Seattle is at 47.6062 degrees N
Toronto is at 43.6532 degrees N
Some regions (Alaska, Alberta, Norway?) have set up systems where some of the assets of the region are held in some sort of a fund that pays dividends to citizens. To me this makes a bit of sense - all the citizens collectively "own" the assets, so when "the state" sells mineral rights or any of those assets, giving to money to the citizens seems logical.
Maybe we should take all of the country's non-tax income, and split that between all of the country's citizens, then increase the tax rate enough to make up for the "lost revenue". Selling out natural resources? At least then the "little guy" gets a piece of the action rather than just the enviromental degredation and lost future value to the country.
If you could invision that the average working week will be approximately 10 hours in 100 years from now because of Technology, then simply draw a line between now and then, and we need to get from here to there gradually in an orderly fashion. it is a simple as that.
Quit talking sense!
For some reason, Ethanol made from Corn, Barley, or Wheat is ridiculously and terribly expensive.
A pint can cost $20 easily.
Perhaps the energy efficiency isn't all that matters.... if this can reduce the cost of drinkable ethanol to say $0.10 a gallon, and make it widely available --- cheaper than milk at the grocery store.
Grain alcohol in bulk is in the $1-2 per gallon range already - better than milk prices in my region at least. Most people don't drink it pure. The $20/pint price buys you something reportedly much different than pure ethanol. Also there are the taxes for beverages of course.
So a "reporter" can document real rape and not be accessory to the rape? Wow.
I don't think there is any legal requirement for the reporter to act to prevent such a crime.
Watching US crime dramas, I get the impression that it is not even completely clear if the reporter would be required to turn over the documention of the crime in the way that a "regular citizen" would be required. I think in both cases a judge would need to issue a supeona but that for the reporter, it might be more difficult to get (assuming in both cases it was not handed over voluntarily.)
It doesn't take a conspiracy when it's already in the interests of all the political ideologues and the owner class.
That I can agree with. I probably think that the effect is more subtle than you do - ecconomic and other factors coloring the perception of the people enough so that they interpret the issues in a way different from myself rather than the clear "need those workers" narrative. I do wonder what preconceptions color my own views.
I wonder if it would be useful to personally approach these types of issues by first trying to write down some if-then types of statements (If illegal immigration is more than x by this measure y than it is worth value $z to address), and then look at the data and see what my opinion on actions should be.
Do more than dream: get off your ass and start petitioning your representatives in your state legislature to introduce legislation or a state constitutional amendment to change the way your state counts the votes for elector appointments.
Yeah, I could do more.
Here is an advocacy group for voting reform with info about ranked choice voting in the USA:
Why do you think no one has bothered to do anything about illegal immigration for 30 years?
Your question is silly. It assumes the truth of the statement "no one has bothered" when there are lots and lots of people who have "bothered". Thus any answer to the question as stated is pointless.
There are lots of answers to related, but different questions: "Why do you think no one has been able to do anything about illegal immigration for 30 years?" or "Why has it been so difficult to address the problem of illegal immigration?" or "Why has action 'A' not fixed this issue 'B'?"
Answers to these types of questions are at least in priciple possible - I doubt any of them hing on people actually planning that "rape babies" will become future voters. Generally, the answers hinge on the difficulty in getting enough people to decided on the best solution to a difficult problem in a real world where competing priorities have vastly different importances for different people across a diverse population.
[Glad I re-read my posting before submitting - at first I had "answers to elated questions..." which is kind of funny. Hopefull all the other typos I missed are equally amusing.]
Trump wants to build a wall and enforce the border. If people aren't crossing illegally then there's no victims for the coyotes to rape. So a Trump presidency results in less rape. But Hillary's not going to do anything to change the situation because her party wants those rape anchor babies as future democratic voters and her donors want the cheap, exploitable slave labor to keep coming, so if you're a pro-rape voter then Hillary's your gal.
Do you really think this way or is this just a rhetorical tool? The party "wants those rape anchor babies as future democratic voters"? With everyone carrying cell phones I would have thought that some disgruntled employee or other "heroic American" would have gotten some video of the evil overloards coordinating their nefarious plans.
