Get Soros and the associated liberal special interests into the same trailer and I'll support it.
Only liberal hypocrites complain about conservative special interests while ignoring the fact they have plenty of their own.
Either you pay for the lines feeding your house, or you only get wholesale rates for your power. My water bill is that way, I pay a flat monthly fee, plus an additional cost for water. I don't see anyone whining about the poor being affected.
If someone with solar doesn't like it, they can go to a completely self-contained system with batteries that doesn't feed anything back.
Government subsidies create unfair marketing systems that artificially reduce one cost while moving it somewhere else and hiding it. In the US, we pay lower prices for food because of agriculture subsidies. But, in the end. we still pay the 'real' cost because of increases in taxes. Plus all of the administrative overhead that goes into managing the subsidies. Better to eliminate the subsidies, lower the taxes, and let the market set the prices. If the government then needs to supplement the food stamp system, it can do that.
Plus, subsidies seem to never go away. Some special-interest lobbying group somewhere manages to present biased statistics 'proving' that the subsidies are still needed.
Those 80% are simply parroting back what the government and various anti-smoking groups flood every source of media with. They don't have to understand science to parrot something back. Some do, but most don't.
Besides, saying smoking causes cancer is a lie. Or at best a less-than-accurate statement. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Smoking increases the risk of cancer. People have cancer cells in them all the time, and the immune system fights it.
If smoking caused cancer, everyone who smoked for some period of time would get cancer. A small portion of smokers lives to a ripe old age, at which time getting any disease is roughly the same as if they had never smoked at all.
Point me to a law where this is illegal. Police agencies have used helicopters for decades, and the Supreme court has thrown out evidence if there wasn't probably cause to look over a fence. There is some semblance of balance.
The local ghetto bird flies over our house several times a week on it's way to and fro whatever it's going to and fro from. There is nothing today that doesn't prevent that helicopter from having a camera on it. Oh wait
The only things different that I can tell is I can hear the helicopter and not the drone, the helicopter can't stay up as long, and it probably can't fly as high. Try and dehumanize it as much as you want, a person still has to review the footage to make any sense of it. Just as people review traffic camera footage before the tickets go out. In the end, you can still go to court and have a real person testify as to what was being recorded and interpret it.
You sound stupid
Standardized tests are there to test the school, not the student. They were introduced because the federal government is subsidizing local schools and want to show something for their money. No test taking
It is only politics that make them so important that many schools started to teach to the test. Get rid of federal subsidies for local education, and the standardized tests will go away.
As to your comment about rote, you are dead on. I shake my head in disgust every time I see a cashier that doesn't know how to make change, or can't figure out what 10% or 20% of something is.
I've been playing for over 30 years and have never joined a country club.
On the other hand, I've met people from all over the world and enjoyed a few hours getting to know someone I will probably never see again. I've met people who could barely afford to play but loved to and could only afford cheap city courses. I've met people that were very well off, but it took a few hours to find out. I can count on one hand those that I hoped to never see again. The only 'networking' I've ever done playing golf is at company functions, or the few times sales people have invited me. If someone only plays to network, they probably don't play very much. Or are a sales person.
The people that I know that join a private club do so because they want to be able to get tee times. That is the great advantage of joining a club, the fees limit the number of people that can join, and so also limit the demands placed on the course. Many local courses have memberships, and members get to call a couple of days sooner for tee times than the rest of us. They aren't as exclusive, and the memberships aren't as expensive, but they serve the same purpose.
It's a shame you didn't have good experiences. But you appear to be very self-centered and don't realize there are plenty of other people in the world who have different experiences than you have. Maybe you should stop generalizing about something you appear to know so very little about and learn to enjoy life a little more.
Every couple of years, in the summer, I pony up $100 and play the TPC in Scottsdale. Well, I used to. I don't anymore because I don't belong on the course. It is far more difficult than anyone watching it on TV can imagine, you pay dearly if you don't land in the fairway or green. I did score one birdie on the TPC, it was a beautiful par 3 shot that landed 6 inches from the hole. But even I knew that it was more blind luck than skill.
It's a beautiful course, and I'm thankful for the experience of trying to play it. I'd love to play at St. Andrews once in my life. But I'm happy to play on a $30 course a couple of times a month. It's all the challenge I need.
Several years ago, when I and a few friends were new to Phoenix and trying out new courses, we came up with a rule. If you can't score a par on at least one hole, you can't come back for 5 years. The course is just too difficult for you. It's a rule that has served me well.
