Seems a bit unfair to tanning beds.

The simple fact is that a 2 tier education system where the best facilities are available only to those able to afford access has privilege built into it. Whether you were born into money, or have to work 3 jobs to meet school fees doesn't change that.

In fact, my experience tells me that one of the main reasons parents send their children to private schools is because they specifically want them to have the privileges that come from attending such schools. Whether those privileges are a better standard of education, access to better sports facilities, access to a more well connected social network or access in later life to better universities or job opportunities, parents do not pay the high cost of private education for no reason. A chance for a better life of their children through access to real world privilege is the reason.

It is also my experience that for parents who struggle with the financial costs of private schooling, access to privilege is more important to them than with wealthy parents, for the simple reason that wealthy parents already have access to the benefits that are perceived to derive from economic privilege.

Boaz and I don't see eye to eye on many things and we don't on whether attending a private school is an exercise in privilege, but I do agree with him that in general the premises underlying the article are out of touch with reality, both existing and future. It struck me as an exercise in academic theorizing unrelated to most people's real world.

"Headline is a damn lie.

#3 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-09-04 05:39 PM | FLAG: "

it seems to me that your statement could be correct in two ways:

1) The headline does not reflect the content of the article. This is plainly nonsense; the headline reflects the substance of the article.

2) Trump did not say what the article claims he said. Neither you nor I know whether Trump said it, consequently you have absolutely no facts to support your contention that it is a lie and therefore no basis for your post

I hope this post helps you to understand how thinking works.

"That's still a good skill to be handy with, I think.

#37 | POSTED BY SHANE AT 2018-08-21 03:47 PM | FLAG:

It's a particularly good skill to have if you travel overseas and rent cars. 80% of European and Japanese car sales are manual. In the UK if you pass your driving test in an automatic car, you may not legally drive a manual car on that license.

""The idea of policing without weapons just doesn't seem to be in play"
Tell that to the cops that have been murdered sitting in a squad car.

#21 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE AT 2018-08-18 03:05 PM | FLAG: "

As my comment related specifically to the subject matter of the thread, what exactly is your point?

"Walking outside a boys and girls club with a knife is the issue. And we all know that too.

#11 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE AT 2018-08-18 09:28 AM | FLAG: "

Of course this is the issue, but it does not explain why 3 large police officers could not disarm an 87 year old , 5'2" tall, confused looking woman without having to resort to using force. It speaks to the mindset of the police that "it was the lowest use of force we could have used to simply stop that threat at the time." The idea of policing without weapons just doesn't seem to be in play; I don't know if it is lack of training, lack of personal courage or simply a lack of respect for human life, but there is definitely something missing in many US police officers.

#89 - thanks.

#69 - My understanding is that there are 13 " adjudicative guidelines " for revoking a security clearance which set out the disqualifying conditions. None of the 13 are applicable for simply holding opposing political views or criticizing the incumbent administration.

Trump has the authority to revoke a security clearance but he has done so by ignoring the adjudicative guidelines - I call this an abuse of power.

#65 - I agree - it's just a simple abuse of power - nothing to see here.

"His free speech is not being infringed by the government.

#62 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-15 10:59 PM | REPLY | "

Agreed, but his exercise of free speech is being punished by this administration and this sends a message to others in Brennan's position. If the fear of having their security clearance revoked stops others from speaking freely, has their 1st amendment right been infringed?

"WTF did he need it for in a life away from the government?

#4 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-08-15 05:02 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

As a former Director of the CIA, it seems likely to me that his opinion may well have been sought on issues of national security where his experience was considered valuable. I assume that without a security clearance, he cannot be consulted. Denying access to a valuable resource means the only loser is the US. I think we've seen enough of Trump to know this ranks a very distant second to him getting personal revenge.

I read this today:

I am going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on this and assume he does understand that it is a tax on US companies and citizens.

He can't sell it that way to his supporters, so he has to lie and does so in the certainty that they are either too uneducated to understand he is lying, or too emotionally invested in their support of Trump to call him out and lose face to them damn libs.

"Is it cheating, or merely an effective multilevel media strategy?

#1 | POSTED BY GONOLES92 AT 2018-08-05 01:19 PM | FLAG: "

It is actually both, because the use of a media strategy which in any way comments on the bids of other candidates is against FIFA's rules:

"What did you expect? A liberal rag to actually tell a fair story? Or skew the story to fit their "America is bad" narrative?

#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-07-27 08:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

The link in #6 is to the Guardian where it is reports the findings of a study published in The Lancet, one of the world's oldest and most prestigious medical journals. That the US ranks 39th in the world for maternal mortality is not fake news or bias reporting, it is a fact.

