pirana

So we have 64% who are in touch with reality; and 36% who equate emotional desire with fact. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You are so bad. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

What part of any of the BS pedaled as religion is not a church thing? I'm open to the Roving Philosopher stories and the teaching of the importance of certain character attributes as a means of living in harmony. Most of the rest is BS made up by a politicized organization long after Jesus died. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Not intended to be a factual statement has become the politicians version of the insanity plea. Our politicians (who unfortunately happen to be our figurehead leaders) have become so totally unashamed to bullshit that I don't see how we can be expected to vote for any of them. It's really come down to which lieing piece of shit you distrust the least; or maybe which line of bullshit is your favorite flavor. Are things similar to this outside the USA? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

What would Jesus do? Claim unconditional love for all - then sentence all who did not believe to burn for eternity. Oh wait, that was his dad. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

My income tax rate (gross income/net income taxes paid) put me at 9.8%. Adding in sales tax, fuel tax, property tax, auto, pets, etc puts me just shy of 25% of my gross income paid in taxes. I need more money so I can buy some lawmakers to pass laws in my favor, so I can get more money, so I can buy more lawmakers, . . . " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I got set down pretty hard in just such a situation. I call it reverse gusting. Winds were in the upper teens to lower 20's most of the time, but dropping to single digits occasionally. I landed during one of those moments and got dropped about 8 to 10 feet right on my tailbone. The spread is often more important than the high end. To the original post though - you really should be discussing this at length with the instructors who have watched you. The humorous sayings we have do contain truth, but they are not guidelines and are no substitute for guidance from your S&TA, DZO, and instructors. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

And yet the market is up under Obama, how could that be if he is intent on destroying it? Which market? The NYSE is a very narrow measurement that only matters if someone has significant capital in play. It really is meaningless otherwise. For those looking for work, the employment market sucks - unless the person is willing to relocate to India and work for 20% of their former pay while living in relative squalor with no benefits. This situation has labor in a very nasty spot, but stockholders and owners of big chunks of capital are ecstatic. The market for products and services from small businesses - that sucks too. But the market for investing overseas, moving production and jobs that way, and playing shell games with profits and taxes - that market is doing just great. Imagine that. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Corruption in the USA is actually a minor factor compared with abuse of the system. Most of the unethical behavior of our business and political leadership is within the law. The real problem is that a positive feedback loop has been established in which money buys influence, which is used to create a horribly biased system, which gets them more money, which buys more influence, which gets them more money, . . . . So, IMO, it's not that so many more laws are broken, it's that the system for creation and interpretation of those laws has been hijacked. It's not a behind-closed-doors conspiracy - it's right out in the open for all to see. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Don't know enough about the money part to know who's bullshitting who on this one, but it does occur to me that it was a mistake to give control of non-renewable resources to private companies. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Point of clarification; the very long recovery I forecast is for those whose primary resource is their labor. Capital was only nicked and is already recovered. Imagine that. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Fairly good high level summation. We need more private spending & investment, less government spending, and less waste all around. How that is accomplished is where all the nasty politics kicks in. The wild card that really upset the applecart is how poorly positioned we were to compete in a labor market gone global. It is why, despite every candidates refusal to admit it, the level of recovery we can expect to achieve will be measured in decades - not years. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Understood. That is why they are risk factors and not a guarantee of results. I came out the other end with only one strike. The resilience of kids is amazing; and is probably why being at risk only raises the odds of ending up on an unhealthy path from 2 or 3 percent to 10 or 20 percent. (Numbers used for demonstration purposes only - I can't remember the exact figures). So yes, the bulk of kids make it to the other side just fine, but the dice are loaded in a bad way for kids from single family homes. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I agree that parents are a big factor, possibly the biggest. But there will always be variation in parents too. To expect they will be homogenous, or even that we'd want them to be is unrealistic. That being said, there does need to be a certain minimal contribution - and I'm not sure what to do about parents that don't execute. But there is a much better way to address the challenges caused by all the variations, which focuses on the kid's needs - because that is really what matters to society as a whole. (Better and more efffective anyway than trying to punish parent's directly or their kids in the long term0. Stop trying to fit every child into the same mold. I'm sure many educators will scream about that accusation; but at the most fundamental level, that being how they are grouped - kids are slotted into classrooms like pigeons in a coop. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

