, and FEMA acted erratic and incompetent throughout the disaster relief and recovery. That's how it makes sense.
Yes. The only reason it's even considered insightful for you to say that is because they've been so incredibly incompetent, but a good government is much better than either a bad government or no government.
And if you're poor and don't have a car, or are elderly and can't easily move, you just drown? Fuck you, you arrogant prick.
Not to mention the thousands of civilians that die each year in Iraq. If we're truly there as the allies of the Iraqi people, that number is the most important. But how many times have you heard an accurate number of civilian deaths/casualties in Iraq in the mainstream media? Has our government even attempted to publish it? Does *anybody* know how many Iraqis have died?
Well-put. I am generally a fan of P&T's Bullshit but they really screw up what should be an easy criticism of the Endangered Species Act. The problem with the ESA isn't that there is no need to protect endangered species, it's that the act is a really shitty, outdated, and ineffective bill that is fundamentally flawed.
Basically, the ESA has a bunch of provisions for telling you what you *can't* do regarding endangered species, with an emphasis on habitat control. But they have relatively few provisions for actually increasing an endangered population. What it does is sort of half-assedly manage the status quo. It only works for populations that are fundamentally healthy and just need humans to leave them alone for a couple years.
It contains no way to legally define different priorities of endangered species (should the bald eagle and the pupfish really be treated the same?). They give no incentive for rural landowners to help protect the species. It's a complete bureaucratic mess that is often passed off to landowners and developers. Most farmers/ranchers that see an endangered species would rather kill it and bury it than report it to the government, because of all the additional risk and potential cost involved with obeying the law.
For an example of a protection act that actually works (although the situation is much less complicated) look at the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Simple, clear, and effective.
Oh really?
But unfortunately for all of us, your so-called "minority" (McCain air quotes) of the group has been running this country for eight years, and have been influential to various degrees for the better part of the last two hundred. So whether or not they are an actual minority, they are making decisions for all of us.
I know many rational, thoughtful Christians that understand their religion very well, and they understand the essential secular nature of the US government. They don't try to push their views on others through government. But just because these people exist does not mean the GP poster was talking about a stereotype that accurately describes only a small percentage of the population.
At this exact moment in time, there are *actual* evangelical Christians who are *actively* suppressing the teaching of evolution and implementing their ideas of morality and justice in states all across the country. These measures would not pass if there weren't a substantial part of the electorate that has sympathetic views. These people exist in great numbers and they hold positions of great power.
My election ballot had about 15 candidates for president. Democrat, Republican, multiple socialist parties, the Green Party, Constitution party, Libertarian party, and multiple independents (HeartQuake '08!. I imagine it's similar where you live, so there should be *somebody* who shares your view.
Maybe I'm projecting others beliefs onto yours, but I doubt it. What you are essentially saying is that you believe you have no influence in government, and that the government as it functions today is illegitimate. But then you reject the *only* direct means of influencing said government. The great thing about democracy, and the US in particular, is that our system allows for great change from within. I'm not saying you have to vote for a Republicrat, but get off your lazy ass and vote for *somebody* you believe in.
Guess what? The people running the system are not scared of you, because they know people like you do not matter. They would like nothing more than to see you sit this one out. That means they have to spend less money trying to convince you to vote for them.
If you don't do *anything* to try and change the system, either from within or without, and sit there bitching about it that does not make you a free thinker. That makes you a coward who hides your cowardice and inability to influence the world we live in behind anti-government rants on the internet. If you really feel that strongly about where our government is headed get off your ass and do something about it. It's your moral obligation.
Maybe I can clarify the position about why your point about your vote not counting is wrong. I just got done yelling at one of my best friends for an hour about the issue (we live in a heavily Republican part of Utah, so basically the entire Republican ticket will win no matter what). And I understand you said you will vote, I am half addressing it at you and half addressing it at others who share your viewpoint but not your feeling of obligation, so sorry in advance if I make generalizations that aren't necessarily your viewpoint.
The problem isn't that you're not necessarily incorrect, *your* specific vote will probably not change anything, no matter where you live. But that would be true in any election decided by more than one vote. In a democracy our size, that will never happen. So what you're implying is that your vote will *never* matter, and that means you do not believe in democracy. But the votes *are* counted, and the people *do* choose their representatives.
I have to ask a question of you. At what point will the election be close enough for you to vote? Because Ross Perot was nowhere near being elected in either '92 or '96. By your reasoning your vote didn't count then either.
We get it, you think voting sucks. Guess what? We all think it sucks. Nobody but party leaders and the elected themselves are ever satisfied with the results of an election. Democracy is dirty and ugly and it makes everybody get upset and yell at each other, but it kind of works. For most people, voting is the only way to get their voice heard.
People have worked, fought, and died for generations to give you the right to vote on Tuesday. Is it really that hard to stand in line for ten minutes and check a box on a piece of paper?
There are lots of reasons why a person may not be competitive in the job market. Not everyone is able-bodied, able-minded with above average intelligence. They might be handicapped or simply an average person who was raised in a poor situation, but they simply *will not* be competitive in a free job market. Should we let them starve, or forced to slave 60-80 hours a week simply to put food on the table?
Living on minimum wage is not a comfortable middle class living standard, it doesn't matter where you live. We're not talking about paying somebody above average for below average productivity. We aren't talking about handing out checks to people sitting on their asses and not contributing. Someone living on minimum wage is almost definitely working harder than most of us. We aren't talking about paying a person well enough to afford a nice care and take foreign vacations twice a year. We are talking about paying somebody a wage that they can afford to live on. As in pay rent, buy food, that sort of thing.
What you are advocating is leaving people who are not competitive in the job market to the whims of good fortune and the kindness of strangers. That doesn't work, and it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't work. There's no reason in the wealthiest country to ever exist that some people have to work 60-80 hours a week to simply make ends meet. It's a self-sustaining system of poverty, and it's why we have some of the highest rates of poverty and lowest education standards in the industrialized world. It's goddamn shameful.
Nothing in Apple's *recent* history. They used to be very friendly to hobbyists, even going so far as shipping the Apple II with full schematics. It's sad they've gone so far in the other direction.
Federal minimum wage is $6.55. At 40 hrs./week that's $13624. That is doable by yourself if you live in a pretty cheap area of the country, but raising children would be out of the question. New York minimum wage is $7.15. That is $14827 a year for 40 hrs./week. Do you honestly think that someone can live in New York city without aid on $14827 a year? There's *definitely* no way they could accrue any sort of savings or raise a family.
Maybe, but whatever the actual effectiveness of the policy, the purpose of minimum wage is to give low-skilled people a wage they can live on. They're mostly non-effective at that right now, which means that the program has failed at its intended purpose, regardless of that purposes validity.
If you want to look at what MTV should be, head on over to Pitchfork TV. Good music, lots of which you've never heard of, live performances, interviews, basically everything MTV used to be. *Somebody* out there still thinks they can make money playing good music.