So sense lies somewhere in between. Instead of education, it needs to become re-education.
So sense lies somewhere in between. Instead of education, it needs to become re-education.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Fair point. Least they can do.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Still, you have to wonder with a country that doesn't enlist it's military through a draft; is it not also the responsability of these people themselves to plan for their lives after military service? I mean, I think there is a huge difference between a kid being dragged off to Viet Nam because his number came up, and somebody who wound up in Iraq etc because he, out of his own free will, signed up for what is basically a job. Isn't it a bit strange that we act as if they both are the same?
Congratulations America
Well, the army as employer would have an interest in promising and actually doing something towards it, because it makes the not so appealing job of soldier a weebit more appealing. But if they didn't promise it or if the soldier doesn't use the available programs, why should society at large feel responsable? It's not much different than a data entry typist refusing to train for a new job.
Congratulations America
I think the important part there is the soldier offered the opportunity and if the soldier refuses than that's that. After the decision you can't demand a free re-education because you found out you made the wrong decision.
What would be fair is that some skills are already there and it's foolish not to take that into account and making the soldier go through training for those skills.
edit: botched up sentence.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Well, for the fighting part they actually already got paid, it's not like by virtue of doing your job you gain the right to a free ride for the rest of your life. And the programs may be in the hand of legislators (as they are holding the purse strings), but in the end you could think about the disadvantages of being a soldier (possibility of getting killed or disabled, ruining your career) before you put your signature under the agreement to enlist in the armed forces.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against taking care of any people whose contract expired, I am against the notion that we have an obligation no matter what just because we call these people veterans rather than jobless.
Congratulations America
Congratulations America
"The issue with Jon Stewart is that when he gets into a political argument that he is losing he cowers behind the fact that he's a comedian."
I have not actually seen Jon Stewart on the loosing side of a political argument, I have seen representatives of "news" networks try to defend themselves from his satire by saying that his show is not a shining example of journalism. And Jon Stewart quite rightly points out, that his is a comedy show and if the standard for serious news networks has become "Hey Comedy Central airs nearly as much bullshit as we do" then they are in a sad state indeed... Of course FOX goes even further then that saying that anyone contesting their slogan of "Fair and Balanced" must be aspiring to claim that slogan for himself. Also I do not understand how the same network can claim "Fair and Balanced" and practically in the same sentence say they provide "right wing counterpoint to the liberal media".
The issue with Lewk is, when he loses an argument he cowers behind absence and in the not so long term severe cases of amnesia.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Well, he often does give some talking points that turn out to be dubious on inspection -- usually related to math. For example, he criticized Romney for having a higher per-company failure rate (while he was at Bain) than the Department of Energy's loans, while ignoring actual size comparisons -- if one 500M company goes under and 19 5M companies don't, that is an abject failure, not a 95% success rate.
Both Jon Stewart and the rest of the media fall into the trap of cherry-picking data and giving the easiest explanation that can be blurted out in 5 seconds or less. It's a question of degrees and being knowledgeable enough about basic logic to know when someone's spinning the news.
Regarding Fox News: that's a perfectly valid dualism. There are a lot of liberal talking heads on Fox News, but they never get to the point of outright lying like they do in certain MSNBC shows.
On the other hand, Hannity's many wildly inaccurate statements often makes me cringe, as well as many of his guests who use hyperbole to the point of exhaustion. There are, however, plenty of other reporters and commentators besides Hannity on Fox News who report and/or discuss the news in such a way that I cannot discern any bias whatsoever.
Shepard Smith! Love his sense of humor..and he has the balls to poke fun at the Republicans as well.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita