I've started to divide book purchases up- the ones I'd want to have on the shelf come hell or high water, loan, leave behind me when I die, etc, I buy hardcopy. For fluff reading, it's digital all the way- just too easy.

[quote][b]solidroque[/b] - I wasn't talking about normal 9-5 work hours. I was talking about having to go into the lab to check on that experiment at 10 o'clock at night because you have to notate the results. I was talking about the weekend conference that you have to attend that doesn't give you comp time because you are salaried. The things that make you miss birthday parties and baseball games because they don't happen M-F, 9-5.[/quote]

Which is common in many jobs. Anyone going into fields where it's required knows what's coming, no? Also, same-sex couples would have the same problem with missing this, that, or the other- same birthdays, games, and all that. The inconvenience is no different.

[quote][b]solidroque[/b] - Yes, it would. Not because the "straights" would suddenly know how it feels to not have benefits like the "domestic partners", but because the University would be going back on a promise it made when they were hired. And people would sue the hell out of UGA, and win.[/quote]

You might want to check your fine print. I don't know how the UGA policies work, but slipping additional validation requirements into a yearly update or whenever you re-select your benefits would probably be just fine, legally.

[quote][b]solidroque[/b] - No. Validate now and you don't have to worry about later.[/quote]

Depends on what disturbs you more- the potential of fraud, or the certainty of delaying benefits for people who, even by your "annoyed by partner's absense" guideline, deserve them. And, of course, it's fair to make the validation requirements equally burdensome (or easy) for both, no?

Only two days? You'd think a couple months or so would get an adjustment rather than just a lesson.

On the other hand, this bit from the article was hilarious: "“What may be better for most parents is if we teach children empathy by having them volunteer at a place where there’s poor people,” he [psychologist Goldsmith] said.

I do not think the word "volunteer" means what he thinks it means. And in this case, I suppose it'd just teach the kid that working with poor people is a form of punishment.

[quote][b]solidroque[/b] - spouses sometimes have to miss out on time with their partner, so they should recieve a benefit to make up for the loss.[/quote]

Yeah, that benefit is the money the employee brings home. If neither of them had to work, they'd spend all day with each other- it's implied you'll spend some time away from your spouse at work.

[quote][b]solidroque[/b] - If you would re-read my original post, you would see that this is not about whether or not there should be domestic partner benefits, but how do we make sure that those benefits are limited to ACTUAL domestic partners and not roommates, etc. From some of the other posts, it looks like there are some guidelines that are trying to address the questions. However, I don't think they would stand under a true legal challenge. [/quote]

In the meantime, those deserving partners who are currently heartbroken that their significant long-term others are working odd shifts, etc, go without benefits. If UGA announced that they'd require additional verification of spousal status and weren't going to continue benefits until they got it, all hell would break loose. Would you say it's a reasonable compromise to go ahead and let people sign up, then validate later?

[quote][b]jtsim[/b] - and you and the rest of the trusting souls will be using kudzu leaves[/quote]

Hey, I've got family in South Georgia- I suppose I'll be reveling in my share of the new kudzu-export business, trading kudzu for chickens to sore-assed customers.

Fortunately, toilet paper shortages are impossible in a capitalist economy.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/01/johnny-carson-once-cause...

[quote][b]StephaniePham[/b] - Students, especially those in college, are starting to get more and more burned out because of the notion that money and power are the two most important things in life. Is that right? Where should the line be drawn?[/quote]

Assuming money's essentially equivalent to power (or it's just very expensive toilet paper), the simple question is- power to do what? What do you want to do, and how much power (of any sort- money, authority, personal connections and influence, celebrity, etc) will you need to do it?

Also, be prepared for that to go awry. Always will.

[quote][b]davidxto[/b] - Why do people abandon a belief in God or in unseen spiritual mysteries?[/quote]

You could just as easily ask the flipside- why do people maintain it? Faith does seem to occupy an awful lot of mental effort on the part of the believer, in rationalization if nothing else.

Personally, I'm not an angry atheist...I'm something of an indifferent one. There's no conflict or trauma or mystery or ethical conundrum that I require the supernatural to fill or solve, and it doesn't seem like the most likely cause of anything. Even in childhood, I wasn't exactly a big one in the faith department- so, atheist. Distinct lack of faith. If you believed there was an omnipotent deity, and you were angry at him, I'd think it just means you'd have to resign yourself to living in a universe designed and run by a bit of a dick.

Which means what does surprise me is the lack of angry believers. You read articles about (let me just pick one example) a kid recovering from cancer, and people sing praises and claim it's a miraculous sign of divine love. On the other hand, you notice that plenty of kids just get cancer and die after great suffering and that's that. To use your lifeboat analogy, how grateful would you, or should you be, if the rescuers were the same people who torpedoed your ship? Bunch of nice guys for saving your life (eventually)? Rotten bastards who killed your shipmates?

[quote][b]Farmer GA[/b] - Oh, but it is. I don't believe in the existance of Santa Clause, therefore, I believe that Santa Clause doesn't exist. You can't lack belief. You can only hold to one belief or another, or another.[/quote]

Do you believe in Wampu, the invisible platypus god who rules the planet Mars? Of course not, and you never did. But did you ever assert a positive disbelief in Wampu's existence until this moment? Should we have recorded you as a non-Wompuist, and is that belief significant when assessing your views on religion?

In short, you didn't believe in Wampu, but you also didn't have a belief Wampu didn't exist.

[quote][b]solidroque[/b] - Question: How can this be written so that there can be no (or at least little) fraud?[/quote]

Is there any law or regulation that can do this? After all, lawmakers have weeks or months (in theory) to make legislation, but people seeking to take advantage of it have years to figure out how, and numbers on their side.

Will the costs of abuse be unwieldy is a better question to ask.

[quote][b]solidroque[/b] - The last time this story came up, they said the cost to the University of covering current "domestic partners" would be around $500,000. Its already been several years since we've had any kind of raise around here, that would make it even longer.[/quote]

Think what kind of raises they could give if they dropped benefits for spouses entirely!

[quote][b]GroversMill[/b] - I see that being realistic isn't one of Huffington's recommended goals.[/quote]

Doing a little web browsing, it looks like tuition, room and board at Smith'll run you about $55k a year. Those girls' parents probably aren't doing too badly, nor are they particularly underconnected socially.

Basically, graduating with your worst problem being "What do I want to do with my life?" probably is realistic for most of them. Put 'em at the top of the totem pole that descends through "What pays well without being too annoying" to "What pays well" to "What pays enough" to "What pays anything"

[quote][b]mcdawg[/b] - How did we arrive in this confused state?[/quote]

Let's say we have a field full of cages. The vast majority of cages are filled with sheep. A tiny fraction of the cages are filled with tigers. One day the tigers start trying to convince the sheep how much better off they'd be if all the cages were gone-- how they'd be free to graze where they liked and as much as they liked, how they wouldn't have to put up with other sheep in adjoining cages if they didn't want to, etc.

In short, the sheep forgot what free tigers do, and some few may have begun to believe that they themselves were just particularly pale tigers...

I'd say almost by definition power of a sort is success- specifically, the power/ability to do what satisfies you or makes you happy. Money does help this along to an extent, because it speeds the process along and can eliminate some distractions and annoyances.

Basically, you decide what you want to do, then do it. That'd probably make most people happy, rich or poor. Be prepared to change your mind occasionally on what you want to do as you grow- a point where you say "Well, what now?" just means it's time for something new.

Black separatism? Ever hear of this "White flight" phenomenon from a while back...

It's not like black people found the middle of Atlanta uninhabited, and moved there from their formerly perfectly integrated living conditions in an effort to get away from white folks.

[quote][b]youdawgyou[/b] - Maybe some of these murdered newborns should be dropped on your doorstep. Then, maybe you'd get the picture.[/quote]

Or a rake.

[quote][b]youdawgyou[/b] - Liberals in this nation are little more than socialists dressed in the clothing of a free republic.[/quote]

Remember the origins of the word "republic"- Res publica, the "public thing". The current crop of far-right tea partiers suggest that there shouldn't be a "public thing", but only a collection of private things- everyone pursuing their own good and devil take the hindmost if they can't keep up.

