All three Austin explosive devices went off while they were being carried. I thought they were just on the front porch, which could be a simple timed delay, but this means they were set to detect motion as the condition for detonation...unless the suspect was watching from a distance and detonating them by pushing a button when he saw someone pick it up (I highly doubt this scenario--staying in the area would be too risky). Either way, this isn't a rookie bombmaker--this person knows what they are doing.
Many students staged a walkout today over the Florida shooting from last month. Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that a student decided *not* to walk out. What will be the consequences of that student's decision? Will they face possible ridicule or ostracism for not following along with the crowd? Will they be publicly shamed or bullied, called names such as "gun nut" or even "murderer"? (this hypothetical student is merely hypothetical; our teenagers are not in school this week due to spring break)
This is the second time I've come in contact with this idea today, the other being an article by conservative golden boy Ben Shapiro CLAIMING to have received emails from kids who felt pressured to participate and fear of being ostracized if they didn't. He offered no attribution for any of them, and they all, to me, seemed like they were written by one person, but whatever. This seems to be the talking point of the day in regards to these walk-outs. That shadowy figures (never mentioned by specific names or organizations) on the left are using kids to push their radical agenda. How are they doing this?? Were thousands of kids implanted with a computer chip that caused them to walk out of class when a button was pushed?? Then we get this dose of "conservative kids are being bullied", though all we have are some very suspect "emails" that I'm 90% sure are fake. And why is it assumed that kids who come out of the womb with smartphones in their hands wouldn't be able to organize stuff like this on their own?? On New Year's Eve in 1999, me and my best friend managed to get hundreds of people from 5 different towns to come to party simply by word of mouth. I think kids today can organize a protest without being "manipulated".
To the main question, are we asking for a move to eliminate peer pressure in schools among adolescents?? That's a lofty goal. Shit, I felt ostracized or like an outcast all the time, and I was generally pretty popular. I was one of the only people in town who didn't hunt or own a gun. I ran cross-country instead of playing football. I don't think that made me a victim. It wasn't intolerable (actually, by far the worst shaming I ever received for not playing football in the fall was from the adult head basketball coach, not other kids). As for the consequences to the other students?? I don't imagine there would be any consequences at all. Maybe they can hang out in the library all day and read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead".
There could also be pressure from the faculty. It is a real question if teachers allow for excused absences to participate in this. I remember I was denied an excused absence by two teachers when I wanted to participate in the March for Life, yet my high school participated in today's activities. If allowing students to protest comes down to whether or not the administration agrees with the message, then there is plenty of room for concern.
All three Austin explosive devices went off while they were being carried. I thought they were just on the front porch, which could be a simple timed delay, but this means they were set to detect motion as the condition for detonation...unless the suspect was watching from a distance and detonating them by pushing a button when he saw someone pick it up (I highly doubt this scenario--staying in the area would be too risky). Either way, this isn't a rookie bombmaker--this person knows what they are doing.
Many students staged a walkout today over the Florida shooting from last month. Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that a student decided *not* to walk out. What will be the consequences of that student's decision? Will they face possible ridicule or ostracism for not following along with the crowd? Will they be publicly shamed or bullied, called names such as "gun nut" or even "murderer"? (this hypothetical student is merely hypothetical; our teenagers are not in school this week due to spring break)
This is the second time I've come in contact with this idea today, the other being an article by conservative golden boy Ben Shapiro CLAIMING to have received emails from kids who felt pressured to participate and fear of being ostracized if they didn't. He offered no attribution for any of them, and they all, to me, seemed like they were written by one person, but whatever. This seems to be the talking point of the day in regards to these walk-outs. That shadowy figures (never mentioned by specific names or organizations) on the left are using kids to push their radical agenda. How are they doing this?? Were thousands of kids implanted with a computer chip that caused them to walk out of class when a button was pushed?? Then we get this dose of "conservative kids are being bullied", though all we have are some very suspect "emails" that I'm 90% sure are fake. And why is it assumed that kids who come out of the womb with smartphones in their hands wouldn't be able to organize stuff like this on their own?? On New Year's Eve in 1999, me and my best friend managed to get hundreds of people from 5 different towns to come to party simply by word of mouth. I think kids today can organize a protest without being "manipulated".
To the main question, are we asking for a move to eliminate peer pressure in schools among adolescents?? That's a lofty goal. Shit, I felt ostracized or like an outcast all the time, and I was generally pretty popular. I was one of the only people in town who didn't hunt or own a gun. I ran cross-country instead of playing football. I don't think that made me a victim. It wasn't intolerable (actually, by far the worst shaming I ever received for not playing football in the fall was from the adult head basketball coach, not other kids). As for the consequences to the other students?? I don't imagine there would be any consequences at all. Maybe they can hang out in the library all day and read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead".
It's not just "peer pressure" when politics become involved.
I have no idea whether children are being pressured to take part in demonstrations in the US. However, the behavior of students on campuses constantly protesting and being so adament that they are morally superior to everybody else has had plenty of examples and is well documented.
You think it's correct that a loud, vocal threatening minority calls the shots on who gets to be invited to Uni's to speak? Even here in the UK, I have two post graduate children and both of them knew not to clash with anybody organising anything left leaning because of just how nasty things can get. Cowardice on their part admitedly, but it's fundementally wrong the way some students are dictating to others their politics and their views.
