“This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “They both stand for the same concept: openness, expression and an absence of gatekeepers telling them what they can do where they can go and what they can think.”
George Orwell, your novel is calling.
But the politically divisive decision is sure to inspire a lawsuit.
It's Walky is an early '00s webcomic that is currently being reposted a day at a time with higher resolution and on a non-shitty/broken website.
Today's particular repost really took me back to those days...
February 2015. M, T, W, T, F, S, S. « Jan · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Storyline chapters. Select Story, Roomies! (2), College Ho! (12), Moving In (6), Psy-cute-ic (21), Alien Abductions (10) ...
A bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline was the first order of business for the Republican-led Congress this year, and today that bill was vetoed by President Obama. Gwen Ifill gets two views from Jeremy Symons of the Environmental Defense Fund and Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute.
Turns out Brad Marchand isn't the only pest on the Boston Bruins' roster.A new species of wasp found in East Africa has been named after goaltender Tuukka Rask, Carolyn Y. Johnson of The Boston Globe reports:Rask’s insect namesake, Thaumatodryinus tuukkaraski, was discovered in the Teita Hills of Kenya by a team of entomologists that happened to include an admiring Boston sports fan who has closely followed his home teams despite moving to Africa...
The mild-mannered Cambridge Classics professor Mary Beard has described how she was left “wanting to cry” after being bombarded by aggressive trolls on twitter for two full days – merely for signing a letter in support of free speech. As we reported earlier
I've been saying this for years: the best way to prevent terrorism is economic opportunity. People in the Middle East who have good jobs, or their own businesses, are going to be much less likely to go off to kill other people, throwing their lives away. I've been saying it since shortly after 9/11.
I don't say this often, but State Department spokesperson is right, and the conservatives criticizing her are mostly wrong.
That doesn't mean they critics have no point: it's true that some people will engage in violent jihad regardless of economic opportunity. But far, far fewer of them will.
Simply put: a strong economy is one of the best predictors of peace.
We've seen this time and again. After WWI, Germany had a terrible economy, which directly led to WWII. Then we helped fix their economy, and since then, we've seen peace in Western Europe. Same thing with Japan. Almost all of the wars we've seen are in poor, desperate places. And who thinks China will start a war with the U.S., when it has so much to lose?
And speaking of China -- yes, I am going here -- someone else who agrees with Harf and I is the beloved Alex Chiu, who invented immortality. He noted that China couldn't support itself economically once it grew to a certain size, and we need a way of making sure its economic needs can be met. He wrote:
"Teleportation must be invented. If we don't invent teleportation, China will throw nuclear bomb everywhere. Especially now everyone can live forever." http://www.alexchiu.com/spacestation/teleport.htm
The State Department spox phrased it badly (“root causes”), but there’s something to consider here; if we don’t, the war will be endless.
If you are hampered by microaggression and other things that other people say that bother you ... realize the fact that this is your problem. This is a big world with billions of people in it, highly interconnected, and most of the people disagree with you about most things, and virtually all of them are not in any way under any obligation to not say things that bother you.
So even if you think they are wrong and should stop ... it's not going to happen. So deal with it. Grow up and realize the world is not ever going to be what you want it to be, unless what you want is actual diversity and pluralism.
And if you need help, let me know: I can help innoculate you, by saying lots of things to bother you.
That's what we really need: herd immunity from views that bother us. A vaccine, in the form of videos of white males saying offensive things. And if someone gets bothered by "microaggression," you can just reply to them, "sounds like somebody needs a booster!"
You can't say what is and isn't "true Islam" unless you're expressing your opinion as a Muslim. There's no objectively true Islam that us non-Muslims can claim to know. It's about belief and interpretation, and to non-believers there's literally no such thing as true Islam. Islam is only, to us, what Muslims say it is.
Therefore, when President Obama claims ISIS doesn't represent true Islam, he's admitting he's a Muslim.
What a bizarre headline. This article from last summer asks, "Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The New Jenny McCarthy?," because he may be publishing a new book about a link between autism and vaccines.
But RFK Jr. has been pushing the idea of this link for a decade now. He -- due to his public prominence -- is, in my view, more culpable for the misinformation about the dangers of vaccines than McCarthy is. He got a lot of people to listen to and believe in these false ideas. Only later did McCarthy come along, building off of the foundation RFK Jr. had laid.
