We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, January 30. 2014
Related: Does Amy Chua have it wrong?
How Do Trees Survive Winter? (video)
Sugaring your way through college
I would hope so
Seahawks, Broncos, Manning -- what men really need to know about Super Bowl XLVIII:
College Athletes Move to Unionize
Racist Al Gore Tells World Economic Forum: Africa’s Population Is a Problem That Must Be Addressed
Charlie Crist — beyond flip-flopping
Brit Hume: In Good Times, In Bad Times, In War and In Peace, The Hurt Feelings Industry Always Thrives
1991 Radio Shack ad: 13 electronic products for $5k (and 290 hrs. work) can now be replaced with a $200 iPhone (10 hrs.)
Why Obama is over
California prof's required reading paints Usama bin Laden as a freedom fighter
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
trying to figure out which story the photograph is meant to illustrate. It's a funny picture, with the little kid refreshingly amused by the nude statue
Glad the trees figured out how to make the necessary changes. Thanks, Nature, since God was obviously too dumb to figure all this out in the first place.
And thanks, Science, for being so much smarter than God and explaining all this.
I subscribe to the libertarian God theory. God is omniscient, but he didn't want to live in a boring world where he controlled everything. So he created, well, everything. But he threw in adaptability and freewill. God, knows that top down, centralized, socialist planning is a recipe for disaster. Plus, he'd get bored after a while if everything solely his decision. So all things adapt, well, those that survived. Sometimes against their will. God, watches and will offer a bit of quite advice in hopes we'll heed it. Even though he may know better, God doesn't make us act as he desires, he just makes sure we know the choices he recommends, if we will listen.
Just out of curiosity, what are the grounds, source, authority for your theory? As one who finds the Bible to be reliable in all its teaching, and easy to accept as God's self-revelation, I'm always surprised by those who begin, "My theory about God is..." Seems like a subject a bit beyond our ability to draw conclusions upon which to base (gamble) our lives.
I see the humor in the post, but otherwise it is orthodox christian to me. God creates the world but lets His creatures have free will to conform to His will or not. He lets us decide, but shows us the consequences of deciding wrongly and rewards of doing the right thing.
Really, not trying to beat a dead horse here, and quite sure I'd enjoy a conversation about this over, for my part, Jamison's on-the-rocks, but pray tell, good JKB and wirraway, what divinely endowed human free will has to do with the capillaries of trees?!?
My amusement is centered on the lengths Darwinists (and by that I mean humorless anti-mysterians) go to, to avoid the very thought that the Creator might have, not only had the intellect to create ex nihilo, but to create such that some trees had the infrastructure to thrive in inhospitable climes.
Can we not agree that Darwinism is a religious faith, above all else?
Jeff Kemp- blaming boys and men, even as they do what they're told.
Of course Dennis Rainey has made a career out of stirring up discontent among women, so they nag their husbands to be "more". More honorable. More committed. More attentive.
Never mind the empirical evidence that indicates this is largely false. Never mind the logical gymnastics and utter contradictions that Rainey (and others) perform to keep peddling their snake oil. Just be weak and you're strong. Just acquiesce and you're leading.
Then when it all goes wrong, it's your fault because you weren't doing enough.
I am no lover of unions, however, I do think that college football players get used up by college football programs who make a LOT of money off of them and don't have to pay them more than a 'scholarship,' which sometimes ends up being nothing more than a holding pen for below-average guys who would never be able to make it in the classroom on their own.
So, I have no problems with these people unionizing to make a change.
1) I agree with them that once a school makes a commitment to a football player to provide him with a scholarship, that scholarship should not be pulled just because he got an injury playing his sport for the school (I think this should be true for all athletes...the college should take on some of the risk when handing out athletic scholarships)
2) I think that a college should establish a 'fund' of sorts for each player. A certain percentage of the money made off of the sport should be put in an account that sits there until the kid graduates. If he doesn't graduate, he doesn't get the $$. There are plenty of college football stars who ruin their bodies for 4 years hoping for an NFL deal...then an injury occurs or they just don't have what it takes to go to the NFL for whatever reason. I think it only fair that they are given some compensation for the time they played and made money for the school.
I know that many consider the scholarship a form of payment...but, come on, we all know many of these football athletes scrape by through college and don't come out with an engineering degree. Plus, I would bet that the football program at some of these top tier football colleges cover those scholarships quite easily with the amount of money the sport brings to the school. I think the players deserve to be compensated at the end of their 4 years with a certain percentage of the money made.
I don't claim to know all the particulars but it seems to me that students who get an athletic scholarship aren't getting ripped off by the university because they don't get a good deal, they get ripped off because they don't get an education (see previous thread about UNC student athletes who can't read). I doubt any union would complain about the lack of scholarship (in their scholarship). They would more likely try to get them in on commercial contracts and maybe a cut of the coach's outrageous salary, but education? I doubt it!
Well, he does have no legs to stand on, just like most of his arguments in support of his policies... so you could be right!
And here I thought sugaring your way through college meant hiring yourself out as labor to one of the local maple sugar makers....guess they don't need fire stokers like they used to.
re: California prof's required reading paints Usama bin Laden as a freedom fighter
good story. the kid was challenged in a poli sci class, got up on his hind legs, complained to the prof and Fox News, the prof responded to Fox, the kid was graded fairly.
if your values aren't challenged in a poli sci class, the kollege isn't doing its job. we conservatives don't want programmed drones coming out of school.
And here I thought college was about learning. There is a difference between "challenging values", which in many cases is just an excuse for indoctrination by insular academics, and critical thinking which examines premises, analyses possible outcomes, and is informed by history and experience.
Well then wasn't Hitler, Stalin and hirohito "freedom fighters"?
How about the Boston bombers? The 9/11 hijackers? Maybe even Ted Bundy?