Let's face it, even discussing this here in a civilised manner and you couldn't avoid a snide dig. "Maybe they can hang out in the library all day and read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead".". Just why?
All three Austin explosive devices went off while they were being carried. I thought they were just on the front porch, which could be a simple timed delay, but this means they were set to detect motion as the condition for detonation...unless the suspect was watching from a distance and detonating them by pushing a button when he saw someone pick it up (I highly doubt this scenario--staying in the area would be too risky). Either way, this isn't a rookie bombmaker--this person knows what they are doing.
Many students staged a walkout today over the Florida shooting from last month. Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that a student decided *not* to walk out. What will be the consequences of that student's decision? Will they face possible ridicule or ostracism for not following along with the crowd? Will they be publicly shamed or bullied, called names such as "gun nut" or even "murderer"? (this hypothetical student is merely hypothetical; our teenagers are not in school this week due to spring break)
This is the second time I've come in contact with this idea today, the other being an article by conservative golden boy Ben Shapiro CLAIMING to have received emails from kids who felt pressured to participate and fear of being ostracized if they didn't. He offered no attribution for any of them, and they all, to me, seemed like they were written by one person, but whatever. This seems to be the talking point of the day in regards to these walk-outs. That shadowy figures (never mentioned by specific names or organizations) on the left are using kids to push their radical agenda. How are they doing this?? Were thousands of kids implanted with a computer chip that caused them to walk out of class when a button was pushed?? Then we get this dose of "conservative kids are being bullied", though all we have are some very suspect "emails" that I'm 90% sure are fake. And why is it assumed that kids who come out of the womb with smartphones in their hands wouldn't be able to organize stuff like this on their own?? On New Year's Eve in 1999, me and my best friend managed to get hundreds of people from 5 different towns to come to party simply by word of mouth. I think kids today can organize a protest without being "manipulated".
To the main question, are we asking for a move to eliminate peer pressure in schools among adolescents?? That's a lofty goal. Shit, I felt ostracized or like an outcast all the time, and I was generally pretty popular. I was one of the only people in town who didn't hunt or own a gun. I ran cross-country instead of playing football. I don't think that made me a victim. It wasn't intolerable (actually, by far the worst shaming I ever received for not playing football in the fall was from the adult head basketball coach, not other kids). As for the consequences to the other students?? I don't imagine there would be any consequences at all. Maybe they can hang out in the library all day and read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead".
It's not just "peer pressure" when politics become involved.
I have no idea whether children are being pressured to take part in demonstrations in the US. However, the behavior of students on campuses constantly protesting and being so adament that they are morally superior to everybody else has had plenty of examples and is well documented.
You think it's correct that a loud, vocal threatening minority calls the shots on who gets to be invited to Uni's to speak? Even here in the UK, I have two post graduate children and both of them knew not to clash with anybody organising anything left leaning because of just how nasty things can get. Cowardice on their part admitedly, but it's fundementally wrong the way some students are dictating to others their politics and their views.
Let's face it, even discussing this here in a civilised manner and you couldn't avoid a snide dig. "Maybe they can hang out in the library all day and read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead".". Just why?
In the same post where you talk about the pressure tactics and thought-policing on the left, I get called out for being sarcastic about hypothetical people. Why?? Because it sounded funny to me at the time I wrote it. Or is this comment of mine in and of itself a "bullying tactic of the left"?? If it's out of bounds to take a jab at the idea that many conservatives and libertarians, in their younger years, are often enamored with the works of Ayn Rand, then yeah, screw it. Guilty as charged. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Beyond that, we are now working from the narrative that the kids protesting today about the gun situation are threatening and bullying their fellow students despite no one presenting a single-piece of evidence or even an anecdotal account of it taking place. If there are a plethora of students out there who are so pro-gun that they want to organize their own walk-out in response to this one, let them. This entire narrative is popping up today because apparently there is NO WAY kids could possibly take this action on their own because they don't want to get shot while in Chemistry class. They're young, they aren't helpless infants who can't make any choices on their own or form their own opinions. No, the script immediately flips to "indoctrination". You know what probably indoctrinated them?? The fact that they have to participate in active shooter drills as a regular part of going to high school.
but it's fundementally wrong the way some students are dictating to others their politics and their views.
Not only that, but they are dictating what views others (whether they agree with them or not) are able to hear.
There is a very simple solution if you do not like a speaker: don't go. These events are all optional.
That said, I am very disappointed with how the campus right has responded to left-wing bully tactics. Rather than behave like adults in the face of mean-spirited childish behavior, they now seem to be inviting speaker just for the purpose of pissing off their liberal colleagues. I'm afraid campus conservatives and libertarians are getting just as bad.
In law school I was president of our Federalist Society chapter for two years. I invited 12 guest speakers, including the controversial John Yoo and a debate between our dean and Ilya Shapiro of Cato on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, and each event was very well attended and we had no protesters. Our left-leaning students all came. Why? Because most of us were friends with our liberal colleagues, and we didn't think "pissing them off" was a moral victory. Persuasion should be the goal of these events.
There are some really harmful things going on with campus liberals, but if campus conservatives don't learn that "winning" a debate means changing minds rather than pissing people off then university culture is only going to get worse.
Honestly, I don't know who benefits (other than click-needy news outlets) from national coverage of intra-campus political squabbles. I think it'd almost always be better to let the students and administrations work through these conflicts on their own without escalating them into cultural proxy wars. Maybe if we stopped raising the temperature, students would be more open to nuance and hopefully grow out of some of their stridency.
