Maybe the seizure inducing ones.
Or perhaps depressing Swedish cinema.
Unfortunately, marriage contracts are well known for their business and property related nature throughout history, ergo, dismissing it as a non-concern for government is a fool's gambit.
Unless you're a closet anarchist who believes the government has no role in the regulation of contracts.
That's about half of the story.
There's a few dozen other points of view. But I recognize that there's only so much any one artist can draw in a single image within the relative amount of time.
Not really, ORRMEANSLIGHT, besides, the real issue of gun violence is not the singular individuals, no matter how much media attention they get while the far more common problems are ignored.
STEVEN SMITH, actually, there's a simple legal reason for it. No organized system of responsibility and if there's one thing we've demanded from our government, it's accountability.
And the idea of a government-run payment system ran into opposition from the financial industry who hated the thought of losing their opportunity to skim profits.
You know Jesus had something to say about bearing False Witness and making accusations against another person.
You should refrain from that.
fairmon, not really, 70 billion is a lot to you and me, but not so much when it comes to the educational spending of the nation. That's because the Federal government has no real authority or capacity to do anything much regarding education. There's no overarching DC hierarchy to worry about, that's just the typical attempts for the local power structure to federalize the blame so as to have their own failings ignored. The Republican party would be much better off if they stopped trying to blame Washington for a lot of things, but the scapegoating in regards public education is an especially egregious farce. You want to see better run education systems? Check out some other countries. They apparently haven't collapsed due to a central authority.
But no, I'm not surprised that such people exist. They've been around for decades, even centuries. It's not today's system that is the problem for creating them, they were around long before.
You just didn't see their capacities so much due to the way society was structured. Now they're high-lighted and come across as a problem, as if they were new, when the reality is they've been part of humanity all along. Just ask some senior citizens if they recall any students who went off and got factory jobs rather than stayed in school. Or if they remember their parents talking about such things.
And IMO, most of the testing is just a waste of time, but hey, you want to deal with that additive cost, go right ahead. You can guess who was behind that. Well, maybe you can't. But you don't have to anyway.
fairmon, it seems you are, when you suggest the idea that charter schools may be the solution.
If you think so, you might want to be more skeptical.
But no, the job of the union isn't to serve the educational process directly, their job is to serve the teachers with representation to protect their interests in negotiations with the administration. Who gladly blames the teachers for the failings, while never recognizing their own faults.
Including buying into the "improved processes, advanced techniques and resources" which certain sales professionals are glad to try to foist off on to the local school systems. Particularly the standardized testing fetish.
And do keep thinking the federal government is failing schools. That's just another way to find somebody else to blame, a way to use rhetoric to drive propaganda.
And I wonder what you'd say if you met more of the teachers rather than just the one side. Or more of the achievers. Who may not be interested in the jobs you're offering.
Sometimes one's perspective isn't representative of the whole pool.
Or it would give them yet another reason to go back into their fantasies.
And Democrats know that Republican pipe dreams of increase revenues will never be substantiated, and that Republicans will never cut what's really a waste.