There are some appalling stats on that somewhere. The probabilities for a whole bunch of nasty things go way way up for kids from single parent homes. And most of them are not just a little more likely, say 20 or 30%, but more in the neighborhood of 5 to 10 times more likely. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I am appalled at how much time and effort are spent on social training issues. They do not hide it either, they just come right out and announce their socialization ciriculum. I mean, the topics are good ones; I just wish they'd leave that to me and spend more of their time on academics. It would be a very sad statement if it were true that a significant chunk of kids need to get this from school because they do not get it from their parents. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Absolutely - and sorry if my comment about those with money having options others do not came off as whining. As for the reasons for disparity - a point I was trying to make in a couple of posts is that whatever reasons (excuses) are given; there seem to be way too many exceptions for it to hold water. If smart kids from poor families were a rarity - then I'd agree it's money the family has - but that is not the case. If smart kids from big classrooms were a rarity - then I'd agree classroom size was the problem - but that is not the case. And so on and so forth. So with high achievers and low acheivers both coming from a wide variety of backgrounds - what is the cause of variation? Is that what the article was asking? That we should investigate and identify the causes in variation? On the other hand, is a homogenous education and the resulting consequences what we want? Is the goal to make sure every kid has a shot at their full potential, or to make sure nobody ends up smarter than anybody else? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

IMO, this is a dilemma in any attempt to educate lots of people via a large bureacracy. Even in a random selection of only a dozen kids, the disparities in learning ability (and therefore potential) are going to be quite wide - in 20 or 30 it becomes very difficult to ensure every kid gets what they need. The kids at the high end are horribly underserved; the kids at the bottom end are left behind. I have no idea how to resolve that in a cost effective manner. (Those not concerned with cost have unlimited private options). In a perfect world teaching would be based on what each kid needs and where they are at on the learning curve - not based on something as arbitrary as age. From my business experience, the term mass customization comes to mind. Sounds like an oxymoron, but as applied, it's not. It would require certain levels of achievement to keep moving thru a 12 or 16 year ciriculum, but not tie kids arbitrarily to a homogenous timeline. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Access to a good education has a lot to do with it too. There is a huge amount of data showing that education correlates with success. Yet we continue to deprive whole segments of our society from a decent education. You can thank teachers unions and the Dept of Education in Washington for that On the other hand, many deprive themselves of an education due to an attitude that can be directly linked to the points made by Scooby and Wendy And yet, despite the criticisms regarding access and the quality of education - we still manage to crank out a good number of academically very successful students. To me that indicates that criticisms of access and the quality of teaching can not be fully to blame; and may only be minor factors. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Access to a good education has a lot to do with it too. There is a huge amount of data showing that education correlates with success. Yet we continue to deprive whole segments of our society from a decent education. Agreed that access could be better; however, a lot of people don't even take advantage of what is available. (Which is why I am so against privatizing education or making it any less compulsory than it already is - too many ignorant parents would opt their kids out, or allow them to opt out themselves). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I was wondering why they were being so gentle with the bolt. you're a funny guy Didn't mean to be funny. I've just never seen a bolt handled so gingerly. I'm not very knowledgeable about guns, but I'm not sure I'd want to fire something that would blow up in my face if I didn't do it oh so carefully. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So, there are differences in achievement between groups of people. Are you looking for the reasons for that? Are you looking for some government or other entity to put a stop to it? Do you want people to be angry about that? I really could not tell what the point of the article was. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Could you imagine getting scope eye with that! I did notice that the scope was small and a long way away from the eye But you are right Scope eye with that thing would really suck the locking bolt on that thing seems a little thin for the kick we see - I wouldn't want to chance it shearing without knowing more about its design I was wondering why they were being so gentle with the bolt. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So what is the intended purpose of that monster? Are there combat situations for which it was designed? Are they avalaible/legal for the general public to buy? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Curious as to how they positioned that fact. Did they really use the fact that the man speaks French as some sort of negative factor, like it was a reason not to vote for him? If so, that says a lot about the creators of the ad and how they perceive their own supporters; and possibly about the people who would vote for Newt (if they are influenced by such tripe). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley