FreeflyChile

But...but.... clearly there will be more accountability if the sins are now more clearly identified, right? Right???

OK, so yesterday I was reading an article on the candidates that had the usual back and forth bickering (between Clinton and Obama principally), and how acusations about the other person is not qualified, etc. Also, there's all the promises that the candidates make about the hot issues - principally the war, the economy, etc. So I was thinking a good topic for the SC would be: If you had all 3 of the candidates (McCain, Obama, Clinton) and could ask them all a question, what would it be? You can assume it's a public debate that will be televised or just a private question with just you and the candidate, whatever you want. I think what I would like to ask is (to all): given all of the promises that politicians make during their candidacies throughout history, more often than not it ends up with broken promises and no accountability. So given your stances on Iraq and the economy, what tangible goals do you have for each and by when do you expect to achieve this goal (I am looking for a date I can mark on a calendar)? If this is not achieved, how will you assume responsibility and what will be the consequences to you personally as President?

I think that it would likely benefit our country to have our "best and brightest" in government service. That entirely depends upon what they are tasked. Maybe I'm being dense this morning, but I can't think of a job where it's beneficial to have someone dumb as opposed to someone smart.

Quote About six months after 9/11, I heard military jets. I looked out my window (at about 12:30 p.m.) to see an F-14 and an F-4 approach from the east and fly out over the Valley. reply] Wow....i did not know the military still used F-4s as recently as 2002...aside from the fright factor, that had to be pretty cool to see.

after the winter we've had, i'll take rain, thank you very much.

Those, I guess, would be the 'common law' sins. It's the 'statutory sins' that are seemingly arbitrary and sometimes have no bearing on modern life that really bug me, and those seem to be the ones that the Church enjoys telling you about.

http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20080310/hl_nm/pope_sins_dc.html Is this the Church trying to stay relevant? I really doubt that making environmental issues 'sins' will really change much of anything....

Really? You'd be wrong. I have to admit, I have thought of this before and find it a fascinating concept...it's almost humorous to me to think of how an occupation force would *try* handle Texas or the dangerous parts of cities like NY, Chicago, LA, etc.

I absolutely agree. I want barriers raised.. I want STANDARDS raised. With that.. comes more respect for their profession. BUT.. I am willing to pay them more when they prove to me they can actually teach the next genration how to be productive members of society.. not just glorified baby sitters. I agree with that line. Now, would implementing something like this require a large overhaul of the process? First, you'd have to convince the populous at large to fund this. Then comes the issue of all the teachers already teaching that would be required to get up to speed.... Hopefully this experiment in New York provides some results that will inspire other communities to emulate it.

boo hoo... it's raining and mid-50s in Texas. Meanwhile, in Chicago, guess what?? It's snowing.... *AGAIN* The Cubs home opener is like 3 weeks away...hard to believe with this weather.

I think that it would likely benefit our country to have our "best and brightest" in government service. When I know that people like nerdgirl work/have worked in the halls of our govt in some capacity, it gives me hope that there are others like her who know what's what. Granted, that hope is slashed as soon as CNN shows our fearless leader unable to open a locked door after a speech.... God knows having dumbasses in the government hasn't helped much.

You hit the nail on the head in one respect. If there is going to be a requirement for a higher degree for the teacher.. then they need to get that degree in the subject they are being hired to teach for. ALSO.. Having been an instructor for 8 years in the USAF.. I think that the system we had of having to actually LEARN how to teach should be a basic requirement for ANY and ALL teachers. AS you said.. there are a LOT of teachers who may have very good skills in a given discipline but if they cant pass that knowledge on then they are useless to the educational system. I think that what you are saying would no doubt result in better teachers...but if you are raising the barriers to entry in a profession that many people feel is already underpaid and underappreciated, aren't you just going to further discourage people from pursuing this career? I think that in doing this, you'd almost have to increase salaries to levels competitive with other industries that require this kind of education.

Something besides issuing oddball edicts? They should amend the statute to include "if you die within town borders without a cemetary plot to put you in, we will expell your remains from the town borders via catapult"

That's pretty good aim (even if it took several tries)

As I've posted before, the costs to society of unhelmeted riders is insignificantly LESS than the cost of helmeted riders who get in accidents. The reason being they often die either way (chest injury versus head injury - both of which would be fatal), and slightly more of the helmet less ones do. So if it's cost to the government, it's pretty neutral. Now liability to the driver for wrongful death would be higher in the US system, but it's a bit simplistic to base their liability based on the victim's use/non use of a helmet when so many other factors contribute to the final outcome. My opinion wasn't based on cost to the government. It was based on cost to the liable driver. I agree that a helmet/non-helmet doesn't cover every or even most instances - so how about a sort of strict liability-contributory negligence hybrid - a strict contributory statute that bars recovery for the additional damage suffered by a motorcycle rider who dies w/o a helmet if it can be determined that the rider would have likely/possibly/pick your own standard lived had he been wearing a helmet. Therefore, the added penalties associated with death are not assessed.

With all the discussion going on about what candidate stands for what, I figured it'd be good to have a reference for what each candidate stands for if he/she/McCain made it into the White House. So here you are: http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/hillaryclinton http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/johnmccain http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/barackobama You can also check out the former candidates' issues here: http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/candidates

Well, yeah, I guess I should have made it clear that I was referring to cases where the helmet would have been the difference between life/death.

This whole thing reminds me of the old Bill Hicks routine about pro-lifers getting serious and instead of blocking abortion clinics, blocking cemeteries.

Yeah, but in court you're still more likely to get charged with the guy's death if he died w/o a helmet while trying to hypothesize that the guy wouldn't have died wearing a helmet than if the guy doesn't die because he HAD been wearing a helmet. I'd rather not put that decision at the mercy of a jury that could feel sorry for a widow or now-fatherless children. I guess my point is that my feeling about this is the same feeling I have about legalizing drugs (from pot, which i find harmless, to other, more altering drugs) - I don't care what you do as far as it relates to yourself. That's your business. However, when your decision to do something/not do something affects me, then it becomes my business.

It would be even better if this was a capital offense

I don't ride a motorcycle, though someday I'd like to learn. I think that while there's a lot of truth to the whole 'they're adults, it should be their choice' thing, i don't think the comparison to wingloading/rsl/aad debate in our sport is valid. The biggest reason I would support a helmet requirement is not the safety of the rider - I agree there that it should be the rider's choice. I think that the helmet requirement is something to protect another driver from excessive liability in case of an accident. If I am driving a car and get into an accident with a dude on a motorcycle, I'd rather have the case against me be that the guy had to go to the hospital with a few broken bones than to the morgue with a slight case of death. I don't think that it compares to skydiving because wingloading/aad/rsl mostly will only affect the canopy pilot. Helmet/no helmet affects more than just the motorcycle rider in case of an accident.

You just begrudge the thought of giving Lions fans anything, don't you? They can be happy with the thought that right now, they have the best QB in the division.

I think you're thinking of Drawn Together, a Real World-style cartoon show on comedy central.

I may be under 35, but this is really what is saving you all from my wrath

My faves: 1) classic looney tunes: liberal use of explosives and falling heavy objects = hilarity 2) animaniacs - carried the spirit and sheer lunacy of the old WB cartoons into the 90s 3) transformers - the 80s ones, not the anime ones of today. i still own the movie on dvd. the animation and stories haven't aged well, but i loved this show when i was a kid. 4) batman the animated series - channeled the spirt of the max fleisher superman cartoons, and did it really well. 5) Robotech - another series i loved as a kid.