I like a good conspiricy myself, but my personal experience with a vast number of people of all political stripes and at a wide range of "political power" indicates that virtually none of them would be capable of keeping that sort of thing under wraps, and besides their behaviour is perfectly well explained by the combination of overly-rigid ideology, wishful thinking, difficulty of learning from previous situations, and short-term thinking all encouraged by a poorly designed incentive system.
Maybe I am an outlier in this type of situation, but I am more likely to pay attention to someone who says: "My opponent may have the best of intentions in wanting to have an outcome of "A", but even if they do manage to do "A" their proposed policy will result in the negative "B", which is much to high a cost." rather than someone who says: "My opponent, who is basically Satan by the way, is trying to to "B" because they are evil (and always have been, they kick dogs don't you know) and any talk they might have about caring about "A" is total fabrication."
What did I say that made you think I was not being honest?
I think it was the "has screamed about Jews and retarded kids" that tainted my impression of your post - there are a lot of things I am unhappy about in regard to the Clinton campaign - but her behaviour towards blacks, jews and "retarded kids" really hasn't been on my radar. I guess a the media elites have been keeping that information away from me. Wait - I thought the media elites were jews? Or have I mis-remembered?
I am completely unclear how rape rates for illegal border crossers enters into either candidate's philosophy or policy statements - surely you are not saying that one or both of them is "pro-rape-of-illegal-border-crossers"? Wasn't the narrative that the crossers were themselves rapists?
I guess I'm just not well enough informed.
Was that the type of satire Adams has been producing lately?
Johnson absolutely will not be elected, but a vote for him sends a message to the major parties. Maybe in the future some Libertarian presidential candidate will actually be in the running, but not this time.
Oh to have a ranked ballot system where we could choose whoever we wanted as 1st, and then go down the list (of more and more stinkyness) until we got to the D/R choices and could select them based on whatever small differences we may seem them to have.
I can dream.
I think what needs to happen is that people need to grow in their understanding that "literature" is just a genre of fiction, with no real claim to superiority over any other genre such as "romance", "western", or "science fiction". The Man Booker Prizes may claim to "honour fiction on a global basis", but really they only honour a particular genre of fiction, with a particular set of story structure, tropes, and other defining characteristics.
Top novels in any genre can often stretch or even break these types of "genre rules", and be praised for doing so. It is possible for a novel to be objectively categorized in more than one genre at a time but there are HUGE pre-conceived expectations for any novel based upon how that novel or author is "marketed" or perceived. Thus you have authors like Atwood working hard to maintain their status in the "literature" genre, and distancing themselves from the perceived ghetto of other genres.
Each genre (including "literature") is mostly made up of lesser quality works. 90% of everything is crap. But even if you look at the non-crap of each of these genres - aspects of each of these novels will continue to maintain some of the characteristics of their genre - and that can be challenging for a reader who is dismissive of the genre as a whole. Thus if a "literature" reader thinks (or suspects) a work is "science-fiction" they are probably more likely to think less of it when encountering features that are "science-fictionish" - and this goes both ways. A reader of a "historical romance" novel who generally dislikes "literature" may be put off by aspects of the novel that seem "literary".
So who cares? Well, I think society suffered when one genre is elevated in prestige or "value" over all others. If Chris is made to feel "lesser" because they enjoy science fiction, and Pat is looked down upon because they like romance novels, and Robin uses their love of "literature" to belittle others, good things do not follow. While there is little direct governmental support for fiction prizes, there is a pretty big media push for a number of "literature prizes" in comparison to other genres that tend to give such prizes more "value" in the eyes of the public.
Trump could point out that Saudi Arabia is on Hillary's side considering that it has provided 20% of her campaign funding, where it is illegal for foreign government to fund American political campaigns.
Yeah, I'm sure it would be easy to cover that one up.
Which is more likely, that the gazilllion opponents of Clinton and others who would benefit from this story being corroborated are unable to find some evidence of such massive wrongdoing beyond a single hacked website even though it is true, or the report was fabricated?
The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what you want. -- D. Cohen