This article mention the fact that RFK Jr. wrote that 2005 article, published in Salon and Rolling Stone, which Salon only retracted many years later, in 2011. And Salon and Rolling Stone are more culpable than McCarthy, too. (Rolling Stone also published the RFK Jr. article that claimed -- based almost entirely on easily proven lies -- that Bush and the Republicans stole Ohio from John Kerry in 2004.)
McCarthy, having no public respect on intellectual or policy matters and not strongly associated with the left, is an easier target. But she's not the most correct one.
RFK Jr., the lawyer and environmental activist, has joined the anti-vaccination movement with a "dangerous" crusade linking vaccines and autism.
I wrote this song for Valentine's Day.
The song title was a battle between me and the producer. He wanted to call it "Love Song" and I kept telling him it's not a love song, man. That's the flipping point. But he insisted and the label demanded it's called "Love Song," but I got him to put the rest in parentheses as a compromise.
I wrote this song for Valentine's Day. The song title was a battle between me and the producer. He wanted to call it "Love Song" and I kept telling him it's ...
Voting results and ballot return numbers for the February 10, 2015 Special Election. Unofficial Results. Next update: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:00 PM. Number of ballots issued: 18915. Number of ballots counted to date: 5646 -- Approximately 29.85% voter turnout ...
Howard Dean, in questioning how well-educated Scott Walker is, due to the fact that Walker has no college degree, displays his own lack of education.
I especially love this: "I worry about people not knowing much about the world and not knowing much about science." That is, of course, highly ignorant. The world's gotten by just fine with people, including presidents, not knowing much about science. But worse, Walker gave no reason for anyone to think he doesn't know much about science.
And if you think, as many do, that the answer to "do you believe in evolution?" is easy to answer yes or no, and that the only reason to answer No is if you're ignorant or pandering ... you are ignorant.
In fact, it is not reasonable to answer that question with a yes or no. "Evolution," even in this context, can mean a half dozen different things. Micro? Macro? As the process by which all life exists, or merely some? Does it exclude the possibility of God's design? What does the questioner mean?
The only reason I can see to answer yes or no is out of ignorance, or to pander to one group or another. And calling someone out as not well-educated because he answered the question as an intellectual person would ...
Well, no one ever confused Dean with an honest, rational, person.
Dear Internet: if you're going to say vaccination should be mandatory, you must say which vaccinations, and in what context. If you say required vaccinations on the recommended schedule, in order to go to public school, for diseases easily spread through casual contact, that's one thing. But HPV vaccines for public school is another thing, as is mandating measles vaccine for kids who don't go to public school.
Good. Gronk probably thinks his haymakers were worth the price -- on the principle of, "I won't start the fight, but I'll finish it!" -- and he's probably right. But he still deserves a fine, as do Bennett and Hoomanawanui (which I spelled without looking!). And obviously Irvin deserves a bigger fine, having started it.
Baldwin deserved a bigger fine than he got, though. Really, man? You pretend to drop a load on the field in the Super Bowl?
Seattle Seahawks linebacker Bruce Irvin was fined $10,000 for sparking a scuffle at the end of Super Bowl XLIX, one of four players involved in the melee who were fined by the league.
An extra-sized special issue of the world's greatest hero brings in the New Year with a new costume, new powers and new friends and enemies! The epic team of Geoff Johns, John Romita Jr. and Klaus Janson conclude their first arc with twist after twist that will send Superman onto a new path and force Clark Kent to making a shocking decision! Plus: John Romita Jr. draws Batman!
I posted something on the idea of "privilege" recently, and more recently I've seen others pushing the idea, and it struck me: claiming someone has "privilege" is mostly used as the ultimate argumentum ad hominem, and ultimately, it's sexist/racist/etc.ist. It judges views based on who is saying it, and not what is being said.
King Abdullah II bin al-Hussein (Arabic: عبدالله الثاني بن الحسين) (born 30 January 1962; age 53) is the king of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. An acknowledged fan of Star Trek, King Abdullah (then a prince) appeared as an uncredited extra in the 1996 Star Trek: Voyager episode "Investigations". Voyager executive producer Jeri Taylor commented, "Take away the title and the trappings, and at the core you have a Star Trek fan." (Star Trek Monthly...
Sajida al-Rishawi, an Iraqi militant whose release had been demanded by Islamic State, was hanged according to reports
Amen! Every time I hear this commercial, I think ... none of this would have ever happened if they had started off a Patriots family.
