GeorgiaDon

I suspect people who object to "Black Lives Matter" are subconsciously (or intentionally) adding in a word that isn't there, they think it means "Only Black Lives Matter". Of course that isn't what the expression says, or means. It does not mean "white lives don't matter", or "blue lives don't matter", or any other group of people anyone might care to reference. It isn't necessary to state "white lives matter" or "blue lives matter" because they have always mattered, at least in the US. It is necessary to proclaim that Black Lives Matter, because so much US history has emphatically stated that black lives don't matter.

In the interests of accuracy, the teachers found the drawing and called the parents to the school. Although the parents were told to get counseling for their child within 48 hours, they refused to take their child home and he was returned to the classroom. When the parents met with school guidance counselors they did not mention that they had already purchased a gun as a gift for their son (which he knew about), and neither they nor the guidance counselors searched him or his backpack for weapons. The shooting happened a couple of hours later that same day, so Ethan Crumbley already had the gun in his possession at the school. Allegedly, the son had previously told and texted his parents on multiple occasions about seeing demons in the house, having urges to harm animals or people, and so on, yet they did not seek help for him and instead they bought a gun as an early birthday present, and took him to a firing range to try it out. The parents claim the gun and ammo were locked up, but clearly it wasn't (at least not properly). Obviously no-one wants to suspect their child of planning something like this, but this particular case seems to be especially egregious in that the parents seemingly willfully ignored many significant warning signs, and instead obstructed efforts to prevent the tragedy. There are also questions (and lawsuits) concerning the way school officials deferred to the parents. Personally I am not sure what they could have done considering the parents flatly refused to take their son home. Could they lawfully lock him alone in a classroom for the rest of the day? At some point they would have had to let him out, even just to go home, and he could have carried out his rampage then. Also he had a somewhat plausible explanation for the drawing, he said he was designing a video game. The guidance counselors were not aware of his history of delusions and urges, nor were they aware that he had access to a gun and ammunition. They were aware that he did not have any previous history of disciplinary actions, and his parents were extremely dismissive of any notion that he could be a threat. Only the parents knew of all the elements that pointed to the high potential for harm, it seems to me.

It must be quite the burden for you, being wise beyond the comprehension of everybody else, and yet so deeply cynical. At least you are eloquent! BTW there is no compelling evidence to support the idea that Covid-19 is a bioengineered weapon. On the other hand there is very strong evidence that it is a naturally occurring virus, spilled over from a zoonotic reservoir (probably bats), likely through a secondary zoonotic host, and into humans. There are many related coronaviruses that cause occasional spillover infections in people, and it is only a matter of time before it occurs again in circumstances that support higher transmission to people, selection for adaptive mutations, and yet another pandemic. A spillover infection in a small farming community almost always burns itself out, but the same virus brought to a "wet market" in a densely populated city presents a vastly greater risk. A problem with the "bioengineered" mythology is that it discounts the role of spillover of natural viruses, encourages politicians to dismiss that threat, and discourages efforts to find and track these spillover events and prepare for future pandemics. Of course, it is politically expedient, in that it allows politicians of a certain inclination to blame China (or any other entity it is convenient to direct the base's hate towards) while slashing funding for efforts to deal with present and future pandemics.

I believe this is a flat out lie. The documents were discovered by Biden's staff and were then voluntarily reported to the national archives and the FBI. Also, the secret service detail is assigned to guard Trump. They do not guard his properties (e.g.. they are not security for his clubhouse), and they certainly cannot be expected to provide security for documents they do not know are present, and that they would have no reason to expect to be illegally on the property.

I'm sure this is beating a dead horse (or driver), but I was curious about the comparison between becoming a licensed barber vs police officer in Georgia, the state I live in. Barber: 1. Graduate from a 1500 hour Georgia Barber Training Program 2. Pass National Theory and Georgia State Practical Licensing Exam 3. Submit a Georgia Master Barber license application to the board 4. Explore your career options and keep your license current Police officer (basic): Basic Police Officer training program highlights: Length of Program: 11 weeks Non-refundable tuition: $3,093 Note that 1500 hours is 37 weeks (assuming 40 hrs/wk). So 37 hrs of training plus a national and a state exam to cut hair. 11 weeks of training to carry a firearm and make split second life and death decisions. WTF???? What about becoming a licensed farrier in Georgia? (For those who don't know, a farrier trims horses hoofs, puts on horseshoes, basically anything around foot care for horses.) he only way to become a licensed farrier in Georgia is to complete a 4 year apprenticeship with an Approved Training Farrier. 4 years vs 11 weeks!!! Policing is (or should be) a profession, and it should be treated as one. Police officers need to know a myriad of subjects, not the least of which is the law (including constitutional law), psychology (especially how to deal with people with psychiatric issues, but also normal but angry or frightened people), sociology, self defense, marksmanship (hopefully rarely used), and on and on. Plenty of material for a 4 year degree, or at a minimum 2 years of community college. Of course then you have to pay them as professionals, but you can also demand a professional standard of performance.

