foxbat

Pantsuits are making a comeback. 😀

I actually think he did it because he wants to do his SOTU and this was a quick way to do it. Miller's sitting on Trump's shoulder with his pitchfork whispering that if Trump can just get on TV, he can convince the country, then he can do Shutdown 2019 v2.0 in mid-February and the entire country will now blame the Democrats. As for Stone, there'll be another distraction as Mueller's getting closer and closer to Trump's inner circle. I bet Don Jr. has a bag packed and carries his passport with him everywhere.

But Secretary of Commerce Ross said it would only cost everyone a couple of pennies ...

How did you come up with this stretch from my post? I merely pointed out that the idea that making folks pay for it FORCES them to take the coursework seriously is itself flawed. As for it depending on the person, yes, I would say it does ... which is what I was pointing out. Again, that kind of makes that idea that paying for it forces the person to take it seriously a weaker argument. As for the other issues, perhaps it could be a problem, but the question is what would that new demand be? This piece as presented, is a conjecture piece. It makes the assumption that the unwashed masses will be overflowing classrooms trying to get in for no go reason other than killing time during the day. As for looking at the issue of impaction, http://www.calstate.edu/sas/documents/ImpactedProgramsMatrix.pdf, note that it tends to be a localized issue as opposed to a more sweeping issue as the article attempts to make it appear. It depends, to a small degree, on area of study ... for example basic nursing is impacted across all CSU campuses ... but more so on location ... for example art is impacted at 6 of the CSU campuses, but not impacted at the other 15 CSU campuses where it is offered. And that's at a four-year institution as opposed to the community college networks. The author talks about compaction at places where there's more demand, but then expands the argument across the whole population of institutions. That's similar to making the claim that because art is impacted at the Fresno campus, classes are over-subscribed at CSU-LA or CSU-Bakersfield. It is an issue of resource utilization as opposed to capacity restraint. The author makes a case for some programs being impacted, at four-year colleges, but doesn't do anything with the numbers to show the actual impact and then completely applies that argument to community colleges with no discussion of actual impaction there and not even an attempt at numbers. Incidentally, the argument about people being unwilling to invest $1,100 for a comm college education leaves out the idea of UNABLE as opposed to unwilling. I'd conjecture, that someone unwilling to invest $1,100 in their education is also unwilling to invest their time, for any decent length of time, taking those classes. That would, however, not likely be seen as definitive in a person who was UNABLE to invest that for their education. As you pointed out, the drive would depend on the person ... similar to what my original post points out. If the argument is that this is too costly a proposal or a waste of local revenues that could be put to use in a better way for the community, then that's a whole different argument that might have a stronger argument; however, I find this author's argument premise about making folks pay for education because it forces them to be serious about it to be a weak approach to arguing against providing free post-secondary education. There would be a stronger, more serious approach to this if the author provided any numbers tied to education as opposed to tossing out his car example. He spent time on the canned example ... would have been nice to have seen a similar effort put in to the education capacity issue too.

I like this kid's approach to science vs. football. Married the two and swatted Brady while he was at it. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/10-year-old-kid-won-science-fair-proving-tom-brady-cheater-184439991.html FTA: Some kids make baking soda and vinegar volcanoes for their science fair projects. Others find a way to turn their passion into a science fair project. Meet Ace Davis, a 10-year-old kid from Lexington, Kentucky who created a science fair project about Tom Brady. While kids in New England might be trying to figure out how to scientifically prove that Brady is the greatest quarterback who ever lived, Ace decided to go in a different direction. He created a science fair project that proves that Brady is a cheater. ... Of course, he included more than that on his poster. He used a Brady deflate-gate meme, a picture of Brady crying, and a picture of Brady making a weird face. And for good measure, Ace added a picture of himself in his football uniform (Ace plays quarterback, just like Brady) with a giant green checkmark, and put a giant red X over a picture of Brady.

I think this is a misnomer ... there are plenty of people who spend their own money to go to college and don't take the coursework seriously. Does spending their own money encourage them? To a degree. Does it force them? Not really. There are also students who have full-ride scholarships aka someone else's money who take the work very seriously as there are also kids whose parents are covering their cost of schooling aka someone else's money that also take it seriously too. Similarly there are also kids with parents footing the bill that also don't take it seriously.

I hope Mr. Stone sold a lot of those novelty stones he was hawking. While lawyers can often squeeze blood out of a stone, no pun intended, they are more interested in squeezing dollars out of this one ... pun intended.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nexwag/cannabis-company-giving-government-workers-free-weed-shutdown-medical-marijuana-budtrader-vgtrn FTA: The government shutdown may be entering its second month with no clear end in sight, but one noble cannabis website has decided to lend a hand to some of the 800,000 furloughed federal workers who aren't getting paid—by offering them free medical weed for as long as the shutdown lasts.