It's all about priorities and whether or not it's affordable. By the time someone buys soda and popcorn, a movie can cost $15-$20. I reason that I can play golf once or twice a month, and just not go to the movies as much.
Some of the nicest people I've ever met I've met playing golf. Respectful, courteous, and often have interesting stories to share.
On the other hand, some of the biggest jerks I've ever heard spout their opinions about an activity they know very little about and probably suck at. I'm sure they feel smug in their own little minds but sound like assholes to everyone else.
Bull shit. It takes less time to play golf than watch a movie, you can play 9 holes in 90 minutes on some courses, no more than 2 hours on most others. I used to walk 9 holes with my co-workers every Friday morning before work for $15. And still get into the office by 9am most days except in the middle of winter. (I live in Phoenix).
I spend about $30 every month and spend about 4 hours Saturday or Sunday morning to play. I get home before noon and still have the rest of the day to enjoy with my wife. Or to do yard work. Or spend way too much money to see a movie.
True, I've spent over a hundred dollars to play on some really nice courses, Like once every two years. And I probably pay over $70 a few times a year to play on some very good courses. But those are usually with people I don't get to see very often and choose to spend the day with.
Admit that you just don't like the game and choose to not learn it, and move on. It's embarrassing to see someone blaming everything else and not accepting responsibility for their own actions.
It's often frustrating to people who think the right solution to fix their swing or putt is to go out and spend thousands on clubs instead of a couple hundred on lessons. And that they only need to play 2 or 3 times a year.
From what I've noticed, those that find it frustrating often just don't know how to hit the ball. Or they have huge egos and blame the equipment, or won't accept anything but perfection. If someone was having an awful game with a 9 iron and putter, then they didn't now know to swing a golf club. Perfectly good reason to not play when one doesn't know what they are doing.
While there is no single 'right' way to do it, I've seen plenty of wrong ways to do it. Twenty years ago, I decided to spend $120 on some lessons. All I asked the guy was to help me hit the ball reasonably straight and up in the air so I don't embarrass myself. I used to play every week and was getting better. Now I play around once a month, and have stopped improving and even backslid a little bit. I may only shoot around 90 now, but at least I don't lose balls very often and can usually end up somewhere close to the fairway. And I'm comfortable playing a round with strangers, knowing that the shanks will be few enough we can laugh at them instead of dreading teeing off.
Like so many other activities, golf requires practice. I once had a CIO ask me if he should take up golf. I told him that unless he was willing to take lessons, play every week for a few months, then every month or two for the rest of his life, I wouldn't bother. One has to practice to become decent, and then play more than a couple of times a year to maintain.
I have found golf to be a very rewarding experience. It isn't too difficult to find places to play for $30 or less. That's 4-5 hours of being outside and moving around. I have met lots of interesting people, and one or two complete jerks. I've developed good friendships and fun traditions. Played gold with people from all walks of life and from all over the world. Payed more than I should have to play on some beautiful courses for that once-in-a-lifetime experience. Have traveled all of the United States and found people to play a round with. People that I got to know much better than I would have sitting behind a desk and going over code.
I may never win a tournament, but I'm 54 and look forward to being able to do this for another 20-30 years.
So
I suppose you are also in favor of making rope, razors, and prescription pain killers illegal, because having those things sure make suicide a lot easier also. Probably have to eliminate cars, since people have driven themselves off of cliffs. After all, when you make one thing far more difficult to do, statistically, the other methods move up a notch. Are you going to continue to go after whatever is at the top of the list?? Wouldn't your efforts be better served to address the root cause of suicide than the end result?? Because that person that wants to kill themselves still does. Same with violent crime, those people out there with guns robbing and raping and murdering are still going to be out there. But now, they won't worry about breaking into a house.
What a moronic argument to use to justify taking guns away from people that have never used them to hurt someone. But my guess is that you don't have any, and don't want any. That you are afraid of them and don't know how to use them. That you have never gone to a gun range, learned how to use one, and enjoyed putting holes into targets. That you have never taken your family out into the desert and spent an afternoon shooting paper targets and water filled bottles, then picking up your trash and going home.
And, as the UK discovered, making them illegal didn't make them go away. How many times have caches of guns been discovered because someone didn't turn them in??
It's easy to justify taking things away from other people that you don't have, don't like, and are scared of. People can find all kinds of statistics and mis-characterize them to prove a point. I could come up with the argument that I think surfboards should be outlawed, because people have died from it, and I don't think it's safe. I don't do it myself and think that those that are passionate about it are really stupid. I'm sure I could mis-characterize all types of statistics that show how dangerous it is, and in order to protect the children it should be banned.