Here is a different report and source:

#77 - Here is an article dealing with drawing a gun and not firing:

"You don't point a gun at somebody unless you intend to shoot them.

#72 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2018-07-23 08:57 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1"

I'm struggling with this point as stated.

I just googled " US policemen holding a gun" and got many images of policemen holding a gun on someone which was not fired. The obvious point is that having a gun pointed at you is intimidating and strongly suggests you comply with any orders that follow. I'm sure I could google " US man holding gun" and get the same result.

Maybe you meant that you should not point a gun at someone unless you are prepared to fire if necessary, which of course allows for not firing if the intimidation factor works. And this was the original poster's point.

#57 - Thank you for the info.

The fact is that we do not know whether the dead guy " reasonably believed " that there was an imminent threat of unlawful force against his woman. The shooter is outside of the vehicle, but as you say, who knows what was being said, or how aggressively?

Nor can we tell from the video whether there was any additional threat by the dead guy against the shooter once he's on the ground. We do not know whether the shooter had reasonable cause to fear for his life. What we do know is he shot and killed a man who was some distance from him and for that he should be judged in court, not simply released from all responsibility under the suspect application of SYG.

#46 - If Florida's stand your ground law permits someone to shoot and kill another human in defense, but does not allow pushing someone in defense, then something is wrong.

You have still to explain why the SYG law was not available to the dead man; the whole purpose of the law is that threatened individuals do not have to retreat, so why should the dead guy do any of the things you suggest in your third paragraph?.

The dead guy knew nothing of the intention of the shooter when he saw him arguing with his woman. For all anyone knows, he could have feared for the life of his woman and he certainly did not know the intentions of the shooter, which included shooting him dead within a few seconds. He actually had cause to fear for his life. Is such fear not part of the requirement to invoke SYG?

#47 - Are you suggesting that if someone was berating our woman in an aggressive manner and you had no idea of the person's intentions, you would wait until your woman had been physically assaulted before intervening? Unless you can honestly answer this question " yes " I'm at a loss to understand your point.

As for your suggestion that the shooting was somehow justified because of where they parked, all I can say is - really?

You both have no issue with taking a human life when doing so was clearly avoidable based on the video. As I said earlier, this is a cancer eating at the heart of American society and it is reflected in your distain for the value of a human life .

"The moral of the story is don't go hassling strangers
#43 | POSTED BY PEGASUS AT 2018-07-22 07:06 PM | FLAG: "

But isn't that exactly what the shooter did?

The dead guy, or his girlfriend, parked in a handicap parking bay - not right but not an offense carrying an immediate death sentence.

From the video the shooter clearly choses to object to where they have parked and approaches the vehicle and argues with the woman. He has initiated the hassling, to use your terminology. The dead guy sees his girlfriend being verbally attacked, leaves the store and pushes the guy away, hard enough to put him on his butt. Under the stand your ground law, is the dead guy not entitled to defend his woman and his vehicle?

Would the shooter have initiated conflict if he was not carrying a gun? Did he not know that his action could result in him using his gun? Punk coward, again to use your terminology, may well be an apt description of the shooter, or maybe he genuinely feared for his life. None of us know.

But I do know that a law which prevents the shooter from having to convince a jury of his peers that what he did was appropriate under all the circumstances, is either a bad law, or a good law badly applied.

A guy gets dumped on his butt and this deserves a death penalty?

That Florida ( and other states ) have laws that permit this type of cowardly killing is a disgrace. It is a sign of a deep cancer in American society that so many hold human life to have so little value.

There are 2 separate elements to the untruths in Trump's statement.

The first, which could be a gaff, given that Trump must just about be the most ignorant president in US history, is to not know that the Queen has reigned for only 65 years.

The second is Trump's attempt to garner "stolen kudos" by implying that the Queen did something extraordinarily unusual for him, i.e. reviewing the Honor Guard. This is not a gaff but a lie, designed to flatter Trump in his mind and in the minds of his supporters.

I posted this yesterday - didn't realize it would become so relevant so quickly:

"The US elects 535 members of Congress. Do they not get a say in something as important as who are friends and who are foes?

The longer Trump reigns as President, the more I wonder just when the much acclaimed " checks and balances " built into the system will kick in. A check and balance that relies on politicians to do the right thing for the country, ahead of what is expedient for their party, seems to be no check or balance at all in these times.

#8 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER AT 2018-07-15 07:25 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

Just a few days ago, Trump declared that Putin was neither friend nor foe but a " competitor."

#3 - She does indeed direct Trump - and as an aside I've seen her do that with her Corgis as well - but he managed to veer off course within 3 steps. I loved the bemused look on her face as she steps out from behind Trump - priceless.