It's likely relevant that police in the US require an average of only 21 weeks of training before they are put out on the street or in a squad car. This is significantly less than every other developed country. Many countries require applicants to have a college degree, but in the US you're fine with high school or equivalent. It's curious to me that you can't count out pills in a pharmacy without a 4 year degree (and not an easy degree either), or work as a bank teller without a business degree, but you can be empowered to use lethal force with just 21 weeks of "training".

So you think your doctor, for example, was trained by people too stupid to actually practice medicine themselves? I'm surprised, I thought you were smarter than that. Or not so trollish. Anyway it is true that at university you will encounter a wide range of teaching ability. Undergraduates as a rule are quite ignorant of the way the system works, and naturally assume they are the center of the universe. Not so! My responsibilities, for example, are 75% research (which means running a research lab, maintaining grant funding, training MSc, PhD, and postdoctoral students [paid off of the grants I have to get, not University funds], and publishing), 20% undergraduate and graduate teaching, and 5% service to committees etc. That means that teaching ranks lower on the list of things I have to excel at when it comes to annual evaluations, promotion, and pay increases. A former postdoctoral advisor of mine told me that if the undergrad students were not marching to the dean's office to demand that I be replaced as an instructor, I was doing that job well enough and any effort above that level was misdirected. I do not share that perspective, and I consistently get good teaching evaluations, but that is because I am determined to not follow the footsteps of the bad teachers I suffered through. I have probably been penalized for that though, because time spent polishing lectures or labs is time not spent writing grants, and grants = promotion whereas glowing teaching evaluations = pat on the back. Not completely of course, but only research productivity will earn you promotion to full professor. Good research will always trump bad teaching, but good teaching will never rescue you from poor research productivity. Also we hire faculty based on their research record, not teaching. Then we put them in front of a classroom, assuming they will just naturally be good at that if they are good at research. When I was hired I was given no training in how to teach, and that is true of new hires even today. So, when you encounter a bad teacher at university, it probably isn't because they are stupid or incompetent in general. It is because they were hired as researchers, they are rewarded for research more than teaching, and they likely have no formal training as teachers. Also, they are likely to be someone who did well in a traditional classroom setting (teacher lectures, students take notes) and they are predisposed to that sort of teaching environment, to the detriment of the large number of students who struggle with that teaching "style". To some extent that is changing as universities try to encourage more interaction/experience based learning.

If anything university faculty are underpaid in comparison to the private sector. I hope you do realize universities have to compete with the private sector to hire the most competent people. Or perhaps you think it's preferable to have the next generation of doctors, engineers, etc trained by losers who have to settle for a low paying job because they can't compete for private sector jobs? In addition to that, in the sciences (the real sciences, I can't speak for economics or political "science") you have to complete an undergraduate degree, often a Master's, always a PhD (a research PhD with a dissertation, not a coursework-only non-thesis degree), and at least a couple of postdoctoral fellowships. The path is similar to, but a little longer than the path to specialization for a MD. I was almost 40 before I was considered competitive for an entry level faculty position, and whenever we have a search to fill positions these days the candidates we interview are at least that old. You do get paid as a postdoc, but that's in the $40-50,000 range and you are expected to put in 60-80+ hrs/week. So no, I cannot agree that faculty should be ashamed of what they earn. The biggest issue with college costs/student debt is that states used to cover a large fraction of the cost of running universities (and community colleges) but over the last few decades they have cut most of that, so more and more of the cost has to be shifted to tuition. Also tuition is only a part of the cost of going to college, there is also rent, food, books, computers, and so on, and all of that has escalated sharply in cost. When I was an undergrad I was able to earn enough working weekends and a couple of evening a week to cover my costs, so I graduated without significant debt. That really is not possible these days.

When I was in late high school I lived on a Canadian military base (CFB Borden). It was almost impossible to date girls the same age because all the military guys were after them. They seemed a lot older to me, but in reality they were probably in their early to mid 20s so not that much older than 17-18 year old high school girls. Lots of girls got pregnant even at 15 or 16. Lots of shotgun marriages too.

A while ago when I visited family in Canada I noticed that most of the couples shown on commercials on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) TV shows were same sex. I really don't care, and certainly I wasn't offended, but it just kind of stood out that you hardly ever saw a straight couple. The CBC is funded by the federal government and I suppose that had something to do with it. If my extended family in Canada is anything to go by, an estimate of ~20% LGBTQ is fairly reasonable. I think there is less of a stigma associated with non-straight sexual orientations in Canada (although I'm sure there is still some) and it seems (at least as far as my family is concerned) that people don't feel a need to stay in the closet.

Agreed, except Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967, only 55 years ago. Griswold v Connecticut, the case that struck down laws banning using, selling, or providing information about contraception, was decided in 1965, only 57 years ago. That was another case that was opposed by the religious right wing. However there was also a racist element: the decision was supported by some in the southern states due to their fear of blacks having large families and "replacing" whites. Justice Thomas et al want to turn back the clock, but they don't necessarily have to turn it back too far to achieve their dream of imposing their moral choices on everybody in the USA.

It's almost as if he was relieved he didn't win.

It's almost as if some people aren't able to recognize accomplishments unless they are accompanied by an overwhelming barrage of self-promoting tweets and hyperbolic statements along the lines of "nobody knows more than me..." and "only I can fix it...".

It's difficult for me to believe that someone who is such a coward that they would advocate for complete capitulation and grovelling, even accepting rape, slavery, and the murder of his own family just to protect his own skin (which is what he is saying Ukrainians should do), could ever have the cajones to skydive. If preserving one's own life is so important that they would surrender everything and anything to preserve it, would they really risk that life just to have fun? I think a troll happened to wander in here and park himself under the SC bridge, so that he could amuse himself badgering the passers-by and consuming their time.

So much winning!

I have a sister-in-law who is a pretty extreme fundamentalist Catholic. She is determined to "save" us (my wife and I) so she constantly sends us "literature" or gets us subscriptions to some very extreme magazines (although we have told her over and over to stop). A few years ago one of these magazines had a long article about how the whole concept of democracy is un-Christian, as the Bible only talks about kings. Elections, and political representation, is nowhere to be found. So (the reasoning goes) God would give us a king, and participating in elections (or even worse running for office) is actively resisting God's plan. According to the author, voting is a serious sin verging on blasphemy. I don't think most Christians actually think in those terms. However it is true that the biblical world view is very authoritarian, with God (or her representative monarch) setting all the important parameters of society. I do think that overall strong Christian (or other religious) belief predisposes people to being comfortable with authoritarian social structures, and leads them away from being tolerant of people with different priorities or values. Also many religious customs or edicts, although they are presented as commandments from on high, really serve to make it easy to distinguish between believers and non-believers, or to mark people as belonging to a specific tribe. Circumcision for example made it impossible for Jewish males to "pass" as Romans in any conflict, as Romans abhorred the practice. In some circles today supporting the "wrong" candidate for office is seen the same way. The discussion is not about ideas or policies, it is about tribes.

Look how they were treated by their own party!

If you smash a window much of the glass falls down onto the frame and some ends up inside and some outside. I know this because I helped my daughter clean up after a break-in at her store. The thieves broke the window by throwing a large rock through it. The rock ended up inside the store, but maybe as much as 1/2 the glass was outside on the sidewalk. Also if the perp used the hammer to smash the window he could have used the claw part to clear a larger opening, and the more natural motion would be to use the claws to pull the glass out rather that to push it in.

That's pretty funny, but no. I think Brent Solar is the system with solar panels mounted on a chimney, and it only works if you shovel coal into it. Not Solar King either.

No, the bankrupt company was a large company with operations over several states. Definitely not a fly-by-night startup.