The facts are that people are far more likely to be killed or injured in car crashes, both accidental and intentional, than are caused by guns. That more people are killed by knives than are killed by assault rifles. But people who don't have guns and don't care if they are taken away from other people don't worry about statistics except when they can be twisted to suit their own purpose.
... to be a computer programmer or sys admin or DBA. Many short-sighted companies may not hire you, but why do you want to work for a company that cares more about a piece of paper than the abilities of it's staff. Be willing to start at the bottom so you can spend 4 years having someone else train you. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for it yourself.
After several years as in those fields, you won't need a degree to become an engineer or architect. Anything you might have learned 10 years earlier is out of date anyway. And you will know how things really work, instead of just how they are supposed to work.
I know many people who are some of the top 'go-to' people in their companies in these fields that have never gotten a degree, or taken any significant number of college courses. They know how to read, and they learn by doing, either on their own or by taking on tasks that other people are unwilling to because they don't know how to do it.
Your guidance councilor is lying to you. The only thing that stands between you and a job is your own willingness to learn, and how smart you are.
By all means, if you are not that smart, go into debt and get that piece of paper that suggests you know something so you can get a job and have your co-workers hate working with you.
If you have the cash and the time, by all means attend college. College is a great place to learn if you want to take too much time and spend a lot of money.
But don't accept the lie that you have to do that to earn a decent living. And don't accept the lie that those that go to college make more money.
Smart, self-motivated, hard working people make more money than almost everyone else.
In my job in the US, I get paid a set amount to do my job regardless of how many hours I work. I don't get paid by the hour. If I get a call from my work at 2am, I answer it. If I don't, they can fire me and hire someone who will. If I don't like the number of times I'm getting woken up at 2am, I'll find another job.
When I take a new job, I ask what amount of 'off-the-clock' work is expected and negotiate a salary based on that. Asking me to check emails and take calls after work isn't taking advantage of me since I negotiated my rate of pay based on it.
It is none of the government's business what the company I choose to work for and I negotiate for payment for my services rendered. If they want to set rules about taking taxes out and making sure I get paid on a regular basis and other rules regarding discrimination, that's fine. If they want to set rules to make sure people get paid for their work when they are hourly, that's fine.
But stay out of telling me what I am willing to work for and what I'm not willing to work for. I feel sympathy for those that don't have skills in demand that have to take tough jobs, like I had to do my 20s and 30s. Since then, I've improved my skills and expect to be able to reap the reward from doing so.
So now companies in France will have to hire more people to provide after-hours support, meaning their costs will go up, and their products will become more expensive. So fewer and fewer people will buy them.
But that's OK with me, I don't know if much I own now that is marked 'Fabriqué en France'.
I don't find the supporters of 'straight only' marriage hypocritical, they admit they want special rights. I find them misguided in what they are trying to accomplish though, to force their moral values onto others through something that doesn't stop a lifestyle, i.e. two people living together and having sex.
Interesting you used the word 'hate'. I reread the above and don't understand why you would use that word except for the 'hypocrites' line. Probably should have worded that one phrase a little better (i.e. arguments are hypocritical, not people). I didn't say it anywhere, about hating anyone, meant to state an opinion of what I feel their argument is (i.e. hypocritical).
Maybe if more people used reason instead of emotion, this issue could get resolved. Instead, those that disagree are labeled 'haters' and 'homophobes', vile words that denigrate and divide. Terms that are divisive are often used by someone when they run out of valid points to make.
As for marriage-like benefits not being extended, they already are. Many companies now offer 'civil union' or 'domestic partner' benefits. None of those state that a couple have to be romantically involved. In fact, there is *NOTHING* in marriage benefits that say people have to be paired romantically. There have been many marriages of convenience that were very legal. Those 'domestic partner'-like benefits were extended by people putting pressure on specific items, not trying to force their moral beliefs or attacking people as haters. They used their wallets to go elsewhere if they could.
Since romance,sex, and love have nothing to do with whether or not a couple are recognized as married by the government, the benefits attached to the concept should also not be linked to those things. The governments of the US has a lot of silly laws about marriage. In Maine, a marriage between second cousins is allowed as long as they attend genetic counseling, regardless whether or not they are interested or capable of having children. In Tennessee, a 14 year old can get married if there is a court order.
Eliminate the government concept of marriage and reduce it to what the government really should be helping with
If someone wants to get married
Or don't have the ceremony, and just go to the courthouse.
See
And all the hate speech fostered by the gay-marriage and straight marriage activists can finally go away.
Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel
