Breitbart Texas confirmed Tuesday that “an Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law” is indeed operating in Texas. But not to worry: an attorney for the tribunal assures us that participation is “voluntary,” and one of the Sharia judges, Dr. Taher El-badawi, says it’s devoted only to “non-binding dispute resolution.”
A month ago, I went into a furniture store, the salesman kept saying the store provide "financing" over and over, even I never asked him about "financing". I knew this is their way to trick stupid people, because many stupid people see a $1000 item (with a $100 payment per week) as a $100 item.
A two bedroom unit is for a family (a couple with a kid or two kids), not for a single person. Why would a minimum wage employee lives in a two bedroom unit?
- Single-parent families, with a parent living on minimum wage.
- Students.
- People are expected to leave their parents house at age 18. But without a proper trade skills, they can only earn minimum wage.
- etc.
But we may be missing the point here. Since this article doesn't seem to take into the consideration of other living expenses, even if we're talking about a family with two parents and kid instead of a single person: the family may still struggle to pay the rent plus bills.
I'd go one further and say that in some regions, a single-bedroom unit is for someone making pretty good wages. I've never known anybody on minimum wage in California not to live in shared accommodation (mostly because it's impossible).
Something on the order of 30,000 to 40,000 Americans die in car crashes every year. Depending how you count (lung issues etc... ) 3000 to 10000 people died in 9/11.
I think Escherize's point was how silly it is we don't worry about car crashes which are a real and countable, and yet we worry about third world script kiddies which likely have none of the effectiveness of the 9/11 hijackers.
Terrorism in a typical year in the United States kills fewer people than bathing, smoking while sleeping or basketball. We should do what it takes to maintain a comparable level of safety to this and not get caught up in useless scaremongering.
Yes, it's fair. Just like a lot of public works and services are funded by taxes even if you in particular don't use them.
More importantly, fairness is a trade-off. Granting free universal access to certain things benefits the poor and those with lower incomes, even if it's not particularly beneficial for people with higher incomes. That's a good trade-off in my opinion, and in the opinion of progressive governments.
> . Granting free universal access to certain things benefits the poor and those with lower incomes, even if it's not particularly beneficial for people with higher incomes. That's a good trade-off in my opinion, and in the opinion of progressive governments.
This is patently, obscenely false.
A value-added economy depends on qualified, skilled labor. If the pool of people with higher education is smaller, you will have less potential to develop industries with that requirement. Training costs will fall on companies (which will be onerous and will not supplant a 4-year degree), and costs for the smaller labor pool go up.
It is in the interests of all developing economies to have talent in their workforce. It's a significant limiting factor in many industries in Latin America.
Oh, no disagreement here. My comment was poorly worded. I meant "even if it didn't particularly benefit", but like you said, it's in the overall best interest of everyone in the country that the majority of the population has access to good quality education. And this is true even if you don't think in terms of the workforce.
With an exception, of course: some people would rather the rest of the people weren't as well educated as themselves. That way they can continue paying them miserably low salaries. It's a self-destructive behavior, but it still happens, because some people don't think long term. I didn't want to address this in my original comment.
My main gripe with the language of progressive politics is the redefinition of words like "fair."
Intellectual honesty demands that you call things what they are. Marketing demands you redefine things to make people feel the right warm-and-fuzzies. What you did is the latter.
"What is justice/fairness?" is one of those philosophical questions that will never be closed. Claiming that there exists some ground truth definition of fair is, frankly, naive.
Terms like "just" and "fair" are over-loaded and refer to an ephemeral concept for which there are multiple, competing explanations and theories. No consensus or ground truth exists, so it's always fair game to introduce new explanations and theories. This has been the case for at least thousands of years.
Progressive politics didn't "redefine" fairness in any meaningful sense. Whose definition of "fair" isn't a "redefinition"? Rawls? Plato?
It is fair to the country that a greater number of people have access to good quality education. The lesser unfairness that this causes in the people who don't care about public education is acceptable. Same as the lesser unfairness that public roads cause to people who don't use roads is also acceptable. This is the greater good we are talking about.
Read my reply to Daishiman. In the longer term, it's fair to them as well. And in any case, fairness is a relative term. It's fair to the country as a whole.
How could this appeals to you? If you don't like the gender categories, just DO NOT USE THEM! Why the hell would you want the categories to be removed?
"Income growth of top 1%" is a very misleading concept. It sounds like "top 1%" is a fixed group of people, and we are talking about their income growth. Actually it is not that case at all. It is the "growth" of income from "top 1%" at different time points. Because it is about different group of people from different time points, it is misleading to call the difference as "growth". It's like last year best student A got score 100, and this year best student B got score 110, and you call it the "achievement growth of best student".
On the other hand, "income growth of bottom 99%" has the same issue, but it is less the problem, because 99% is a much more stable group of people. It's like "achievement growth of all students (except the best one)".
but that's exaclty what they want to show, how the best students performed in different years, whoever they are.. what about if the score of the best student gradually goes from 100 to 80 in within 20 years.. that would still reveal something about the university and the students, further analysis have to be performed, no doubt on that, but that would show some particular trend in how the students are learning / are thaught
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/28/volunt...