Federal law overrides state and municipal law in the US.
Federal law overrides state and municipal law in the US.
Well, as any Victorian hypocrite will tell you, institutionalized sadism is the proper way to express your sexual impulses.
Not quite. Uruguayans have access to free, publicly funded clinics, but you do need to pay for some form of “insurance” if you want quality care for a major illness/injury. The interesting thing about Uruguay’s health care system is that insurance is basically a membership with a specific hospital, so the combination of free clinics and privatized hospitals with no Americanized insurance system works well for the country’s middle class. It’s not perfect and, in practice, it doesn’t work as well for the very poor as Medicaid, but for most of the population, it’s much better than America’s parasitic, economy-destroying system of completely superfluous private insurers.
Maybe, maybe not. Globally, progress has come a hell of a lot faster than many would have predicted 15-20 years ago, and India is already facing a surprising amount of diplomatic pressure over this. Years? Certainly. Decades? I’m more optimistic than that.
In Russia’s case, it’s because Russia is the Texas of Europe. It’s a vast, idiocratic wasteland of religious zealots, gun-loving militants and hard-drinking rednecks. In India’s case, they’re not cracking down on gay rights so much as the process of affirming gay rights has been momentarily set back on legalistic grounds, forcing activists to pursue a legislative resolution.
No, Luis Suarez is the Uruguayan Happy Gilmore.
I always LOL about how people get all self-righteous about “lying” to kids about Santa. It’s a pretend play game about a friendly magic elf, not Holocaust denialism. And you know what else? When my son and I go play knights in the backyard, there are dragons in the trees. Real and scary ones too. And when my daughter and I have tea, I am the fucking Duchess of Canterbury and I prefer Earl Grey in a 100% cotton cup. I guess that makes me the worst dad ever.
I would say those are very good, positive reasons for someone who doesn’t personally feel inclined towards family life. This is like arguing with someone who doesn’t like the same kind of music as you. Different people enjoy different things. That’s all there is to it, and if someone else enjoys their lifestyle and finds it personally fulfilling, why should they change it? Besides, the “Nah, I’m cool, I just want to live my life and not have to worry about all that extra responsibility” argument is much, much more reasonable and less obnoxious than the melodramatic “Oh, woe upon thee and thy slithering spawn, wretched breeder! What utter gall could compel you naive, deluded fools to bring someone into this bleak and dismal existence to be subject to the unending sorrow and misery of mortal life!? Has your vomit-strewn insomnia so dulled your shriveled mind that you cannot feel the waves of the rising, toxic seas as they lap ever higher ‘pon thine unflattering mom jeans?! Now, before we are all consumed in the pestilent fires of the impending apocalypse, I shall bring some small comfort to this unbearable burden laid upon me by my progenitor’s primal greed and stay up all night drinking white wine and rewatching the fourth season of Arrested Development on Netflix! The horror, the horror…” comments.
The decision to have or not have children is not an indication of your moral character or degree of selfishness. However, having a strong opinion on the matter one way or the other tends to correlate strongly with being a deluded asshole. Seriously, if you make your children carry the burden of giving your life meaning, you are a selfish asshole. It is not your child’s job to love you unconditionally or check off items on your sorry-ass bucket list. And if you spend all day on the internet clacking out Facebook comments that hatefully dehumanize other individuals as nothing more than their parents’ “spawn,” you are a bigoted asshole. Children are human beings, and you don’t get to arbitrarily decide the “Best By” date for the entire species. In both cases, you’re an asshole because you’re failing to recognize that children are people with value and purpose totally independent of whoever they clawed out of, so on behalf of the world’s most marginalized and ruthlessly exploited population, go fuck yourselves, parent and non-parent assholes alike.
The groups are actually really well balanced as a whole. Group E is probably the easiest, but the maligned Groups C & H are actually a lot tougher than most casual U.S. fans would assume. Just because a country isn’t a traditional contender doesn’t mean they don’t have a good squad. Belgium and Colombia, in particular, are both at least as good as and probably better than either the Netherlands or Portugal.
Croatia is an excellent side with a surprising amount of depth. I would say they have a decent chance to win the group, though Brazil are certainly the favorites. Cameroon is also solid with a lot of experienced players and, while clearly the weakest in the group, Mexico can do well if they can get their act together. Argentina have a much easier group.
And to be clear, I’m sure you approach your responsibilities from an ethical standpoint, but the reality is that there’s a world of difference between how you perceive things and how they’re perceived by administration. To you, your job may be to inform students about their obligations, but to administrators, your job is to keep the cash flowing into the university. In many states, laws are being passed (with the “encouragement” of private lending lobbyists) to tie funding to student retention statistics. The upshot of this is that admins at schools in these states are now aggressively pushing for the creation of “retention programs” which basically amount to new majors where low-achieving students basically amass 4+ years worth of debt to be in young adult daycare. This is just wrong. Yes, no one is literally being forced into this, but the fact is that universities are taking advantage of the desperation of young people with no other prospects. In many cases, they’re doing so with people with obvious drug and alcohol problems whose loans meanly serve to facilitate their addiction. And this is legal only in academia.
Most 17/18 year-olds being pushed out of their parent’s home with no job prospects are really in no position to make/comprehend complicated, long-term financial decisions. You can call them lazy/stupid all you want, but that’s the exact justification you’ll hear from the predatory payday lender milking working class desperation next to the Dollar General. Should society, in general, do a better job of informing kids about these realities well before they’re herded into an auditorium and given a vague lecture on financial aid responsibilities? Yes, but ultimately, these are just kids, most of whom have never managed a budget bigger than allowance and you expect them to make sense of a 20/30 year loan repayment scheme? Get real. Now, I’m not blaming you, the financial aid officer, personally. Yes, you personally may not be forcing the student’s hand, but you work for a system that does (and in fairness, that’s true of anyone that works or has worked in academia, including myself).
And it has little to do with your “chosen academic path.” Regardless of which major you pursue, the job market is rough. This notion that everyone struggling with debt in a bad economy is just some naive art history major is little more than a talk radio canard and disingenuous apologism for predatory lenders. The bottom line is that there is no guarantee of work if you major in engineering, chemistry, applied math, etc. The job market in those “high demand” fields is extremely competitive, and the bottom line is that if more humanities majors decided to train in those fields, it wouldn’t magically create more work in those fields. And yes, the problem is that kids are being told to sign financial aid documents under extreme duress. Most middle and working class kids approaching high school graduation are given a choice between going to college (if they can) or being kicked out of their parents house to find work in a bad job market with zero experience or applicable skills.
And as far as selecting a school is concerned, even if you’ve been offered a scholarship, stay away from smaller institutions that are located in small towns and rural areas where there are few work/internship opportunities. Unless you’re a bio whiz and that school specializes in a very specific kind of ecological research that you love, you will be much worse off after graduation compared to any urban-based school regardless of what US News rankings would lead you to believe.
Lots of student debt is good for business. More desperate job seekers flooding the labor market drives down wages and demand for benefits which makes the financial institutions that are increasingly providing these loans very very happy. For these firms, your “education” is an investment… not to develop your future skill set for a high demand job but to ensure your willingness to accept any job at any wage. I wouldn’t flat out recommend not going to college, but as a general rule, you shouldn’t be going anywhere that isn’t willing to pay for you to be there. Your undergraduate institution really doesn’t matter that much, and if you’re bright, you’re probably better off going to a less “prestigious” school where you’ll get more direct interaction with your teachers. Any large state university will have quality professors and excellent internship/research opportunities, and you might be surprised how many people in top graduate programs came from modest undergraduate backgrounds where they were better positioned to take advantage of those resources.
Uh huh. There are three very good reasons why no one listens to the remnants of the DLC: 1) The DLC’s short-sighted, self-serving campaign of financial deregulation was the main cause of the ‘08 crash and their short-sighted, self-serving campaign of trade deregulation is a major cause of the country’s inability to promote real growth. 2) The DLC’s “leadership” led to eight years of Republican dominance between 2001-08. 3) The DLC’s alienation and abandonment of key Democratic constituencies in pursuit of a shrinking minority of moderate Republicans damaged the party’s grassroots infrastructure prompting inevitable local radicalization of the political atmosphere and the election of hard right Republicans over DLC stalwarts who thought they could consistently win the ever-shrinking “middle” in Kansas and Indiana by acting on behalf the global financial industry.
As an adult and a soccer fan, I can’t say I’m particularly concerned about what America’s fedora-clad doucheratti thinks about anything. You should stop thinking banging into things is the epitome of cool when you’re about 5 years old. I enjoy American football for what it is, but I don’t see why American soccer players feel the need to justify how “hard” they are in comparison to a sport that’s mainly popular due to the fact that it accommodates the fat kids and makes a spectacle of adolescent aggression for parents of kids who aren’t particularly good at doing anything else. Yes, it’s fun, but in a “let’s throw a watermelon on the sidewalk” way that I don’t really associate with men that I respect. Soccer, on the other hand, is about work ethic, ingenuity and overcoming your individual limits to find a way to succeed. Basically, it’s about defining your own identity and refining the qualities that make you an adult which is also why it’s an infinitely more interesting game and a much better sport for raising kids who can be successful beyond high school.
In the US (as in several other English-speaking countries), people were playing various forms of football, including what eventually became American football, well before the English FA codified the rules for association football. And in England, association football was colloquially called “soccer” for quite a long time to differentiate it from the numerous other forms of regional football. Hence, in the US and other countries where earlier local forms of football became and remained more popular, soccer is used to differentiate English association football from the popular local form of football. And on top of that, people in the US were calling it soccer and playing soccer long before football/futbol/fussball/etc was introduced to the local populations of non-Anglophone countries (who called it football because, unlike predominantly Anglophone countries like America, they weren’t playing football before it was codified in the mid-late 19th century). In fact, American professional soccer predates most professional leagues in continental Europe, and one of the first great continental sides (Hakoah Vienna) actually relocated to New York in the 1920’s and called it soccer when playing in the Eastern Soccer League. Among their players was Bela Guttman, the Hungarian mastermind who would later establish many of the stylistic and tactical foundations for Brazil’s rise to dominance. He called it “soccer.” So yeah, it’s soccer, at least in the US.
To put this in perspective, this is the English football equivalent of someone fixing games in a Class A baseball league. It’s not quite the big deal that it’s being made out to be, certainly not in comparison to the corruption in other European countries.
“GOT FRIENDZONED BY ILSA LUND, BRO.”
The obesity epidemic and diet-driven lack of concentration in the classroom is a much greater concern and is much more difficult to address on an individual-basis than a relatively rare anxiety disorder. Moreover, your needs may conflict with the needs of others. For example, ADHD kids typically can’t handle certain kinds of artificial additives, and I can’t see a good case that your interests take priority over theirs. In general, school cafeterias shouldn’t have to serve every possible random thing some isolated SED kid will agree to eat. In those cases, parents can make special accommodations if necessary. And this isn’t just a matter of health, but also a question of promoting a good classroom environment for everyone. I’m sure nearly every 3rd grader in the world would love a cupcake and Pepsi for lunch, but schools have a responsibility to both students and teachers to serve food that won’t have the kids flying off the walls and glucose-crashing in the classroom.
