Posted on November 20 at 4:34 p.m.
I was joking a bit in my comment.
I agree that public schools serve their benefactors (the taxpayers) better whenever they encourage a nutritious diet and exercise in students. The easiest place to pick these programs up without having to pour more money into the district is in PE programs and in experimenting with better meal programs.
This is something even my cold conservative heart can see the logic in.
Posted on November 19 at 9:12 a.m.
We have never had a "shoot first and ask questions later" philosophy, Young Han. Please specify a situation where we have done this.
Posted on November 19 at 9 a.m.
"We have to be personally responsible."
"We need to make kids have PE all year, every year."
Posted on November 14 at 2:22 p.m.
I don't agree with your sentiments at all. 2 cents per can is better than 0 cents per can. If the company profits in the meantime, I don't see a problem. When people choose to increase their purchases during the time period that these drives take place they are choosing to buy soup AND donate to charity. Increased sales can only be seen as a sign of the good will of soup purchasers and positive intentions by the companies who lead the drives.
I hope that other charity organizations can look to the pink ribbon movement for hints on how to put together a great charity drive.
You do make a good point about the mix of priorities we have when it comes to dealing with disease, though. HIV, for example, only kills about 14,000 Americans per year yet we put more federal money into AIDS research than all cancer research combined, all heart disease research, etc. Keep in mind that this isn't even counting charity donations for AIDS research, which are massive.
But you know what? If we cure either of these health problems we will help a lot of people and learn techniques that may lead to the cure of other cancers and pathogenic diseases. HIV infects 33 million people worldwide. Imagine what a difference it would make in the parts of the world where HIV is rampant if we were to eliminate it.
Posted on November 12 at 3:19 p.m.
One major reason I begin to define life as human only after birth is that if we decide that human embryos are equivalent to full-fledged humans in the law's eyes, we are allowing a massive number of people to die due to pregnancy complications/miscarriages/failed implantations every year. The number of deaths occuring in this manner would make gestation the most risky and deadly period of life.
Given this definition of human life, the only appropriate decision of a responsible and ethical society would be to allocate its research and medical resources to preventing miscarriages/failed implantations since combined these would easily become the number one cause of death in the world.
I think you can see where I'm going with this...
Posted on November 12 at 10:55 a.m.
I'm pro choice and all that jazz, but I don't like it when people try to say "it's scientific fact" about something or another because a group of doctors say it.
Whether it's a pregnancy upon fertilization or upon implantation is NOT a "scientific fact," it's an arbitrary judgment. It's also an arbitrary judgment when we decide the point at which human life becomes legally binding as such. For some it is upon fertilization, for some it is at the beginning of the third trimester, and for others (myself included) it is at birth. In no case is a FACT involved in the same sense that 1+1=2.
Posted on November 7 at 3:23 p.m.
Wait, selliot are you serious? Is this not really Alex's evil twin?!
I feel so duped.
pantheon- You set up a straw man without answering my question. I never said that people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't receive assistance from others, whether through charity or government assistance programs. I simply asked whether it is appropriate for these same people to vote on their own welfare.
In a way this cheapens the votes of the people who actually DO contribute to the system to decide how their money should best be spent for the welfare of the country.
Should a child have equal control over his parents' finances? After all, that money is paying for his well-being as well.
Posted on November 7 at 10:28 a.m.
-I don't know, Ian. Fletch makes a legitimate point and is simply using the words of Alexis de Tocqueville when he says "tyranny of the majority." You did totally neglect the reason that the +2 rule exists.
The +2 rule is there for the same reason we have a bicameral legislature: It balances the power between populous and less populous states.
The idea here is that what may be good for New York, Texas, Florida, California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Mass. may not be good for the other 41 states. By taking into consideration each individual state and combining both attributes of population and credit for statehood alone, our electoral college gives each state closer to equal footing.
Posted on November 7 at 10:05 a.m.
How about no representation without taxation ? Nearly 40 % of Americans don't pay a net income tax (and in fact most of those actually gain money when it comes time for tax filing.)
Should people who don't contribute to the system be allowed to vote for what is done with the tax dollars of others?
Posted on November 21 at 3:10 p.m.
I don't know, vladislav. I would say that this is a fight for civil rights since it is a battle for legal equality rather than the right to practice homosexuality. Homosexual couples are not afforded the same rights as married couples. The only way to remedy this is by giving them the same legal status. Proposition 8 in no way bans homosexuality, so it is not a fight for a lifestyle.
Having said that and having expressed my disagreement with banning gay marriage several times, I must say that I am appalled by the tone of the protests that have taken place in California and in many urban centers. Screaming racial epithets at demographics who voted for the proposition, breaking into church services and interrupting them, rioting, threatening individuals for their campaign contributions, and sending letters laced with powder do not help the cause.
I will gladly support any legislation or court actions that allow homosexual couples to marry. I will support a peaceful movement. But I will not express solidarity with thugs no matter what their cause is.
On Letter: Why haven’t you joined the Prop 8 protests?