No, do you really think that Liechtenstein is terrible like soviet union? Or that the German empire was terrible like Weimar republic or national socialism?
The German Empire didn't even last 50 years. It had only two Emperors (let's not count Frederick III here), the second of which started with an economically prosperous and scientifically advanced Germany and then helped begin a World War that ruined the German economy, led to the loss substantial territory and the death of over 2 million German soldiers and finally forced him to abdicate. This is hardly an argument for the superiority of the German Empire.
The Weimar Republic fell, yes. But that was due to the crushing burden left by the war and the Great Depression. And in many ways the Nazi movement was the heir of the old Empire.
The new Federal Republic which was founded after WW II has now already outlasted the German Empire, without starting any major wars. So do not look at Germany if you want to argue for the natural superiority of the Monarchies.
As for Hitler, he did not get his powers democratically. The NSDAP had a majority, but not an absolute one and they only were really able to claim power after outlawing the communist party. However, he did get his powers *in* a democracy, which is bad enough.
If you look at the details of how it happened, one thing that I would take away from it, is that it is not good to give the executive to many powers compared to the legislative. And that should be a warning sign for the US in my opinion, the Presidency has slowly become more and more powerful with an extended scope for Executive Orders and Congress giving up powers like control over military actions. Before any complains, no, I am not predicting the imminent collapse of the US into a dictatorship. But if it ever happens, my prediction is that the power of Presidency is an instrumental part.
This is more broadly the concept I was talking about. Most societies tend to centralize over most of their existence, with brief (and dramatic) decentralization. Even Constitutional Monarchies are constantly investing more and more power in their centralized governments over time.
I'm still not sure this is the case. Societies are certainly always changing, but I don't see a clear trend towards more centralization. In relation to international affairs the modern trend has clearly been to give away or share powers - think of things like human rights agreements, NATO mutual defense, trade treaties.
The EU is a major exercise in sharing power. That of course is not always popular (and was one of the reasons for the Brexit vote, but I won't go into that now ) . The EU though has had an impact on the distribution of domestic powers, not just international ones. One of its founding principles was subsidiarity, i.e. that tasks should be performed at the most local level possible. You can see that principle has been in operation in many EU countries in recent decades. In the UK for example it's one of the reasons why we have devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are many other examples where powers have been pushed down to more local levels in the UK (police commissioners, health procurement, local enterprise partnerships, elected mayors etc). My job has been directly affected by the change a few years ago that gave local authorities the ability to borrow unlimited funds from central government. One result of that is that we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on building housing (as a commercial venture - we're not a housing authority).
Relationships between central and local government are always in a state of flux and not everything goes one way at the same time (school education for instance has become far more centrally controlled in recent years). I don't though see any tendency for the constant changes to creep towards centralization in the long term. If there were such a tendency you would expect longer established countries in the EU to all have strong centralized governments - and that is not the case at all.
Many students staged a walkout today over the Florida shooting from last month. Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that a student decided *not* to walk out. What will be the consequences of that student's decision? Will they face possible ridicule or ostracism for not following along with the crowd? Will they be publicly shamed or bullied, called names such as "gun nut" or even "murderer"? (this hypothetical student is merely hypothetical; our teenagers are not in school this week due to spring break)
This is the second time I've come in contact with this idea today, the other being an article by conservative golden boy Ben Shapiro CLAIMING to have received emails from kids who felt pressured to participate and fear of being ostracized if they didn't. He offered no attribution for any of them, and they all, to me, seemed like they were written by one person, but whatever. This seems to be the talking point of the day in regards to these walk-outs. That shadowy figures (never mentioned by specific names or organizations) on the left are using kids to push their radical agenda. How are they doing this?? Were thousands of kids implanted with a computer chip that caused them to walk out of class when a button was pushed?? Then we get this dose of "conservative kids are being bullied", though all we have are some very suspect "emails" that I'm 90% sure are fake. And why is it assumed that kids who come out of the womb with smartphones in their hands wouldn't be able to organize stuff like this on their own?? On New Year's Eve in 1999, me and my best friend managed to get hundreds of people from 5 different towns to come to party simply by word of mouth. I think kids today can organize a protest without being "manipulated".
If that is a talking point then all those people/media outlets are getting their ideas from me because I came up with that on my own--it wasn't suggested to me by anyone nor was as it something I read somewhere else. I haven't seen any stories of e-mail messages, or kids actually being bullied--I was merely asking some questions. I also don't think that anyone is using the kids who are walking out to push an agenda--I actually *support* the kids walking out, because that means they are starting to think about politics, current events, and something other than a computer/smart phone screen or the latest social media post someone in their school made.
The other point I wanted to address is this: a woman on the other forum (where I am the mod) suggested that many teens who are walking out are doing so because they feel a sense of "togetherness" or shared empathy with the victims in Florida, that they are reacting as if they were victims in the shooting, as well.
That is completely irrational.
If an event didn't happen to you then it didn't happen to you--how can you possibly feel traumatized by something which didn't happen to you? I watched 11 Sept happen live on television...but it didn't happen to me--I wasn't there and so I was not directly effected by it. I watched Mt. Carmel in Waco, just like I watched the Berlin Wall fall and so on and so forth--I wasn't at any of those places so despite feeling some empathy or slight "we shared a moment" thoughts, the reality of the situation is that those things did not happen to me, therefore I was not directly effected by them.
