Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:America what? You mean United States? (Score 2) 1359

It's actually less prevalent in non-English languages-- some of them use the equivalent of 'American' for 'resident of the Americas' and a more specific word for 'resident of the United States'. That said, 'America' and 'American' in English have referred to the United States since before 1800 (see English sources on impressment of American sailors during the Napoleonic Wars), and anyone complaining about 'American' while speaking English is being pedantic or trying to score cheap anti-American karma.

Comment: Re:Why is it news (Score 2) 815

by slater.jay (#40034777) Attached to: From MIT Inventor To Tea Party Leader

Glad you brought that up. Debt/GDP is about where it was at the end of WWII. What differs now is the will to respond. That generation tightened their belts and raised taxes as high as in the 90% range for top tax brackets.

That generation also could cut government spending by 60%, since, y'know, they could just turn off the war economy they'd been under for the past four years. It's a lot harder to turn off entitlements.

Comment: Re:Crimes Against Humanity (Score 1) 375

by slater.jay (#39576883) Attached to: US Government: There's Child Porn On the Megaupload Servers Judge!
The German military surrendered, and the Allies dissolved the post-Hitler civil government and claimed absolute control over Germany via the Berlin Declaration. The West German government, an entity distinct from the post-Hitler civil government, operated under that justification until the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany and reunification shortly thereafter. No German government ever signed a peace treaty for the Second World War, but there aren't any German governmental entities that have a legitimate claim to 'wartime'.

Comment: Re:I fail to see why this would be a bad thing (Score 1) 267

by slater.jay (#39326721) Attached to: Marketing Agency Uses Homeless As Wi-Fi Hotspots
And let's head off the criticism that's no doubt coming:

Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

Comment: Re:I fail to see why this would be a bad thing (Score 1) 267

by slater.jay (#39326659) Attached to: Marketing Agency Uses Homeless As Wi-Fi Hotspots

Religious practice by itself is associated with $1,388 more given per year than we would expect to see from a secular person (with the same political views, income, education, age, race, and other characteristics), as well as with 6.5 more occasions of volunteering.

And the source.

"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne

Working...