I don't know if we can nail it down to any one factor. I think that there were many small factors that have slowly torn away at the values of personal responsibility, accountability, and others.
We can certainly invest in kids, but there has to be an expectation that they put in the effort as well and the idea that just because they put in the effort does not mean they will be as successful as another doing something similar. We have to instill the idea that they have a general responsibility to themselves, their family, and their community. We used to have a semblance of this but over the last 80+ this really seems to have gone out the window.
I certainly agree that there was a serious amount of parental and school figure failure here, but a school and a parent can only motivate and encourage. A student has to take responsibility for themselves and do the work, too.
Yeah, this never would have flown at my high school. My school's secretary personally called my parents the first time I ever missed a class with an unexcused absence, and that was a single class, not a full day. At the very least, after the first few unanswered automated phone call, a human follow-up should have been made.
And it completely distorts the fact that this was failure on so many levels. This was the student's failure to not apply themselves, the parents failure to not be involved and monitoring the results of their child's education, and the school's failure for not applying and properly maintaining the standards they should be and advancing students improperly.
Yeah, considering how long it has taken the US to adopt PayWave tech that Canada and Europe have been using for almost a decade now, this doesn't really surprise me.
That's an incredibly narrow definition of metabolic support. Providing food for children is also a form of metabolic support and it is certainly not acceptable to just stop feeding your children. That also discards the idea that there is another life in the balance here that has committed no crime that would be considered on the level of forfeiture of life and thus has as much right to life as the mother does.
I agree. There are two sides of the "It makes sense to wear a mask" argument. There is the side that says that if COVID particles are partially encased in droplets and the masks help stop the droplets than surely masks will have a positive effect in helping slow the spread of COVID. There is also the side that says what you have: If you are going to partially obstruct your method of breathing, especially for extended periods of time, you should expect some negative consequences.
Why is it just metabolic support that is the qualifier here? A child is still very dependent on caregivers for years after exiting the birth canal, and in many cases a child remains dependent on the mother's metabolic processes when thy receive breastmilk. Why is it acceptable to kill the child before exiting the birth canal but not after?
A baby outside the womb can't survive without support either. Why is it OK to kill the child in the womb but not outside the womb based on that position?
1) When did we start thinking that life doesn't begin at conception? Why is OK for a mother to end a life? By just about every definition that child growing inside of her is a unique life. Sure, it's dependent on mom for a while, but being dependent on a parent doesn't stop when the baby exits the birth canal. So why is it OK to kill the child in the birth canal but not outside of it?
2) What greater equalizer is there in a self-defense situation than a firearm? If you are an average woman being attacked by an average man, what out there is a greater equalizer and application of stopping force than a firearm? If you are a man being attacked by a stronger man what is a greater equalizer than a firearm? The US has in excess of 300 million firearms, an estimated 800,000 to 3,000,000 instances of defensive use of firearms a year. Each of those numbers is massive in comparison to the miniscule number of gun homicides (approx 14k) or even gun related suicides (30k) per year according to the last study the CDC did on guns. Maybe it's not the guns that are the problem. Maybe it's a very select set of people who use the guns that are the problem?
3) In the US, to do anything of larger consequence (buy/lease/rent a vehicle, purchase a house, rent an apartment, purchase alcohol, enter certain buildings, travel by plane, buy a firearm, in some cases file taxes) you need an ID. Why is so ludicrous to suggest that voting be something that unilaterally requires an ID? Over 3/4's of the nation's minorities support voter ID.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-supp...
It's starting to look like I will need a vax pass just to go to a restaurant. Why is this such an issue?
Except the "Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" mentality doesn't really qualify as logical, just desperate. And the growing body of evidence showing that post-COVID infection immunity is stronger than that of the vaccinated provides just another example of how trying the desperation method along with a one-size-fits all mentality of "Everyone just do it" is lacking all kinds of logical support. More and more we are seeing that once we had a decent understanding of what the comorbidity risk factors were we should have encouraged them to take precautions instead of forcing basically the entire country/world.
Certainly it has been their purview, but to some of our representatives they place themselves on some sort of moral high ground in trying to impose increasingly larger taxes on those who have more simply because they have more. There is no argument that they are doing it, I don't understand why especially given the government's incredible inability to responsibly manage it.
The temporary or permanent cessation on an individuals rights based off their inability to follow the law (this is very general) has always been the purview of government. My original comment is more geared towards the idea that these individuals have, for the most part, put in the work to make something which earned them the money. Why exactly does the government think it is entitled to such high portions simply because the earner is making lots of it?
If the government can turn around and argue that Apple and Google, etc., are monopolizing the market for apps and that their rate of 30% is too high and unfair to developers, what on earth makes them think that they are suddenly entitled to an increasing percentage of a person's earnings simply because they have more than someone else?
Yeah, that's the part that really bothers me. We are really seeing an increasingly large body of evidence that suggest natural immunity is on par or greater than purely vaccinated immunity and yet all the focus has been on giving people the jab.
I have worked in this industry for 5 years. I have worked with countless individuals regardless of race, gender, or creed to help them purchase homes and refinance. This article is missing information and I can only guess just what they missed by not doing their due diligence here. Off the top of my head there could have been several reasons why there was a delay in clearing the file to close, not the least of which is the need to clear any possible judgments that might have popped on a judgment search, a missed issue by an underwriter that could have possibly affected the loan and needed to be resolved by less than traditional means, or even an issue with the seller that the buyer was not allowed to know about. Like I said, I have been in this industry for 5 years and the banking industry in general for another 2, and this story reeks of inaccuracy.
This is, in a word, horse-shit. Fannie and Freddie's automated underwriting systems don't even take into account any racial or ethnic factors when determining eligibility. There is something missing here, and the AP has done everyone reading this a disservice by publishing this article in it's current form.
1) Value and risk is determined by individuals and will vary widely. To some, there are still many questions about the vaccine and the disease that will not be answered by anything short of time and they are content to wait. So be it.
2) You do not treat a disease you have already caught with a preventative like a vaccine. If you have the disease, there is no point in getting the vaccine to try and treat it. To suggest otherwise indicates a poor understanding of medicine, and this author has indicated such with the title of their article.
I also don't think the system is broken. Yes, absolutely they should be voting against it. That is their prerogative, even duty, as elected members of a representative republic. However, for every vote there are going to be people who agree and people who disagree and both sides are accountable to the people who voted them in. The system is not broken when everyone does their job, regardless of the yay/nay count on a vote. The system breaks when those elected refuse to do the job that they were elected to do.
No, it's really not news. You are right in that arrest warrant does sound extreme. I have heard it called a "Civil Arrest" which doesn't really sound any better but was explained as basically the legal ability to escort these individuals to their place of work. From my understanding it is voting legislation that they oppose which is why they left.
Kids are among the least effected and don't really need to make the decision and, as harsh as it sounds, the incredibly small population of immunocompromised do not get to dictate policy for the country at large.