My Inner Southie Monologue: "We started out as a Patriots family. Until my retahded son Brendan met Sarah from Philly, got married, moved to Cincy, and for some ungodly reason decided to like the fricking Bengals. Then my clueless daughter Julie met Emmitt Smith and started liking the Cowboys even though he hasn't played for them since before she was born. For all I know, maybe he's her real father. And after years of eating Roethlis-Burgers, my apparently adopted son Dan became a Steelers fan, proving that mad cow disease has reached the Mid-Atlantic Region. And that’s how my Patriots family became a much smaller family, and I realized that I was just a terrible father all along."
Drew Magary's Thursday Afternoon NFL Dick Joke Jamboroo runs every Thursday during the NFL season. Email Drew here.
This may be no consolation to Seahawks fans, but don't fret over the play call. Despite how it feels, Lynch was not automatic.
Before the interception, my mind slipped back to 2003, in Indianapolis. The Colts were down 38-34 with 40 seconds left with first-and-goal on the Patriots' 2-yard line. And they have a six-foot, 215-pound, bruising, almost unstoppable, running back with flowing dreadlocks and approximately 1300 yards and 12 TDs on the season.
Sound a bit familiar?
The Patriots stopped the Colts and Edgerrin James on four straight rushes. First down: James for 1 yard. Second down: James for no gain. Third down: Manning to Moorehead, incomplete. Fourth down: Willie McGinest takes down James behind the line of scrimmage to give the Patriots the win.
Maybe the Colts would've won if they ran the ball on third down, too. Or maybe not.
Nothing is certain until the end of the game. You can feel like Lynch would've scored, but you don't know it, and I've seen it before go the other way.
Willie McGinest's last play highlighted two significant defensive stands by the Pats in the final quarter.
From SNL last night, a Richard Sherman impersonation: "Now I'd like to begin this show the way I always do: by verbally assaulting someone who's already lost."
Exactly. Seattle fans: the rest of the country knows that there is a difference between smack-talking during a game, and rubbing somebody's nose in a loss. When Sherman does this, he is a jerk. And by supporting him when he does this, by wearing "You Mad Bro?" t-shirts, you are jerks, too.
Just keeping it real. And I feel the need to get this out now, because if I say it tomorrow, I'm just as bad as Sherman is. :-)
Wow. From the article: _"Politically correct" is a term we use to dismiss ideas that make us uncomfortable"_
That's completely backward. The author, Amanda Taub, gives an example of what she means:
I, personally, think that the name of the Washington Redskins is racist and hurtful to Native Americans, and should be changed. So if someone asks me what I think of the debate about the team, that's what I say. By contrast, Virginia legislator Del Jackson Miller likes the name and wants the team to keep it. But rather than making an argument on the merits of the name, he referred to the entire debate as "political correctness on overdrive." In other words, he's saying, this is a false debate — just another example of "political correctness" — so I don't have to even acknowledge concerns about racism.
That sounds reasonable on its face, but the problem is that when I ask people when the term "Redskins" has ever been used, in the last decade or two, in a racist manner ... they cannot come up with a single example. I've searched for someone against the word "Redskins" to come up with one, and they never do.
Calling the term "racist," with no apparently felt need to back it up, and a refusal to even try ... that is what's used to shut people up. By using the word "racist," she doesn't have to even acknowledge the complete lack of evidence for her position, because, well, you know ... racism!
She even goes on to brush off complaints that the criticism of the Redskins name is "fake." There's only one reasonable way to address that complaint: provide some evidence that the word is actually used, in modern America, in a racist manner. If you do that, then you show that the concern isn't fake. If you can't, and you just keep saying "racist and hurtful! racist and hurtful!," then you are the one shutting down debate.
She says, That's a failure of communication and, arguably, of basic respect.
Yes, it is. She should stop doing that.
I especially love this comment from Taub: Likewise, Chait clearly believes that "microaggressions" aren't important enough to merit his concern, and that "trigger warnings" are a foolish request made by over-sensitive people. But he doesn't spend much time considering why the people who demand them might think they do matter.
I can't speak for Chait, but I know why they think they matter: because it's a way for them to get people to shut up. Again, Taub just has things completely backward here.
Frankly, it seems like she is doing this intentionally. She has to know that the main criticism of political correctness is that it shuts down debate, so either she is just trying to confuse the issue to make it seem like her side is rational by levying the same criticism in the other direction even though it makes no sense to do so, or she is just engaging in satire. The latter seems unlikely.
It's just a term we use to dismiss ideas that make us uncomfortable.
Bruins goalie Malcolm Subban, brother of PK, showing love for the Patriots during tonight's game against LA. #DoYourJob
Ten days ago, we had stories about depressed Super Bowl ticket prices: "The New England Patriots have been to the Super Bowl five times in the past 14 years. So, some fans may not see the novelty any more."
But since "deflategate," we now have record high prices.
Some people have been pejoratively likening "deflategate" to "Watergate." If that comparison is apt ... follow the money, people.
Fans who hoped to get a cheap Super Bowl ticket are running out of time, as Super Bowl XLIX might go down as the most expensive ticket in the game's history.
Playing #SuperBowlXLIX. The Patriots destroyed the Seahawks 35-0. Marshawn Lynch ineffective. Passing game not enough. Lots of pressure on Wilson, including a couple of sacks, though he did break a few tackles, and had a scramble for a first down. Brady and the short passing game completely dominated.
Watching #SuperBowlXLVI. Another disappointment. The Patriots had defeated every team that season that had previously beat them in the playoffs, except for Indianapolis, where the game was held, and the NY Giants. The beloved wife of their beloved owner had recently died, they were settling all scores, and they were a team on a mission.
But redemption was not to be. Another close game with squandered opportunities.
Watching #SuperBowlXLII. Most disappointing Super Bowl ever. But I knew despite the undefeated season, the Patriots could be beaten. The Giants had almost done it a month earlier, and I knew it would be close, even if most other people bought into the destiny nonsense.
The Pats were one ridiculous play away from winning, but the best team won, as they always do.
Watching #SuperBowlXL. You know, the one where the better team lost, for the first time in the history of sports. ;) Not that I was rooting for the Steelers, but my goodness, the whining ...
Watching #SuperBowlXXXIX. Patriots beat the Eagles in Jacksonville. The game does not end on a field goal.
Watching #SuperBowlXXXVIII. First Patriots Super Bowl not in New Orleans (it was just down the coast in Houston). Not even Ricky Proehl could stop us winning our second Super Bowl title.
Watching #SuperBowlXXVI. Third time's a charm for the Patriots in New Orleans. The first of three wins in four years, each by three points.
Watching #SuperBowlXXI. The Pats could've won that game if not for Desmond Howard. The Pats' second straight Super Bowl loss in New Orleans.
The Patriots stopped Walter Payton in #SuperBowlXX. Stopping Marshawn Lynch on Sunday won't be enough.
Watching #SuperBowlXX. Still painful. Bears much more obnoxious than Seahawks.
I love Tom Petty. I love "I Won't Back Down." I've listened to the song hundreds, maybe thousands, of times, I know every chord in it, and I've even performed it (on guitar and vocals) on multiple occasions (not including playing it several times in Rock Band). And I've written dozens of songs myself, each with varying levels of originality.
I've heard this Sam Smith song a few times previously, and it did not invoke in me any thoughts of the Petty tune, even as a big fan of the song and a songwriter myself. Yes, upon listening to it after the claim of copying, I hear obvious similarities in the chord progressions and melodies. But when Smith's people say it was coincidental, I find that to be perfectly believable.
It's a very simple and fairly obvious chord progression. The verse in Petty's goes vi/V/I four or five times, with the third time using IV instead of I. Sam's does it four times, with no variation on the third measure. And Sam's chorus is basically just the verse, whereas Tom's chorus uses a very different progression until the end, where it goes back to vi/V/I. The melody of the chorus is very similar, but not nearly similar enough for me to think it was copied.
I've heard so many songs in my life that sound similar -- I mean, come on, we're talking about Western pop music that uses four measures with three major chords and three matching minor chords, you can only vary it so much -- that this sounds just like a normal song.
So I find the claim of coincidence to be believable. What is not believable to me is their claim that Smith was not familiar with "I Won't Back Down." How is that even possible? Hasn't everyone in the English-speaking world heard this song many times in their life?