You're right that liberals and conservatives (roughly) may see matter of right and wrong differently. For example, liberals really hate warfare, which conservatives seem to, on some level, enjoy. Ditto the death penalty, or plentiful private firearms. It seems to be a general liberal complaint about conservatives that they're callous, and indifferent to various forms of harm coming to others.

Liberals are also more prone to see things in terms of how things benefit the group as a whole- not just how they affect individual people. This occasionally does result in different views of what's right and wrong- liberals are more prone to have someone forego some good if the aggregate result benefits the country as a whole.

[quote][b]youdawgyou[/b] - Looked at their ratings compared to CNN, MSNBC, Madlow, Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews, etc. They're headed in opposite directions. [/quote]

Did you bother to add up the total viewers there? If you're comparing Fox to everybody else, then that's a slight edge to the "liberal media" over Fox for the total daily viewing, no?

[quote][b]youdawgyou[/b] - No one of you liberals here has made a comment about how horrible these murders are. More evidence of the brainwashing, and the HEARTLESS mindset liberals have.[/quote]

It's not like anyone's saying the guy shouldn't be prosecuted for it, or that it'd be a difficult conviction. I just don't think it's screaming in all caps material.

[quote][b]yankeetransplant[/b] - Being an illegal in this country is no different than committing any of a number of other crimes. Illegal is illegal, no matter how you say it. Let the illegals apply to enter the United States through the proper channels and wait for authorization as do Thousands of other applicants each year.[/quote]

It's not like the immigration laws were carved in stone tablets by divine command. Change the law, and poof- not illegal any more.

[quote][b]King Minos[/b] - Again, anti-DUI efforts may be out of proportion to deaths and injuries caused by that behavior; if that is the case then OTHER behaviors that contribute significantly to accidents are relatively ignored.[/quote]

Well, no- consider that texting while driving is also on the way out legally, as is cell phone use while driving in many states. Give it time, but many other causes of accidents seem to be in the crosshairs.

[quote][b]King Minos[/b] - still, there is NO way this NEXT apartment/retail space expansion is sustainable![/quote]

Nothing ever is. Did you not notice that economic history is a cycle of growth spurts and collapses? Of course it'll crash sooner or later. Then it'll grow again, then it'll crash, and so on and so forth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes_and_bear_markets

You can sort of expect the things every couple decades, and a severe one once or twice a century. It does not end the world. It does not end civilization. It may even be a necessary part of a free market.

[quote][b]youdawgyou[/b] - Just shows how HEARTLESS the liberal media is, and how successful they have been at brainwashing our society into an unconscionable state of mind.[/quote]

What makes you think we're being brainwashed by the media? What if the media are responding to what the readers think is significant- eyes drive ad revenue, after all, and if people don't heavily read articles on botched abortions and medical malpractice associated with it, there's no point in giving those topics heavy coverage, no?

[quote][b]King Minos[/b] - As more families and individuals worry about their financial and economic security, they may tend to place a higher value on family; and may seek to have more children in the belief that those kids might one day help take care of them.[/quote]

On the other hand, they'd have more kids to take care of in the short term, which they may not be able to do. Consider that the birth rate went down when the economy tanked, just like it did in the Great Depression.

Compare the cost to raise a child to the equivalent return of investing that money for, say, forty or fifty years (time of the first child to time of retirement). Sure, the investment might not pay out, but then again your kid could tell you to stuff it, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/texas-investigation-of-abortion-doc...

It made the A-section of the New York Times. Are you asking why the "liberal media" doesn't actually play the story up more?

Are you worried that your face is scanned by everyone's eyes whenever they look at you?

[quote][b]theold33[/b] - Bring back hard labor camps and prisons. No more probation. This should be taught in high school. You commit a crime, you will at least do a year of hard labor. No exceptions, rich or poor. When you get out and commit another crime, five years of hard labor.[/quote]

So what do you do when you're putting all these people in jail and it still doesn't discourage them? Other than pay the taxes to support the jails, of course.