JJ Husker

I would agree that not having a flourishing middle class is not good for the economy. And, it is apparent that the middle is shrinking and we are already at an unhealthy level of haves and have nots. I know one thing, it takes a bunch more money now to live comfortably than it did only five years ago.

I know, that is why I cannot get all up in arms over poverty. Sure it sucks but it always has been and always will be.

It's not necessarily a direct result of the rich driving up the cost of living. I was just speaking relatively. If everyone had the same basic purchasing power, there would be no rich or poverty stricken. The only way someone can live in poverty is if someone else is living better and vice versa. I'm not proposing it, just sayin.

Think about it. Spend a day at the lake with THAT or, get your tires rotated. I'd have the most finely tuned vehicle in all the land.

I'm with beanman, I'd take her ass to the lake............and leave it there, tied to a concrete block. That guy is a saint if he put up with that more than once.

That's funny as hell. +1

Another idea that wouldn't break the bank would be Colorado. I'm thinking ski resort areas like Breckenridge or Keystone (google Summit county) or even Estes Park. September would be non prime time for those. Plenty to see and do. The Blackhills was also a good suggestion, lots to do and not real expensive.

While a "poverty class" is likely inevitable, the smaller that class is the better for everyone. What is the best way to reduce the number of people living at or below the poverty line? This will at first appear like a smart ass response but, the best way to reduce the amount of people living in poverty would be to reduce the ultra wealthy and anyone higher on the chart. Poverty is basically a relative concept and if there were no rich people, either nobody would be in poverty or everybody would. The biggest component to tell if a person is in poverty is if they can afford the bare essentials. Without wealthier people driving up the cost of living, nobody would be living in poverty. Of course, this is why my outlook is that some living in poverty is just the way it is, has been, and always will be. The only way to eliminate it also eliminates all other options.

Not if the government changes the age discrimination laws . . . which would presumably be a part of a two level minimum wage law. No reason to change the law, much like Medicaid covers people of a certain age and not everyone. The problem would not be reverse age discrimination, that's an easy one to get by. The problem would be straight age discrimination in the hiring process. If there are 2 minimum wages (assuming the one for older people is a higher wage) and I have a job opening that either person can do, who do you think I am going to hire to do that job? That's right, the lower cost teenager. Of course, assuming all other things being equal. Since it is minimum wage type work I am assuming any animated breathing body will do.

I am basing my opinion of education, and how "the government" is generally not failing lower income students, on my firsthand experiences in a fairly diverse district. Unfortunately none of your linked articles are likely to ever change my mind. Parenting and the home environment play such an overshadowing role in education that no reasonable amount of funding or government control is ever going to overcome it in other than very few cases. My kids went to the highest performing elementary school in the district. Enough funding, good teachers, low numbers of minority students, and generally pretty comfortable incomes for a lot of the families. They got a great education, the same one all the other students received. Yet they were still at the top of their classes while generally those at the bottom were the kids with family problems, lower incomes, non-english speaking household, etc. This phenomena became even more noticeable as they moved into middle school and high school. More noticeable because the schools got much more diverse. White kids were not the majority for my son beginning in the sixth grade and continuing until his senior year. He went to the same schools with the same amount of funding as these other kids (who you claim the system failed) yet he got an excellent education while many didn't. The opportunity to get that education was there for every single student. This discussion has so very little to do with funding and segregation it is laughable. You know why desegregation appears to work? Because there are just enough good students, with good parenting and good home conditions, to drag the averages up. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, those kids who overcome their circumstance and those who don't live up to it but don't make the mistake of thinking this is any failure of our government or funding. Those lower performing elementarys that my kids didn't go to, had juat as good of teachers who actually worked harder and for the most part, those schools received a disproportionately higher amount of funding. IMO it is as simple as, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You can post all the stats you want and it won't mean diddly. Some kids will flourish and some will flounder and it's got so very little to do with funding or segregation or our government.

So it is strictly the governments fault that some school districts don't succeed as well as others at educating the kids that show up? I won't argue that some of these districts/schools perform worse than others but, last time I checked, the lower performing schools were getting and using the same level or more of funding and resources. I think the government bends over backwards to help make up for lower income areas. The fact that they aren't always successful isn't necessarily the governments fault. Remember, outcomes aren't guaranteed but opportunity should be. I think they're doing as well as can be expected in the opportunity area.