High-voiced British crooner Sam Smith has agreed to pay royalties to Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne for Smith’s hit single “Stay With Me.” First released back in April, the third single off of Smith’s album In The Lonely Hour reached No. 2 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart. However, the song does bear m
Just a quick update for those not following along: the Patriots report that their normal, legal, pregame prep of the football can temporarily modify the ball (probably due to increased heat) enough that when the balls are tested afterward, they can be up to 1.5 PSI higher than they will be later.
That number fits perfectly with the anonymous reports that the balls were 2 PSI under regulation (13 PSI). They allow +/- 0.5 PSI, down to 12.5 PSI, and a ball that loses 1.5 PSI after measurement would be down to 11 PSI, which is 2 PSI under 13 PSI.
Them's the facts. In fact, if what Belichick says about this is true, you would expect the balls to later be at 11 PSI, without any illegal manipulation.
It's the league's turn to rebut this, or agree with it, or ignore it. But at this point, there's no evidence of wrongdoing, because the only "evidence" (both actual, and anonymously sourced) has been explained away.
I wrote this song this week.
night's silence was broken
the levee was breached
they said you were coming
but you fell asleep
and i was just waiting
while you turned my world sideways and upside down
i started looking
i headed downtown
i told myself
you don't wanna be found
and i was just searching
looking all over and upside down
tired as ever
caught off guard
body is aching
working so hard
and i was just sleeping
but just for a minute, and upside down
one more night
one more place
one more push
one new face
and you were just leaving
you came round the corner and upside down
I wrote this song this week. night's silence was broken the levee was breached they said you were coming but you fell asleep and i was just waiting while you...
Shannon Watts is the face of a Bloomberg funded anti-gun group Moms Demand Action.
Man arrested for tackling man with gun at Walmart. Because America. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/27896784/man-spots-gun-then-tackles-concealed-carry-license-holder … #gunsense
(incase she becomes embarrassed at her ignorance and deletes it, the above is copy and pasted from her tweet.
Shannon supports assaulting gun owners because they happen to exercise their second amendment right. Seems to me that one side of the debate is off the rails. Perhaps they are projecting their inability to control themselves on safe and legal gun owners.
Deputies arrested a man who spotted someone with a gun, followed him into a Walmart, and tackled him. The problem? The man with the gun had a concealed weapons permit and was carrying legally.
Everyone knows you can't be that good without cheating. Except for the Yankees. And MJ. And the Spurs....and Kobe...and Joe Montana....and the Montreal Canadiens. And Michael Phelps.
These teenaged humans are so dumb in so many ways. They think a court has the lawful power to override an executive's lawful decisions or a legislature's lawful acts; they think that even if the court could do this, that they would have the facts to back it up; they think that there's only one side to the story; they think that their voice is worth more than the voices of those that disagree with them, especially when the policies they want the court to enforce would cause massive harm to many other people; and so on.
Worst of all, they simply do not understand the role of science in government. Even if we knew that the climate was continuing to warm (and we certainly do not) or knew what the effects would be (and we know that even less), policymaking in a republican-democratic society must be done according to the will of the people, as long as the rights of individuals are not harmed.
Science can only inform decisions, not make them for us. This is a lesson all humans who wish to engage in public discourse, even the young ones, need to understand: you can't simply say "I believe I am right, and I believe the facts prove I am right, so therefore everyone has to do what I say." That's not how this works.
For politicians who fail to act on climate change, Kelsey Juliana has a few words. "I want to remind them that we are their employer," said Juliana, 18, a native of Eugene, Oregon, and freshman at Warren Wilson College in North Carolina...
I remember the last time the Patriots were accused of violating the rules, based on anonymous sources, on the eve of a Super Bowl. It turned out that the story -- that the Patriots recorded video of a Rams practice -- was totally false (though lots of people still seem to believe it).
Forgive me for not believing in, or caring about, a similar unsubstantiated story now. We do know there's an allegation that a ball was deflated to some extent, and the NFL is investigating it. That's basically all we know. We do not know if it is true, and we do not know how it happened if it is true. And until we do know, I have no reason to care.
In case I wasn't clear in my last post: since the Great Depression, no President except for Ronald Reagan was followed by a President of his own party (except by death or resignation: FDR, JFK, and Nixon).
The reasons are obvious: people get tired of the party in power. That's why Presidents, if they stay in office long enough -- Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama -- have a Congress run by the opposing party. And when it comes time to replace the President, it's hard to get the people to pick a President of the same party.
