Wired magazine had an article a year ago about delegate v**ers similar to our requirement for jury duty. People would be selected at random and need ro meet specific requirements, but they would be sequestered and would hear arguments on both sides of a law, or arguments from canidates. The idea was to force informed v****g. Obviously the majority of people v**ers, v**e straight party lines, v**e name recognition, (think Jesse Jackson Jr) or v**e what others tell them to v**e with peer pressure without ever researching both sides of an argument.
I say r******r to v**e required, with ID, and with proof of intellect to actually make an informed decision. If you can't answer a questionnaire about who or what you are v****g on, you don't get to v**e.

Very conservative in my thinking. I came in with a negative attitude seeing the professor was from Stanford, but his recommendation is close to the same conclusion I had discussed with friends. Economics isn't the differentiator between becoming a good student, the attitude of the family towards education is where it starts. It's a sad society we live in when we need government programs to teach parenting.
Reading to your children should be a no-brainer. But evidently the poor are in a cycle of family life where that isn't the norm and they need to be taught that THEY have the responsibilty for the success of their children. Not the public school system.
Alas, in the end, you can only help those who want to be helped. There will still be those who want to perpetuate the cycle of living off those who produce and the contribute to society. What to do with them?

How sad that a "religion" teaches the destruction of another. Supposedly Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in the same God. The differences are in the writings of the respective prophets. If things keep going the way they are, it will be holy war all over again like it was in the dark ages. When does our government go back to a priority of Christian values and respect?
Reverse the scenario of that video and picture the field day MSNBC or CNN would have had if that was christians stoning a group of Muslims with banners?

Yes clear thinking. At least certainly more clear than the liberal minset that ia twisted with faulty arguments.
Oppose guns for most but tend to be the ones who rely on them the most.
Argue that a******n and the taking of an innocent life is OK but capital punishment of a murder is bad.
Complain about g****l w*****g and the evils of oil, yet ignore the benefits of nuclear energy.
Want background checks for guns, but say showing an ID to v**e is an infringement of rights.
WTF? Is wrong with that logic? I'm sorry. It's not logic. Deep down it is just like Dawkins. It's an opinion on a subject that they shout down anyone who disagrees with them. Morons.

Here is the big difference between Dawkins and clear thinking Christians...Dawkins thinks he has the right to condemn our beliefs and use scare tactics and language to drum up support. Christians pray for his soul and have a genuine concern for his lack of belief or respect for other's opinions.
All I can say is he is a sad excuse for a "
scientist".

The government can try to make everyone equal by redistributing wealth, but they can never make people equal in intellect and drive to succeed. Try as they might, the masses will segregate and be devided because of this. Free will is being taken away and instead compassion is replaced with contempt for those who don't contribute to society.

Joe Martino is an un-informed i***t for his conclusions on two completly different buildings suffering two very different fires with different "fuels".
I'm an architect and I can get into all kinds of details as to why any of the arguments are wrong.
Structural damage on WTCthe versus no column damage.
Avaition fuel versus light combustibles
Number of floors above the damaged areas
Chechnya tower's construction(concrete) versus WTC's steel
Oh yeah, and WTC's sprinklers did not work on the fire after being torn apart by a plane flying through them.
Do some research before you write crap that uneducated people will take as facts .

Be careful, Rich278, flip your argument around. Is being liberal posing a case for it is OK to k**l an innocent who can not speak or defend him/herself, yet a murderer who had a choice in lifestyle choices, gets amnesty? What kind of logic is that? I subscribe to the Catholic Churches' view that ALL life is sacred. Liberals and conservatives play the game of choosing opposite sides just to distinguish themselves to capture v**es. If you study each position, the logic makes little sense.

The US should convert. I got caught in the 70's push in public education to implement metrics and teach us how good it is. Having a need to use metrics in surveying, I saw it's advantages. It is hard to make mathematical errors. All mistakes manifest themselves quickly. You can do most conversions in your head instead of needing c***t sheets to remember how many onces are in a pound or in a pint and neither relates to the other, unlike in metrics.
Plus its fun going triple digit speeds on the highway in kph.

Or maybe better titled, why I am no longer a straight party line v**er. Those days are long gone. Both parties seek to pick the extreme oposite view as a way to appease the radical left or right minority instead of finding middle ground that is ultimately based on common sense. I too did not believe the rhetoric of the war mongering republicans at the time just as I don't believe the fiscal spinnings of "there's no spending problem" of the liberals today.
Elected officials are more and more trying to appease the loud minority while ignoring the vast majority in hopes of separating themselves in the pack of challengers to their precious senate or house seat. Maybe if those seats were not so lucrative, (volunteer, minimum reimbursements), people who really wanted change would be the ones to fill those seats.

Amen to that. Children are taught, indirectly, how to study to get the test. It is all about memorizing and regurgitating what the teacher spews out. No critical thinking is involved. My son can spit out fact after fact, but can't deduce how to "connect the dots" between things he has learned.
I am left to "home school" these things in the hope he will be in better prepared.

Eventually, although not in our lifetimes, solar energy will supply the world's energy needs. The sun bombards the earth with enough energy ever hour to supply the entire planet's energy needs for the entire year. The problem is we don't have the technology to harness it and put it to good use.
Nuclear is our best technology and cleanest energy. Especially wafter you consider the mining practices to get the precious metals needed for the "green" energy of solar or wind in the manufacturing of batteries and solar panels needed to make it viable. Not exactly "green".
Uranium fuel the size of a soda can, can supply all the energy I will use in my lifetime.