Anyway...why do the kids walking out of school care about the students in Florida when they don't care about the shooting victims in Chicago? Is that because being shot in Chicago is just "life in the big city"?
*************
On the radio this morning, just after a commercial break, the announcer stated that the upcoming news story was about some airline apologizing for sending a woman's German Shepherd to Japan instead of Kansas.
*sigh* That isn't "news", you ridiculous news station. That is fluff.
Oklahoma is considering the use of nitrogen gas for executions. I've long felt that this is a good alternative to lethal injections.
You know that pain in your chest when you're deprived of air? That isn't caused by lack of oxygen; it's caused by the presence of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide builds up when you hold your breath, and your lungs detect its presence in order to send pain signals and eventually force you to breath.
Nitrogen doesn't trigger those signals, and since it's already 70% of our air, your body isn't rigged to notice its presence at all. Breathing in 100% nitrogen would just cause you to gradually get sleepy and then lose consciousness. That sort of death is completely painless, is cheaper than conventional drugs, and has no risk of side effects.
The other point I wanted to address is this: a woman on the other forum (where I am the mod) suggested that many teens who are walking out are doing so because they feel a sense of "togetherness" or shared empathy with the victims in Florida, that they are reacting as if they were victims in the shooting, as well.
That is completely irrational.
If an event didn't happen to you then it didn't happen to you--how can you possibly feel traumatized by something which didn't happen to you? I watched 11 Sept happen live on television...but it didn't happen to me--I wasn't there and so I was not directly effected by it. I watched Mt. Carmel in Waco, just like I watched the Berlin Wall fall and so on and so forth--I wasn't at any of those places so despite feeling some empathy or slight "we shared a moment" thoughts, the reality of the situation is that those things did not happen to me, therefore I was not directly effected by them.
Anyway...why do the kids walking out of school care about the students in Florida when they don't care about the shooting victims in Chicago? Is that because being shot in Chicago is just "life in the big city"?
*************
On the radio this morning, just after a commercial break, the announcer stated that the upcoming news story was about some airline apologizing for sending a woman's German Shepherd to Japan instead of Kansas.
*sigh* That isn't "news", you ridiculous news station. That is fluff.
Completely irrational? Well I wouldn't say that. I'm not saying it's right but if someone has similar background, similar traits, similar beliefs, from the same area then it's easier to feel empathy for that person. You can feel like something that happened to them very well could have happened (or did happen) to you.
You can see this all the time with Republicans - I'm sure there's other examples but here it is really obvious to me. They are against something until it happens to one of them. I'm sure @jjstraka34 has a million examples. An example is like evangelical's go on and on about the sanctity of marriage until they don't have a problem when Trump rawdogs a porn star just after his son is born and he pays her off to not talk about it. Republican's are totally against helping the mentally ill it affects them when Ronald Reagan gets alzheimers. There's a million examples. Here's some in reverse about how they're frothing at the mouth against something until it's their guy that does it then it's okay.
Why do they do this? Because something affected them now it's real. If it happens to a family with a different skin color half the world away, they don't care. If you have no gay friends or don't know anyone it's easier for people to condemn them - until they find out that their son is gay or whatever then maybe they will soften a bit (maybe not). Anyway, I'd say it's related to empathy and being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, which is easier for a lot of people if you have stuff in common such as hometown or other factors.
The most obvious example is Rob Portman, who was a stauch opponent of gay marriage until his son came out to him, at which time he switched his position. Which to me tells me only one thing, which is that Rob Portman didn't think marriage was important to MILLIONS of other gay people, only the single gay person he just so happened to have raised.
There is another parallel with sports teams. Ask a fan whose team just won the big title and they will gladly tell you "we won". We? I didn't see you out on the field--you were in this bar drinking beer when *they* won the game. You had nothing to do with it.
I am all for being empathetic with people but all things must be undertaken in moderation.
*************
Mueller has now subpoenaed the Trump Organization for documents relating to Russian involvement; the Trump Organization is the parent company of all of Trump's holdings. On the one hand, Mueller needs to get to the bottom of everything, otherwise there will always be questions left unanswered. On the other hand, this is what is known as "mission creep"--Mueller was sent to look into x, but now he is also looking into y and z.
The other point I wanted to address is this: a woman on the other forum (where I am the mod) suggested that many teens who are walking out are doing so because they feel a sense of "togetherness" or shared empathy with the victims in Florida, that they are reacting as if they were victims in the shooting, as well.
That is completely irrational.
If an event didn't happen to you then it didn't happen to you--how can you possibly feel traumatized by something which didn't happen to you? I watched 11 Sept happen live on television...but it didn't happen to me--I wasn't there and so I was not directly effected by it. I watched Mt. Carmel in Waco, just like I watched the Berlin Wall fall and so on and so forth--I wasn't at any of those places so despite feeling some empathy or slight "we shared a moment" thoughts, the reality of the situation is that those things did not happen to me, therefore I was not directly effected by them.
Anyway...why do the kids walking out of school care about the students in Florida when they don't care about the shooting victims in Chicago? Is that because being shot in Chicago is just "life in the big city"?
*************
On the radio this morning, just after a commercial break, the announcer stated that the upcoming news story was about some airline apologizing for sending a woman's German Shepherd to Japan instead of Kansas.
*sigh* That isn't "news", you ridiculous news station. That is fluff.
Completely irrational? Well I wouldn't say that. I'm not saying it's right but if someone has similar background, similar traits, similar beliefs, from the same area then it's easier to feel empathy for that person. You can feel like something that happened to them very well could have happened (or did happen) to you.
You can see this all the time with Republicans - I'm sure there's other examples but here it is really obvious to me. They are against something until it happens to one of them. I'm sure @jjstraka34 has a million examples. An example is like evangelical's go on and on about the sanctity of marriage until they don't have a problem when Trump rawdogs a porn star just after his son is born and he pays her off to not talk about it. Republican's are totally against helping the mentally ill it affects them when Ronald Reagan gets alzheimers. There's a million examples. Here's some in reverse about how they're frothing at the mouth against something until it's their guy that does it then it's okay.
Why do they do this? Because something affected them now it's real. If it happens to a family with a different skin color half the world away, they don't care. If you have no gay friends or don't know anyone it's easier for people to condemn them - until they find out that their son is gay or whatever then maybe they will soften a bit (maybe not). Anyway, I'd say it's related to empathy and being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, which is easier for a lot of people if you have stuff in common such as hometown or other factors.
And exactly the same could be said for those who empathise/sympathise with criminals who have commited horrendous crimes until it's somebody close to them who is affected by a criminal act.
Breaking news, People are hypocrites, they are tribal, they are flawed. All of them.
Honestly, I don't know who benefits (other than click-needy news outlets) from national coverage of intra-campus political squabbles. I think it'd almost always be better to let the students and administrations work through these conflicts on their own without escalating them into cultural proxy wars. Maybe if we stopped raising the temperature, students would be more open to nuance and hopefully grow out of some of their stridency.
I disagree entirely. University life is important and formative, and has a massive influence on the future of the polity. It is national news because it represents the future of our democracy.
I think its especially disingenuous when people (I'm not putting you in this category) say "it doesn't matter what's going on in universities" while simultaneously calling for free education. Either university life is important and formative, or it isn't. At these state schools, significant tax payer dollars are spent already. People have a right to know what goes on at the institutions that are funded through their own toil.
There is another parallel with sports teams. Ask a fan whose team just won the big title and they will gladly tell you "we won". We? I didn't see you out on the field--you were in this bar drinking beer when *they* won the game. You had nothing to do with it.
I've also heard this absurd logic from my friends talking about the French saying "if it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German"
Dude, your closest encounter with the Second World War was playing Call of Duty on your couch while eating Doritos.
Honestly, I don't know who benefits (other than click-needy news outlets) from national coverage of intra-campus political squabbles. I think it'd almost always be better to let the students and administrations work through these conflicts on their own without escalating them into cultural proxy wars. Maybe if we stopped raising the temperature, students would be more open to nuance and hopefully grow out of some of their stridency.
I disagree entirely. University life is important and formative, and has a massive influence on the future of the polity. It is national news because it represents the future of our democracy.
I think its especially disingenuous when people (I'm not putting you in this category) say "it doesn't matter what's going on in universities" while simultaneously calling for free education. Either university life is important and formative, or it isn't. At these state schools, significant tax payer dollars are spent already. People have a right to know what goes on at the institutions that are funded through their own toil.
Preschool is important and formative too, and I think it should be free, but I don't care whether or not Kelsey spilled Mason's pudding cup.
College students are adults, but they're also still learning how to be adults. It should not be national news when a 19-year-old at Oberlin overreacts to something and shouts too much.
For the record, that is kids IN FAVOR of gun control and who participated. I'm actually fine with the detentions. Those kids should wear them like a badge of honor, and I'm sure most of their parents will concur.
The most obvious example is Rob Portman, who was a stauch opponent of gay marriage until his son came out to him, at which time he switched his position. Which to me tells me only one thing, which is that Rob Portman didn't think marriage was important to MILLIONS of other gay people, only the single gay person he just so happened to have raised.
On the left side of things. How about the blind eye you all turned on Bill Clinton's sexual escapades? That didn't come back and bite you in the ass with Trump did it? I guess y'all never realized that not all conservatives are religious fanatics who would retire in shame if they ever got caught doing that stuff. Trump doesn't give a damn about the shenanigans and neither should the left. The right ignoring his escapades now is definitely hypocritical though...
On the radio this morning, just after a commercial break, the announcer stated that the upcoming news story was about some airline apologizing for sending a woman's German Shepherd to Japan instead of Kansas.
*sigh* That isn't "news", you ridiculous news station. That is fluff.
Fluff = something people will talk about, especially if it is a quirky story that relates to an ongoing social concern. This ongoing social concern is how Airlines have been treating passengers of late. This story ties nicely to the one about the dog being killed in the overhead compartment.
Case in point. You mentioning here. If you were to mention it to someone in your community, they may actually ask what station. *Poof* word of mouth advertising. They wouldn't get that if they just told news about Trump lying.
And Trump making up facts on the fly, isn't really news. Him admitting it might be, but it is something everyone should know by now.
Honestly, I don't know who benefits (other than click-needy news outlets) from national coverage of intra-campus political squabbles. I think it'd almost always be better to let the students and administrations work through these conflicts on their own without escalating them into cultural proxy wars. Maybe if we stopped raising the temperature, students would be more open to nuance and hopefully grow out of some of their stridency.
I disagree entirely. University life is important and formative, and has a massive influence on the future of the polity. It is national news because it represents the future of our democracy.