Probably not, pending anything else emerging. Nonetheless, I would not be the least bit surprised if someone on the GOP side of the fence helped with the nudge. Ertel was a vocal opponent of Scott's attempts to purge voter rolls and DeSantis withdrew a few dozen appointments that Scott made on the way out the door. Scott still holds some political sway; especially now as a Senator and Scott's not necessarily known for caring about stepping on toes ... even in his own party.

In looking at Ms. Copp's article and looking at other articles, some like this one from RedState, what's happened is that folks have tended to use their own idea of what a specific term means or implies and have then stretched it. ... note, I'm not saying that's what you are doing. Ms. Copp's article states that the Marine Corps states that he's not a Vietnam veteran, but doesn't actually produce documentation or a quote. What it appears that she's done though is piggybacked off of the argument that some folks started with, that being a Vietnam vet is synonymous with being a COMBAT Vietnam vet. The released DD-214 shows that Mr. Phillips wasn't in-country, and thus isn't a combat Vietnam vet. Folks that consider the two synonymous have then doubled-down on saying that he's not a Vietnam vet. I would venture a guess that, if anyone actually asked Ms. Copp where is her proof, she will reference the WaPo article where the thrust is disputing whether or not Phillip's was in-country. Many other articles of that type are written with statements akin to "Phillips claims to be a Vietnam veteran, but paperwork shows that he was not there" or "... documentation shows he was never deployed." Folks then run with that and then say, see he lied he's not a Vietnam vet ... when what they probably meant was "Aha, he's not a combat vet in Vietnam." Others who then write editorials or opinion-like pieces then also lazily state, "He's not a Vietnam vet and that was proven by the Marines." As people said said he's not a combat vet, but he is a vet, then the new direction is to make him a bad vet. He may well be a less-than-stellar soldier; however, some things that aren't in true dispute are, he did not get a dishonorable discharge, he is a vet, he's a Vietnam vet, he was awarded a NDSM, he's not a combat vet. This stuff reminds me somewhat, unfortunately, of the cr*p that my father-in-law is going through with the VA over Agent Orange claims. He was Navy and was was in-country in Vietnam. Despite the Blue Water Navy Act, he's still getting a bunch of run-around as waterways are "re-designated" etc. Doesn't change where he was, nor his exposure, nor his symptoms, just whether or not his claim gets granted.

Actually, it's nobody's words. The article that you provided doesn't show a quote and also doesn't show an official statement or document, which would be nice to have in a situation like this. Even something like, "An unnamed Marine Corps spokesman said, ' ....'" would be preferable to what was posted. But, let's dig a bit deeper on this. The article that you posted says that Phillips received the National Defense Service Medal. The National Defense Service Medal is awarded to honorable members of the armed services with the following SPECIFIC requirements of service date: June 27, 1950, to July 27, 1954 (for service during the Korean War). January 1, 1961, to August 14, 1974 (for service during the Vietnam War). August 2, 1990, to November 30, 1995 (for service during the Gulf War). September 11, 2001, to present (for service during the War on Terrorism). The National Defense Medal was specifically created to recognize service members who have served honorably during a designated period of national emergency or war, or to other active military members at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. Note that the general designations come from war-time service with the exception of the War On Terrorism which is seemingly broader than the specific theater wars in the list. Also note that the NDSM also has an additional restriction to reserve service for Korean War and Vietnam War recipients that states, "Reserve Component service during the Korean and Vietnam periods, other than those Reserve Component personnel in a full-time status or on active duty greater than 89 days, did not qualify for award of the NDSM." So attempts to limit minimize Mr. Phillip's service as being Marine Corps Reserve or limited time status as an infantryman were obviously not minimal enough to keep from being considered for and awarded the NDSM. By the designation of the award, it makes him not only a recognized veteran, but also a recognized veteran of a specific war. For more info on the award, see https://www.thebalancecareers.com/national-defense-service-medal-3344971 For a specific reference, by the US government, and specifically the Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness under the DOD , see https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/RFM/MPP/OEPM/Docs/NDSM Authorized Conflicts.pdf. Again, you see Vietnam vet as COMBAT Vietnam vet. That's also the way that Ms. Copp, the author of the article sees it too or interprets it, but it would seem that that's not what the medal would say, nor the VA, nor the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness so far. I don't think that's the official case. See my post above.

I think you are right, but I also think it comes in several ways. In some cases, the varsity coach kind of "runs" the youth program at some schools. At LCC, the head coaches' involvement has almost always been from a support standpoint. I've been a coach in the youth program thereat LCC under six varsity coaches ... seven if you count interim coaches. All of them have been EXTREMELY supportive of the youth efforts and will help out in whatever way they and their players can, but they've left the drive/direction/focus of the program to the youth coaches. They are always there for advice when we need it or to confirm our thoughts when we are looking at new things or to just show up at practice and give a talk to the young kids. They have also been very supportive in letting some of their players leave their practice early to come over and interact with or speak to the young kids about football or doing well in school or just doing their best in whatever they do. With the new logistics setup, the youth program now practices right next to the varsity and junior high teams, so it's now a lot more like a big family reunion on practice days and we are getting the benefit of proximity with not only the head coach, but the assistants getting more interaction with the youth kids during water breaks or just taking a couple of plays off to come over and watch the youth players run a couple of plays. The "continuous" contact points between the youth team and the varsity players and coaches goes a long way.