I live on a small farm, with the house set back in the forest a couple of hundred yards from the open pasture. Last March we (my wife and I) signed a contract to have a solar system installed. The solar panels were supposed to go on the roof of the barn as it is out in the pasture; our house is not suitable because it is surrounded by trees we don't want to remove. We (together with the sales rep) marked off a route to trench to bury the power cables; that came to just under 300 yards which we were told was the maximum distance they would do. The total price was a lot more than I was expecting (~ $75,000) but if the system performed as promised it would eventually pay off. Things went off the rails almost immediately. When the crew showed up to install the frame for the panels they decided the barn roof was not suitable (although the sales rep assured us it was) and they installed a ground mount in back of the barn, in a place that is in shade for a couple of hours each morning and evening. They dug a trench that did not follow the route we flagged, but rather meandered some 450 yards across the pasture and up the path from the house to the pasture. That was in June, and nothing has been done since. We have to jump back and forth over the trench to get from the house to the pasture, and grass has grown up to where you can't see the trench in places. My wife and I, and our dogs and livestock, have stumbled into the trench many times; it's a wonder no-one has broken an ankle or a leg by now. While installing the battery in the basement and the control panel on the front of the house (instead of the side where the plans called for it to go) the contractors drilled through the brick wall, making a big hole and knocking loose bricks that they just shoved back in the wall with no mortar. Inside the house, to route the electrical cable they cut completely through a structural component of the foundation. It is possible that the house will have to be jacked up to properly make repairs. After that, we had months of being put off because supposedly this part or that part was backordered. So, the solar panels and electrical cables were never installed. We got an email that there is a lawsuit between the solar company and the battery manufacturer. The solar company says there is a defective component to the battery which causes it to perform poorly and possibly catch fire, while the battery manufacturer blames the solar company for installing their systems incorrectly. We sent the solar company our inspection report on the damage to the house and asked for a plan for them to fix it, but never heard back (surprise!). A couple of weeks ago we got a letter from the court system in North Carolina to inform us that the solar company has declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy, is being dissolved, and their assets are being sold off. Chapter 7 means they are actually being liquidated, unlike Chapter 11 which is reorganization. The bankruptcy was filed on such short notice their own crews were caught unawares in the field and only found out when the company credit cards were declined when they tried to pay for gas or their hotel rooms. At this point I do not know who actually owns the components that were installed. No other solar company in the area uses the battery or other components that are in place. I will file a claim with the bankruptcy court for the repairs to the house but I know I will be at the end of a long list of creditors. So, now we have started to talk to other solar providers to get an idea of our options. Basically, it seems that will mean installing a whole different system without using anything of what is in place. The first new supplier we had out to give us an estimate claims that, even if the system proposed by the initial company had been installed, it would have been too small and it would have delivered significantly less power than we were told it would. The system suggested by the new supplier would generate 12,000 kWh in the first year, so about 2/3 or our energy usage. That system is priced at about $94,000. They make a big deal about the federal tax credit (30%), but that would come as a credit not a refund so it would take a few years to be realized, if Republicans don't cancel it in the meantime. At that price the savings on our electricity bill (over the next 25 years) would be significantly less than the cost of the system. What am I missing here? I also have a suspicion (but certainly don't know for certain) that the federal tax credit is allowing businesses to increase the cost (i.e. profitability) of their systems. Anyway, sorry for the long rant. Besides just venting, I want to let people know that they need to be very careful about who they choose to do business with in this industry. At least I don't have to pay anything on the initial system as it was never completely installed and so the finance company has withdrawn our contract. Apparently (from what has popped up on line) many others are in the position of paying on a system that never worked, or only worked far below expectation, and can't get anyone to service their system, while they still have to pay for electricity from the grid. Also, if anyone has had a system installed recently, or who has insider knowledge of the industry, is $94,000 for a 12,000 kWh/yr household system reasonable in the current market?

I suspect that if it ever got to the point where Trump was not on the front page of all the major news outlets he really would shoot someone on 5th avenue just to get back in the headlines.

But then he would have to give back his magic Trump decoder ring! I'm sure you are aware that investing any time or effort at all in educating yourself automatically makes you an elitist and part of the deep state. The only people who really know the truth are the people who refuse to learn anything factual. The less you know, the smarter you are!

I certainly hope Troll King is a better musician than he is an immunologist or climatologist.

Is she in the hospital? Is she dead? If not the vaccine is working as it was designed.