I think its especially disingenuous when people (I'm not putting you in this category) say "it doesn't matter what's going on in universities" while simultaneously calling for free education. Either university life is important and formative, or it isn't. At these state schools, significant tax payer dollars are spent already. People have a right to know what goes on at the institutions that are funded through their own toil.
Preschool is important and formative too, and I think it should be free, but I don't care whether or not Kelsey spilled Mason's pudding cup.
College students are adults, but they're also still learning how to be adults. It should not be national news when a 19-year-old at Oberlin overreacts to something and shouts too much.
It is news when someone interrupts other students' ability to learn and are not immediately removed. I'd be upset if I sent my (future) kids to an institution like that. People deserve to be informed.
The most obvious example is Rob Portman, who was a stauch opponent of gay marriage until his son came out to him, at which time he switched his position. Which to me tells me only one thing, which is that Rob Portman didn't think marriage was important to MILLIONS of other gay people, only the single gay person he just so happened to have raised.
It tells you "only one thing"?
Strangely it tells me that he loves his son.
You'd prefer that he didn't? That not appearing a hypocrite was more important than his son to him?
"Just so happened to have raised", yeah sure, that's how it works.
The most obvious example is Rob Portman, who was a stauch opponent of gay marriage until his son came out to him, at which time he switched his position. Which to me tells me only one thing, which is that Rob Portman didn't think marriage was important to MILLIONS of other gay people, only the single gay person he just so happened to have raised.
On the left side of things. How about the blind eye you all turned on Bill Clinton's sexual escapades? That didn't come back and bite you in the ass with Trump did it? I guess y'all never realized that not all conservatives are religious fanatics who would retire in shame if they ever got caught doing that stuff. Trump doesn't give a damn about the shenanigans and neither should the left. The right ignoring his escapades now is definitely hypocritical though...
No one really cares about the sexual details, or the affair itself as wrongdoing (though I look forward to Trump being humilitated when the inevitable and predictable details come out, I can already surmise what they will be). It's the $130,000 in hush money that looks more every day like an illegal campaign contribution.
Trump doesn't want her talking for one reason, which is that the details of their sexual escapades will shatter his cultivated "alpha male" persona. Just watch.
In response to the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal on British soil, the Trump administration has imposed new sanctions on Russian groups and individuals, freezing some assets and restricting travel.
I'm still not sure this is the case. Societies are certainly always changing, but I don't see a clear trend towards more centralization. In relation to international affairs the modern trend has clearly been to give away or share powers - think of things like human rights agreements, NATO mutual defense, trade treaties.
The EU is a major exercise in sharing power. That of course is not always popular (and was one of the reasons for the Brexit vote, but I won't go into that now ) . The EU though has had an impact on the distribution of domestic powers, not just international ones. One of its founding principles was subsidiarity, i.e. that tasks should be performed at the most local level possible. You can see that principle has been in operation in many EU countries in recent decades. In the UK for example it's one of the reasons why we have devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are many other examples where powers have been pushed down to more local levels in the UK (police commissioners, health procurement, local enterprise partnerships, elected mayors etc). My job has been directly affected by the change a few years ago that gave local authorities the ability to borrow unlimited funds from central government. One result of that is that we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on building housing (as a commercial venture - we're not a housing authority).
Relationships between central and local government are always in a state of flux and not everything goes one way at the same time (school education for instance has become far more centrally controlled in recent years). I don't though see any tendency for the constant changes to creep towards centralization in the long term. If there were such a tendency you would expect longer established countries in the EU to all have strong centralized governments - and that is not the case at all.
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your point. You're saying the EU is an example of decentralization? (As in, the institution of the EU? Or do you mean the countries that make up the EU, and not the organization itself?). The EU is a relatively new concept (relative in that it's a product of the past century. However, if I understand it correctly - it has evolved to take on a great deal of additional power/responsibilities. In initially it was just a Coal and Steel economic partnership between ~ 5 or so European countries. I want to say spearheaded in the 1950s.
Relating back to a more generic concept - maybe a better way to phrase what I'm saying is that over the existence of a particular type of government, that government is constantly (and largely, successfully) trying to centralize and expand its power of governance. Taking the French revolution as an example. It initially dialed back the centralization of the absolutist monarchy in place in France. However, it also very quickly began centralizing power - even before it was overthrown by Napoleon.
The United States has clearly been slowly investing more and more power into the federal government, and specifically to the President.
It's fair to say a lot of this also relates to Technology. It becomes easier for a central seat of government to govern a larger, geographically diverse area when you can use modern communication or travel. It was obviously a much more challenging thing to do in Feudal times.
The EU is such a conundrum for classical liberals. I favor free trade but I also favor political localization. I love free movement but I loathe too much bureaucracy. I generally favor the EU on the balance, but I understand the concerns. I also understand the problems that Greece has, being unable to respond to their debt through monetary means (I'm sure @screamingpalm agrees here) while the Germans are able to boost their exports by enjoying an artificially undervalued currency.
My biggest regret about Brexit was that the UK was a powerful voice against centralizing authority within the EU. The UK will no longer have that influence from the outside, and I think the remaining nations will be worse off for it. That said, I don't think that should be the focus of British voters.
Trump Jr and wife divorcing. Totally understandable why.
Stormy Daniels is crowd funding her legal bills. In the info about the situation she describes the NDA that she signed as having damages of $1 million PER OCCURANCE if she speaks out about Trump's affair with her that lasted at least a year starting just after his son was just born to melania. No wonder Stormy hasn't admitted the truth yet. Also heard something elsewhere about the NDA covering offspring but that might just be a 'just in case' thing written into the NDA not necessarily proof of offspring.
One has to wonder how many times Trump has used an NDA like this to intimidate employees, women he had affairs with, business partners and others. Remember he had his campaign people sign NDA. Seems like something he uses against people on the regular.
Comments
I have no idea whether children are being pressured to take part in demonstrations in the US.
However, the behavior of students on campuses constantly protesting and being so adament that they are morally superior to everybody else has had plenty of examples and is well documented.
You think it's correct that a loud, vocal threatening minority calls the shots on who gets to be invited to Uni's to speak?
Even here in the UK, I have two post graduate children and both of them knew not to clash with anybody organising anything left leaning because of just how nasty things can get.
Cowardice on their part admitedly, but it's fundementally wrong the way some students are dictating to others their politics and their views.
Let's face it, even discussing this here in a civilised manner and you couldn't avoid a snide dig.
"Maybe they can hang out in the library all day and read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead".".
Just why?
Beyond that, we are now working from the narrative that the kids protesting today about the gun situation are threatening and bullying their fellow students despite no one presenting a single-piece of evidence or even an anecdotal account of it taking place. If there are a plethora of students out there who are so pro-gun that they want to organize their own walk-out in response to this one, let them. This entire narrative is popping up today because apparently there is NO WAY kids could possibly take this action on their own because they don't want to get shot while in Chemistry class. They're young, they aren't helpless infants who can't make any choices on their own or form their own opinions. No, the script immediately flips to "indoctrination". You know what probably indoctrinated them?? The fact that they have to participate in active shooter drills as a regular part of going to high school.
There is a very simple solution if you do not like a speaker: don't go. These events are all optional.
That said, I am very disappointed with how the campus right has responded to left-wing bully tactics. Rather than behave like adults in the face of mean-spirited childish behavior, they now seem to be inviting speaker just for the purpose of pissing off their liberal colleagues. I'm afraid campus conservatives and libertarians are getting just as bad.
In law school I was president of our Federalist Society chapter for two years. I invited 12 guest speakers, including the controversial John Yoo and a debate between our dean and Ilya Shapiro of Cato on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, and each event was very well attended and we had no protesters. Our left-leaning students all came. Why? Because most of us were friends with our liberal colleagues, and we didn't think "pissing them off" was a moral victory. Persuasion should be the goal of these events.
There are some really harmful things going on with campus liberals, but if campus conservatives don't learn that "winning" a debate means changing minds rather than pissing people off then university culture is only going to get worse.
The Weimar Republic fell, yes. But that was due to the crushing burden left by the war and the Great Depression. And in many ways the Nazi movement was the heir of the old Empire.
The new Federal Republic which was founded after WW II has now already outlasted the German Empire, without starting any major wars. So do not look at Germany if you want to argue for the natural superiority of the Monarchies.
As for Hitler, he did not get his powers democratically. The NSDAP had a majority, but not an absolute one and they only were really able to claim power after outlawing the communist party. However, he did get his powers *in* a democracy, which is bad enough.
If you look at the details of how it happened, one thing that I would take away from it, is that it is not good to give the executive to many powers compared to the legislative. And that should be a warning sign for the US in my opinion, the Presidency has slowly become more and more powerful with an extended scope for Executive Orders and Congress giving up powers like control over military actions. Before any complains, no, I am not predicting the imminent collapse of the US into a dictatorship. But if it ever happens, my prediction is that the power of Presidency is an instrumental part.
The EU is a major exercise in sharing power. That of course is not always popular (and was one of the reasons for the Brexit vote, but I won't go into that now
Relationships between central and local government are always in a state of flux and not everything goes one way at the same time (school education for instance has become far more centrally controlled in recent years). I don't though see any tendency for the constant changes to creep towards centralization in the long term. If there were such a tendency you would expect longer established countries in the EU to all have strong centralized governments - and that is not the case at all.
I'm just ahead of the curve, that's all.
That is completely irrational.
If an event didn't happen to you then it didn't happen to you--how can you possibly feel traumatized by something which didn't happen to you? I watched 11 Sept happen live on television...but it didn't happen to me--I wasn't there and so I was not directly effected by it. I watched Mt. Carmel in Waco, just like I watched the Berlin Wall fall and so on and so forth--I wasn't at any of those places so despite feeling some empathy or slight "we shared a moment" thoughts, the reality of the situation is that those things did not happen to me, therefore I was not directly effected by them.
Anyway...why do the kids walking out of school care about the students in Florida when they don't care about the shooting victims in Chicago? Is that because being shot in Chicago is just "life in the big city"?
*************
On the radio this morning, just after a commercial break, the announcer stated that the upcoming news story was about some airline apologizing for sending a woman's German Shepherd to Japan instead of Kansas.
*sigh* That isn't "news", you ridiculous news station. That is fluff.
What *is* news is that Trump just makes up facts on the spur of the moment without knowing whether or not they are true.
You know that pain in your chest when you're deprived of air? That isn't caused by lack of oxygen; it's caused by the presence of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide builds up when you hold your breath, and your lungs detect its presence in order to send pain signals and eventually force you to breath.