Reagan was popular enough (above 50% through 1988) that Bush was able to pull it off. But Obama is significantly more unpopular.
The safe bet really is that the Republicans will win the presidential election, regardless of who the candidates are. Of course, exceptionally good or bad candidates could throw this off, as could a drastic increase in Obama's popularity 18 months from now, so I'm not making a prediction here. I'm just saying what's most likely.
No Democratic President has been followed by an elected Democratic President since almost before there was a Republican Party, when Franklin Pierce handed off the reins to James Buchanan in 1857. The only other Democrats to follow Democrats since then (Truman and Johnson) did so as Vice President when the President (Roosevelt and Kennedy) died in office.
I see much of what President Obama is doing, such as pretend that he is trying to institute a tax on big financial institutions, which he knows will never pass, as trying to be the first modern Democratic President to help hold the office for his party. He is going to continue to demonize the GOP in preparation for the 2016 elections. It'll be ugly, unfortunately.
(For reference, before Pierce, it happened once, from Jackson to Van Buren. For Republicans, it's been Grant to Hayes, Hayes to Garfield, Roosevelt to Taft, Coolidge to Hoover, and Reagan to Bush. There was also a string of three Democratic-Republican handoffs: Jefferson to Madison to Monroe to Adams.)
"My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders r worse. But if you're on the roof of your home defending it from invaders who've come 7K miles, you are not a sniper, u are brave, u are a neighbor." -- Michael Moore
So ... it's not easy, but I am trying to make sense of this. Michael Moore is saying his uncle was worse than a coward because he invaded another country in World War II, where he was killed by a sniper. Moore apparently knows that this was a sniper, not someone defending his home, even though he killed Moore's worse-than-cowardly uncle, who was invading the sniper's home.
And somehow Kyle, who put himself in harm's way for his country, repeatedly, oftentimes being on the ground and being shot twice and involved in six IED blasts (that is, he wasn't always sniping), even after he left the service (helping other vets), even to his own death ... was a coward, according to Moore.
I am going to admit failure in my attempt to make sense of Michael Moore.
Filmmaker Michael Moore took to Twitter with his views on snipers as "American Sniper" hit theaters nationwide.
Perl v5.18 allows you to define named subroutines that exist only in the current lexical scope. These act (almost) just like the regular named subroutines that you already know about from Learning Perl, but also like the lexical variables that have limited effect. The problem is that the feature ...
Now think about that teacher being told repeatedly that it was their choice to be paid so pitifully low. They did it to themselves. If they don't like the wage they should quit.
It is their choice to take a job with that pay. It is not their choice to be paid a certain amount, per se -- if it were all their choice, they'd be paid more, usually -- but they choose to accept that level of pay. They did, absolutely, "do it to themselves." And if the pay is not worth it to them, then yes, absolutely, they should quit. There is no question about that.
The very fact that they do not quit means one, simple, necessarily true, thing: that the combined benefits of the job -- the wages, health benefits, whatever good will, etc. they get for doing the job -- is enough compensation to get them to do the job. If it was not, then they would quit.
I wouldn't tell them that "repeatedly," but if the subject came up, I would be honest with them and tell them these true facts.
Now imagine they heeded that advice prior to you taking their course. Imagine you instead received instruction from someone who cared so little about the students, and did the bare minimum to receive a paycheck and keep from being fired.
If that happened -- all good teachers held out for higher pay, so the only teachers left were the terrible ones -- then teacher pay would increase. The biggest reason teacher pay does not increase is because we believe we don't need to increase pay to keep good teachers.
So in a very real and necessarily true sense, yes, teachers keep their own wages low by not holding out for better wages.
Wouldn't you do anything you could to keep the inspiring teacher in the classroom?
Absolutely not. Would I pay them a million dollars? Ten million? One billion? Of course not.
But the fact is that, for now, we don't need to do more to keep that teacher in the classroom. They are in the classroom now, and as best I can tell, they aren't leaving.
Rather than shunning Cosby, as Peggy Drexler says -- despite the fact that he might be completely innocent -- we should shun people like Drexler, who demand that we punish people for merely being accused of a crime. I have literally zero evidence before me that Cosby did anything wrong, and therefore I have literally zero reason to shun him.
She says we should hold him accountable. She doesn't say for what. She is assuming he is guilty ... or simply wanting to hold him "accountable" regardless of whether he's guilty. If Cosby is innocent, isn't that ... well, blaming the victim?