There’s absolutely no reason that kids have to be served this overly processed garbage. Do you actually think schools are saving money with these pre-packaged, thrice-frozen, preservative-laden “meals” that come with little individual packages of duck sauce? Then go to a grocery store and compare how much it costs to buy a week’s worth of frozen TV dinners (and not even “good” ones) compared to a week’s worth of beans and rice. The reason kids are being served this kind of food is a combination of laziness and private sweetheart deals with contractors who make a killing from selling frozen pseudo-food to poorly run, easily-lobbied school districts. Obviously, no one expects public schools to serve foie gras cutlets on an ancient grain baguette with a side of hand-picked lingonberries and truffle-spritzed arugula, but there’s no reason schools can’t focus on the same simple, healthy staple foods that impoverished people eat all over the world. The notion that being financially disadavantaged means you must eat pizza, tacos and chicken nuggets with cool ranch dipping sauce is a genuinely bizarre first world misconception. And while beans, rice and carrots may not entice the junk food fiends who want Pizza Hut breadsticks and a Little Debbie cake everyday, it’s both healthier and more cost efficient than the status quo in many districts.
#9 for that particularly undiscriminating person who wants everyone to think they’re really into music but probably won’t even have these awful-sounding, lead paint-encrusted monstrosities plugged into an iPod.
Yeah, you should just express what you want in a clear and unambiguous way. If your boyfriend’s not a douche-face, he’ll do it for you. If not, dump him. In general, there’s no sense sitting around resenting your partner for not being psychic. Clearly communicating your ridiculous, immature wants and desires is really key to making a relationship in the long term, and for all you know, your boyfriend sits around wondering why it doesn’t occur to you that he wants you to dress up like She-Hulk and punch him in the balls or something.
People have been eating meat for a lot longer than 2500 years. And to name just one culture, a significant portion of the population of India has been vegetarian for around 2600 years.
And I posted the above mainly because doing something as potentially dangerous as hormone therapy in a futile attempt to grow a ****ing beard would be both misguided and incredibly stupid, so don’t do that, kids.
Lack of facial/body hair is likely a result of genetic factors affecting the sensitivity of hair follicles to certain enzymes and not an indication of a hormonal imbalance. Specifically, there is no reason to believe it’s an indication of low testosterone. There is also significant variability in the frequency of facial/body hair among different ethnicities. In fact, idiot white supremacists often use this as an idiotic justification for asserting that hairy-ass nordic dudes are the “manliest” of men.
Having lived in the Bible Belt for most of my life and worked as an advocate for equality in a hotbed of anti-LGBT activism, I disagree. There is definitely a minority of religious conservatives who are genuinely concerned about “saving” LGBT people, but they’re a minority. Most just see LGBT people as a convenient scapegoat that allows them to maintain an unwarranted sense of self-righteous piety. It’s simply the spiritual analog to being the most fashionably dressed housewife at Sunday service. Ultimately, homosexuality is a peripheral, rarely mentioned issue in the Bible. There is really no textual justification for the lives of LGBT people being the focal point of a Christian activist movement, particularly compared to legitimate family-destroying issues like poverty, adultery and divorce (which are more prevalent in society and a much greater concern in scripture). The key point, however, is that religious reactionaries aren’t gay (or are deeply, deeply closeted), so it makes them feel good about themselves to obsess about gay people. And significantly, their leadership recognize that going after “popular” heterosexual sins like adultery is no way to amass power and wealth since these issues don’t pull in votes for their political allies.
It wasn’t so much that they played against Germany’s B-Team so much as they played a noncompetitive friendly against 11 German players who had never really played or practiced together. That B-Team could probably still make a reasonable challenge at the World Cup if the players were given time to develop and gel. But yeah, for the most part, I agree with what you say. As far as Spain goes, their main problem is that everyone now knows their best chance to beat them is to press them to the point of exhaustion and won’t just let them spend the tournament tapping the ball around the halfway line. They’ll do well in the early rounds, sure, but as with the Confederations Cup, they won’t be able to handle the knockout schedule with everyone trying to do what Bayern did to Barca.
Well, given his religious leanings, there’s a good chance he’s an abstinence-only “educator” in which case… well played, Lookadoo, well played.
C’mon guys, this is Texas. What do you expect them to do with their educational funding? Feed their students? Pay their teachers? Let’s not get crazy, folks.
Wait, don’t you guys want government to take away the communazi tax credits and regulations? Isn’t that “freedom?” I’m so confused!
