Agree with Taylor. In fact, I'm pretty certain this is the most illogical and disrespectful advice I've read in a forum such as this. It's strikingly ironic that the author makes reference to the "equality" of certain people (i.e., women) yet doesn't pause to offer advice that overtly assesses the boyfriend as "less equal" (in this case, having less of a right to respectful consideration) because of what is judged to be "idiocy". As to differing views in relationships, it is much more critical to me to understand HOW a potential partner arrived/arrives at their views than that those views align with my own. It may sound radical in this day and age, but I don't blithely judge someone who disagrees with me as being in a state of "idiocy".
It's definitely not a left or right problem. While a significant percentage of self-described "conservatives" still believe Obama is Muslim, a comparable percentage of African-American voters believed in '08 that if Obama was elected all of their loans - including mortgages - would be wiped clean (polls show that the percentage on that has stayed pretty much the same as they believe it hasn't happened because Republicans have blocked him). Ed identified one reason why it would never happen. Obama has demonstrated a striking and discomforting failure to grasp many fundamental economic concepts on the micro- and macro- scales. So those in office would never agree to being vetted so plainly. But a bigger reason is that both parties rely on "useful idiots" to ensure they can always rely on a base level of support - whether it's voters in their party who only need a few keywords from a couple of speeches to be good to go for that cycle, or the ones on the other side (who are typically the loudest) who will scare their base with the content and volume of their rhetoric. The modern calculus of elections can be quite depressing.
The issue here is simple: EITHER change our immigration laws, OR enforce them. All of the arguments about racial profiling, exploitation of cheap labor, over zealous local authorities, and so on - not to mention the simply untenable position faced every day by the men and women tasked with securing our southern borders with lukewarm financial and logistical support - can be laid at the feet of a Federal government that insists - passively and actively - that making laws are one thing and choosing to enforce them is another. They are one and the same, and the chaos and abuse on both sides of the issue is a textbook example of what happens when one branch of our government takes it upon itself to unilaterally decide which laws enacted by "the people" are "good" and which ones are "bad." There is every opportunity and avenue for changing laws that many people thnk are unjust, but just doing nothing in the meantime creates a vacuum that is inevitably filled by the most extreme parties on both sides. Meanwhile, articles like this, and politicians like those referenced therein, increase animosity and embolden extremists when they could be joining a loud chorus demanding that the Fed do it's job.
First, and again since someone corrected you in your original blog post, it's "hydraulic fracturing." "Fracking" may indeed be short for "hydro-fracking", but explaining one slang term being short for another - especially when the topic is a specific geologic process that can either occur naturally or be induced - is regrettable journalism. Or so I thought until...
You trackback to a blog entry in June before you copy and paste it nearly verbatim in this post only to add the part about earthquakes that "apparently" can be caused by "fracking." How you know that when you state plainly that the Ohio Natural Resources Dept. is attempting to "figure out if "fracking" led to the earthquakes" is not explained, but wouldn't it be your civic duty to notify Ohio's state government that they can save their money as you have the answer in-hand. I enjoy reading CL, as I enjoyed reading alt press before I moved to Charlotte, but putting your news items in blog form does not provide an excuse to abandon journalistic ethics/principles.
Womack Newspapers, Inc.
Powered by Foundation