And her assertion that if we don't shun Cosby we will enable future rape ... she goes from being a jerk to a dishonest and terrible person.
When is the time to for a women to defend an alleged serial rapist? Never.
In 2008, when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing, we heard a lot of the usual hooey (courtesy of that eugenicist crackpot Oliver Wendell Holmes) that there was no right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. On the very last
Mark Steyn makes an excellent point on The Kelly File tonight ... Charlie Hebdo was one of only a handful of publications to print the Danish Mohammed cartoons a decade ago, so it's odd that now everyone is claiming "Je Suis Charlie."
That is, maybe if all these people actually were Charlie, then Charlie's staff wouldn't have been singled out for assassination.
When opinion content sparks death threats, every news publication that cares about freedom should publish that content. If you don't stand up to terrorists and yell "Non!," then vous n'êtes pas Charlie.
If the cops in Paris had heavier weaponry, they might've saved some lives, or captured/killed some terrorists.
I am not saying the Paris police should've done things differently. I don't know what the answer is, and maybe the answer is "no automatic weapons for cops." I do not know. I am saying only that this event should factor into discussions about "militarization of police."
Stop saying "misnomer" to mean "misunderstanding." "Misnomer" means "misnamed." I've heard this repeatedly in recent days, including from prominent (and supposedly well-educated) politicians and journalists, saying things like "the biggest misnomer about North Korea is that it has no technological capabilities. ..."
That isn't a misnomer! A misnomer would if North Korea were south of South Korea.
You can say the Affordable Care Act is a misnomer, because it is not affordable, and does not do anything about health care. But you can't say that a "misnomer about the ACA is that it has death panels." That's a "misunderstanding," not a "misnomer."
You're hurting my brain. Stop it.
This is necessary for me to be able to use "foo.bar" in Mac OS X, and have it resolve to "foo.bar.example.com".
Add "--AlwaysAppendSearchDomains" to the ProgramArgments to discoveryd in the file "/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.discoveryd.plist". Then "sudo launchctl unload" that file, and "sudo launchctl load" that file. Bob's you're uncle!
This is a direct follow-on to this question. Before Yosemite, I'd add the "-AlwaysAppendSearchDomains" argument to the mDNSResponder plist file so that all local resolver lookups added the search
It's a New Year. Again.
"Privilege" is special treatment someone gets because of an elevated status. "Privilege" is not normal, default, and expected treatment, even in the face of others being mistreated.
If I am judged well because I am "white" and male, that could be called privilege. But that generally doesn't happen. What actually happens -- sometimes -- is that people are mistreated because of their gender or race. There is no privilege conferred in such a situation.
For people to say that I am privileged because I am not mistreated not only misuses the plain meaning of the word "privilege," muddying the language, but it has the negative effect of implying that the treatment I get as "privileged" isn't the normal and expected treatment that everyone should get. It implies I am getting treatment I don't deserve, just because someone else is not getting treatment they do deserve.
And I think this is intentional. The people who started using the term, I think, want me to feel guilty for being treated properly. I don't, and I won't. I will not feel guilty because someone mistreats someone else ... unless I was able to do something about it, and didn't.
So I will continue to speak out against jerks who mistreat others, and I will continue to point out the fact that those jerks mistreating others doesn't magically make me privileged, and I will continue to feel no guilt or shame about any of it.
The sad thing about all of this is that most of us are on the same side: we are against jerks mistreating others (whether it's unwanted crude comments, criminal harassment or assault, or anything in between). Not that we're in agreement about everything: for example, some people want to end sexism in video games, whereas many people think it's just fine because that's what many people want, and it's not meant to be taken seriously. But the main problem is the jerks, and we're largely in agreement about them.
But some folks try to turn the jerks' behavior into some sort of larger cause wrapped in psuedoscience and generalizations in order to alienate people in order to try to win an argument using emotion, rather than simply going after the jerks. And I don't want to only blame the one side: the folks who are generally on "my" side often respond with unreasonable and unnecessary derision and dismissal, which not only pushes the sides further away, but also can have the effect of enabling the jerks.
So to both sides: stop treating everyone who doesn't agree with you about how to characterize the problem as the enemy, instead of treating the people who are actually causing the problems as the enemy.
(Oh, and stop pretending that I am privileged for not being mistreated.)