I also like how this how demonstrates how so many blatantly politicized “inside” stories from “former senior administration officials” come from officials from the last administration who only stayed on for a few weeks until their replacements were appointed.
A few clarifications: If there aren’t jobs to be had, immigrants wouldn’t be here. There are jobs, particularly in the agricultural sector, in which we are dependent on immigrant labor to prevent supply shortages that have dire effects on other areas of the economy. In regards to other areas of the economy where more citizens are seeking work, you’re not going to increase consumer spending and the demand for labor by firing teachers, cops and other state employees. As for this: “As for inflation, everyone should be concerned, because when industries don’t get revenues from goods and services because people don’t have money to buy things because they don’t have jobs, prices go up to meet the bottom line and stay in business.” No, that is simply not the case at all. If a business can’t sell its product, it attempts to lower prices to increase demand or, if that fails, it goes out of business. Larger businesses, particularly commodity markets, respond in the same manner in response to broad reductions in consumer demand. This is why, for example, gas prices plummeted during the recession and started going back up during the recovery.
Response to your response: Actually, spending does work, and outside the realm of political rhetoric and fringe theorists, that’s acknowledged across the ideological spectrum. In the US, the stimulus averted a full blown depression and deflationary spiral while more recent austerity policy has only caused stagnant growth. Moreover, guess which developed countries did the best job of weathering the global recession? Germany and the traditional northern European social democracies with robust safety nets. If we want to bring back the manufacturing sector, create jobs people want and bolster America’s economic security, we should be emulating the Germans, not experimenting with policy advocated solely on behalf of a petulant distaste for paying taxes. As for Clinton, he was a terrible president, though the things you mention had nothing to do with “government spending.” It had to do with loosening regulatory standards which, yes, along with the deregulation of the financial sector, contributed to the housing bubble and turned out to be disastrous policy.
I mean, unless you’re a manual laborer in the agricultural sector, you almost certainly didn’t lose your job to an undocumented immigrant. Usually, anger directed at immigrants comes from people who lost their jobs in the manufacturing or service sectors, but the reality is that Mexicans didn’t come here and take those jobs. Rather, those jobs went to Mexico (among other countries). Immigration reform is designed solely to stop a system of exploitation that actually costs us jobs in sectors where most citizens are seeking work. As for prioritizing policy directly aimed at other sectors, what do you want the administration to do? The nature of the opposition ensures that the only comprehensive policies that can get through Congress are high risk experiments driven by anti-tax delusions. Are you proposing austerity as something that will actually create jobs, because all the evidence coming out of Europe directly contradicts that viewpoint.
OK, a few points here: 1) Of course, any level of unemployment is a problem, but historically, Obama is about on par with other presidents who have inherited major economic collapses. Obviously, I would prefer recoveries to be faster and don’t think our government is producing optimal policies in that respect, but in comparison to administrations facing similar problems, the administration hasn’t done a bad job. 2) My other point is that immigration reform isn’t going to hurt the economy. One of the key benefits of immigration reform is that it will help bring in a lot more tax revenue which is, in fact, beneficial for the economy, especially in the context of state budget crises. 3) No one outside Ron Paul forums is really worried about inflation. Despite the persistent predictions of internet “economists” who think regurgitating dogmatic Austrian conjecture is the same thing as research-based expertise, there is still virtually no inflation and the bigger risk from current conditions is the sort of deflationary period that wrecked the Japanese economy.
Interesting. I was actually just being facetious and had always assumed it wasn’t a real word. Next time, I’ll do better and use “more funner.”
FUN FACT: The unemployment rate is actually only 0.2% higher than it was at this point in Reagan’s presidency. And keep in mind that overall participation in the workforce is significantly higher among woman compared to 1985 which, obviously, affects the overall demand for jobs (and thus, unemployment numbers). FUNNER FACT: In the year after Reagan enacted IRCA (ermegerg amnesty… tha terk ur jerrrrbs), unemployment dropped 1.1%.