Whoa whoa whoa. How is it "a lot" the governments fault that many people aren't qualified for higher level jobs while some are? How are these lesser qualified people not personally responsible for the level of education they attain and/or the lack of effort they may or may not put forth?

There is no way it could be better than the first one. Seriously though, the first one was ok as a rental, but the best character in the movie isn't even in it. Rob Schnider was great in the first one. Personally I don't know how David Spade even gets a job. I don't find him the least bit funny. He always plays the exact same type of character. Yeah, it's not the type of movie I would pay theatre prices for but the first one didn't suck so, if this one is as good or better, somebody might enjoy it.

Well take this for what it's worth but my daughter and her friend said Grownups 2 was hilarious and better than the first one. I trust this review because my daughter has the same sense of humor that I do (but, she is a 13 yr old girl).

Haha. My clarification was meant as a compliment to you, not as a correction to your wording.

Actually these photos were not officially "released". The police sergeant Sean Murphy who did release them faces a hearing to determine if he will be suspended until the investigation into his actions is completed.

And herein lies the problem. People would rather make their judgements looking at a picture versus reading a long-ish news article. We want to believe this is a terrorist: You are correct, this WAS the problem. I had not read the article but now I have. However, it was not a case of "rather" making the judgement based on a picture but that this picture and my preconceived notions about RS were all I had to go on at the time. It also really had nothing to do with my preference for how terrorists should look. I fully realized that a terrorist could look like any normal person. I must say I was wrong. That was a very good article in RS and, after reading it, I really can't imagine them running a different picture of him on their cover. The only caveat to that being that they still could have run the story and not done the cover. I would venture that more people will look at that cover without reading the article than those that will read it. But, now that I know better, that is more my problem (and the other people who complain about it without reading the article) than it is anything RS did wrong. If you review my prior comments, I was not vilifying RS for doing this, in fact I was not really upset or concerned at all. I simply gave my opinion of the message I thought that cover portrays. Given that I know people will see it without reading it, I can't say my opinion on the impression those people will get has changed. But my opinion about RS has changed.

I'm just not really feeling a loss in the UCLA game. It might be the homer in me but I think we lost that game last year rather than them doing things that were unbeatable. In Lincoln, I don't believe that will continue. By most accounts we should be better on both sides of the ball. Personally, I expect a much different game this time around. I generally feel the only way we loss any of the first 12 is if we beat ourselves. Lord knows that's possible.

I agree with all of that. I guess I'm just not convinced that was RS's intention. Probably makes no difference in the long run but I don't see that as being their motivation, to inform the public that the apparently normal person next door could just as easily be the next marathon bomber or theatre shooter. I more suspect that they thought it would be controversial and help sell their mag. Color me cynical.

Sorry walks, I knew I was on thin ice using "funny" when the subject could be misconstrued to mean those that died. To clarify, it was only the obviously out of perspective bar graph to which I was referring and not what was being graphed. It's sort of like all the "thanks Obama" gifs that get posted here. I just find it sort of humorous the way Bush was maligned all those years but when the heat in Obama's kitchen gets turned up, it has to be people being unreasonable. In no way do I find US casualties funny no matter who the Commander in Chief happens to be.

See, now I sort of like this version. If RS would've just run with this.......no probs.

You're right, there isn't much difference. I may be splitting hairs. In my mind, misguided suggests going in an illogical direction while uninformed might mean going that same wrong direction but not knowing any better. I'm curious what comments about RS you felt were misguided. Your post hinted at the same problems I had with it and your only departure from that was your comments that we need to realize it's not just obvious looking whackjobs that can do these types of things. I agree. But, unless you're sure that was RS's intention and can explain why your sure, how does that alleviate the concerns of RS making this guy look like some kind of accidental rock star?

Still having to put up with wifi. Well that settles that. Knapp can never leave. Never.

I don't disagree with that BBBXII but I don't think anything I've said about RS is misguided. Uninformed maybe. I have not read the associated article they ran with that picture so I have no idea if their purpose is to show that radical terrorists can and sometimes do look like normal everyday people. My opinions were strictly based on my perception of this cover and my combined idea of how RS typically operates and that could be extremely uninformed cuz I don't read it and never really pay any attention to it. I mentioned this pages earlier in this topic but that kid looks exactly like my 19 year old son looked a few years ago when he still had his hockey hair. The resemblance is so uncanny that we even talked to him about being prepared for additional screening at the airport for his current trip to Cali this week.