Nitrogen doesn't trigger those signals, and since it's already 70% of our air, your body isn't rigged to notice its presence at all. Breathing in 100% nitrogen would just cause you to gradually get sleepy and then lose consciousness. That sort of death is completely painless, is cheaper than conventional drugs, and has no risk of side effects.
You can see this all the time with Republicans - I'm sure there's other examples but here it is really obvious to me. They are against something until it happens to one of them. I'm sure @jjstraka34 has a million examples. An example is like evangelical's go on and on about the sanctity of marriage until they don't have a problem when Trump rawdogs a porn star just after his son is born and he pays her off to not talk about it. Republican's are totally against helping the mentally ill it affects them when Ronald Reagan gets alzheimers.
There's a million examples. Here's some in reverse about how they're frothing at the mouth against something until it's their guy that does it then it's okay.
Why do they do this? Because something affected them now it's real. If it happens to a family with a different skin color half the world away, they don't care. If you have no gay friends or don't know anyone it's easier for people to condemn them - until they find out that their son is gay or whatever then maybe they will soften a bit (maybe not). Anyway, I'd say it's related to empathy and being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, which is easier for a lot of people if you have stuff in common such as hometown or other factors.
" Trump just makes up facts on the spur of the moment without knowing whether or not they are true" well that's the most honest he's been since he's been a politician. In admitting that he lies all the time out of habit without preparing a reason why beforehand that's the most honest he's been.
I am all for being empathetic with people but all things must be undertaken in moderation.
*************
Mueller has now subpoenaed the Trump Organization for documents relating to Russian involvement; the Trump Organization is the parent company of all of Trump's holdings. On the one hand, Mueller needs to get to the bottom of everything, otherwise there will always be questions left unanswered. On the other hand, this is what is known as "mission creep"--Mueller was sent to look into x, but now he is also looking into y and z.
And exactly the same could be said for those who empathise/sympathise with criminals who have commited horrendous crimes until it's somebody close to them who is affected by a criminal act.
Breaking news,
People are hypocrites, they are tribal, they are flawed.
All of them.
I think its especially disingenuous when people (I'm not putting you in this category) say "it doesn't matter what's going on in universities" while simultaneously calling for free education. Either university life is important and formative, or it isn't. At these state schools, significant tax payer dollars are spent already. People have a right to know what goes on at the institutions that are funded through their own toil.
Dude, your closest encounter with the Second World War was playing Call of Duty on your couch while eating Doritos.
College students are adults, but they're also still learning how to be adults. It should not be national news when a 19-year-old at Oberlin overreacts to something and shouts too much.
For the record, that is kids IN FAVOR of gun control and who participated. I'm actually fine with the detentions. Those kids should wear them like a badge of honor, and I'm sure most of their parents will concur.
Fluff = something people will talk about, especially if it is a quirky story that relates to an ongoing social concern. This ongoing social concern is how Airlines have been treating passengers of late. This story ties nicely to the one about the dog being killed in the overhead compartment.
Case in point. You mentioning here. If you were to mention it to someone in your community, they may actually ask what station. *Poof* word of mouth advertising. They wouldn't get that if they just told news about Trump lying.
And Trump making up facts on the fly, isn't really news. Him admitting it might be, but it is something everyone should know by now.
Strangely it tells me that he loves his son.
You'd prefer that he didn't?
That not appearing a hypocrite was more important than his son to him?
"Just so happened to have raised", yeah sure, that's how it works.
Trump doesn't want her talking for one reason, which is that the details of their sexual escapades will shatter his cultivated "alpha male" persona. Just watch.
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your point. You're saying the EU is an example of decentralization? (As in, the institution of the EU? Or do you mean the countries that make up the EU, and not the organization itself?). The EU is a relatively new concept (relative in that it's a product of the past century. However, if I understand it correctly - it has evolved to take on a great deal of additional power/responsibilities. In initially it was just a Coal and Steel economic partnership between ~ 5 or so European countries. I want to say spearheaded in the 1950s.
Relating back to a more generic concept - maybe a better way to phrase what I'm saying is that over the existence of a particular type of government, that government is constantly (and largely, successfully) trying to centralize and expand its power of governance. Taking the French revolution as an example. It initially dialed back the centralization of the absolutist monarchy in place in France. However, it also very quickly began centralizing power - even before it was overthrown by Napoleon.
The United States has clearly been slowly investing more and more power into the federal government, and specifically to the President.
It's fair to say a lot of this also relates to Technology. It becomes easier for a central seat of government to govern a larger, geographically diverse area when you can use modern communication or travel. It was obviously a much more challenging thing to do in Feudal times.
My biggest regret about Brexit was that the UK was a powerful voice against centralizing authority within the EU. The UK will no longer have that influence from the outside, and I think the remaining nations will be worse off for it. That said, I don't think that should be the focus of British voters.
Stormy Daniels is crowd funding her legal bills. In the info about the situation she describes the NDA that she signed as having damages of $1 million PER OCCURANCE if she speaks out about Trump's affair with her that lasted at least a year starting just after his son was just born to melania. No wonder Stormy hasn't admitted the truth yet. Also heard something elsewhere about the NDA covering offspring but that might just be a 'just in case' thing written into the NDA not necessarily proof of offspring.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stormy/
One has to wonder how many times Trump has used an NDA like this to intimidate employees, women he had affairs with, business partners and others. Remember he had his campaign people sign NDA. Seems like something he uses against people on the regular.