There should be more coverage of them.

While I appreciate that he wasn't a COMBAT vet and you may question the vet classification in association with a war period from your stance, for veteran benefits purposes, here's what the VA says: https://www.benefits.va.gov/pension/wartimeperiod.asp FTA: Eligible Wartime Periods Under current law, VA recognizes the following wartime periods to determine eligibility for VA Pension benefits: Mexican Border Period (May 9, 1916 – April 5, 1917 for Veterans who served in Mexico, on its borders, or adjacent waters) World War I (April 6, 1917 – November 11, 1918) World War II (December 7, 1941 – December 31, 1946) Korean conflict (June 27, 1950 – January 31, 1955) Vietnam era (February 28, 1961 – May 7, 1975 for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period; otherwise August 5, 1964 – May 7, 1975) [my emphasis] Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – through a future date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation) My father was stationed in Europe during his five-year stint in the US Air Force as a volunteer, from roughly 1960-1965. Never set foot in Vietnam. Upon his death, he received the following type of grave marker from the VA/National Cemetery Association that was placed on his burial site: which specifically listed his rank and states VIETNAM on the plaque. Whether folks want to call a Vietnam vet someone who saw combat duty, or was stationed in the theater, or "in the rear with the gear," or who was in the services somewhere on the planet during war-time at veteran, that's of their own choosing, but someone who served in the armed services is a veteran regardless of war-time or peace-time or "ceasefire" time or humanitarian aid time. Someone who served in the services during the designated periods are considered veterans of that war ... with the exceptions listed above such as the early part of Vietnam or the Mexican Border Period. I would hope that we'd all, especially those of us who have or have had service members, don't get caught up in playing "he's not really a vet." You can make the claim that he's not a combat vet, but he's a vet nonetheless. And by the limitations provided by the VA ... for example, you had to have been "in-country" to be counted as Vietnam vet from February 28, 1961 - August 4, 1964 or in the service, August 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975 ... they have already accounted for the fact that "in-country" isn't a requirement for classification of a Vietnam vet unless it was in the February 28, 1961 - August 4, 1964 period.

A specific look at TSA employees, among others impacted by the shutdown: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/politics/the-shutdown-is-hurting-some-federal-workers/index.html

Are you implying that Mr. Phillips isn't a Vietnam vet?

I think it's points. Lookin' to triple-down this season.

Probably the smart one. 🙂 My theory on multiple boys in the a family ... three or more. The first one is usually naturally fast or big. The second one is usually the opposite ... if the oldest is the biggest, the second oldest is usually fast to get away from him. The third one is the smartest one ... usually to get away from the oldest one who's bigger and the second oldest who's faster gotta use a little brainpower. May also be the comedian to figure out distractions to avoid brotherly beatings. The fourth one is usually just a pure survivor and a freak of nature to survive the older three growing up.

You learn about it in homeschooling too ... my youngest is "in class" with his older brother ... and you know how older brothers are. 😀

Sure, it could teach them that ... although I'd think the lesson would be less about physical labor and more about juggling competing priorities, both of which are important. Of course, for every one of those kinds of situations, there are also the ones that you hear/see about parents letting the kids off and not holding their feet to the fire to the work ... or providing the necessary structure. There are some where the parent, by design, abdicates that responsibility and others where life just catches them off guard and the next thing they know their kid's behind and they struggle to get back on track. Also, on the admin side, I've spoken with admissions folks at colleges that also have horror stories from some homeschool examples where the secondary school "transcript" is a list of books that the kid has read over the last four years. An argument can also be made that similar things happen in public schools too where there are parents that are highly engaged in their kids' education and work with the school to get the most for the kid out of their educational experience and others who completely check out and abdicate even parenting requirements. For whichever way the needle points, ultimately it's important for parental involvement to be part of the equation.

I think homeschoolers, like the rest of the population, have their +/- 1std as well as their fair share of +/- 3std folks too. As for tolerance of political views, I've seen it both ways and wouldn't say that there's anything more or less differentiating than in the public schools. I'm not sure that the issue of teachers and/or teacher unions hating homeschooling is a set guarantee either. In a day and age where most homeschoolers tend to split duties with other schools once their kids get to high school, there's plenty of opportunity for interaction/integration of secondary education instruction from both avenues.

Good thing he wasn't wearing a hoodie or a 12 year-old with a toy gun ... could have gotten ugly really fast.