It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been committed for fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.
Charles Pierre PĆ©guy
Notre Patrie, 1905
Ostensibly exploring the practice of law before the internet. Heck, before good highways for that matter.
Hillary Clinton was apparently wowed on Tuesday by the idea of appointing President Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Clinton responded to an audience member during a campaign event who noted the next president will likely have a lot of Supreme Court appointments, report the Des Moines Register and the New York Times First Draft blog. The speaker wondered if Obama would be one of them.
“Wow, what a great idea,” Clinton said. “Nobody has ever suggested that to me. Wow. I love that.”
Clinton said “wow” one more time “as if giving herself an extra second to think of a good answer,” First Draft says.As you will recall, William H. Taft, the nation's 27th President was later the 10th Justice of the Supreme Court. Taft had actually always preferred the law over politics, and it was the Presidency that turned out to be a frustrating aberration for him.
“I’ll be sure to take that under advisement,” she said. “I mean, he’s brilliant. He can set forth an argument, and he was a law professor, so he’s got all the credentials. Now, we do have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed.”Oh, he has credentials. And she lists them. Let's look at those, they are: 1) he can argue, and 2) he was a professor.
Lex Anteinternet: Killing people and breaking things. . . and women ...: The Women's Mounted Emergency Corps. "A mounted emergency corps of women has been organized as an auxiliary to the Second Fie...Following that the Marine Corps briefly balked, leading to some proper speculation if they'd refuse to comply, but they fell in line, as indeed they have no choice but to do.
In fact, public investment in higher education in America is vastly larger today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was during the supposed golden age of public funding in the 1960s. Such spending has increased at a much faster rate than government spending in general. For example, the military’s budget is about 1.8 times higher today than it was in 1960, while legislative appropriations to higher education are more than 10 times higher.
In other words, far from being caused by funding cuts, the astonishing rise in college tuition correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education. If over the past three decades car prices had gone up as fast as tuition, the average new car would cost more than $80,000.
As the baby boomers reached college age, state appropriations to higher education skyrocketed, increasing more than fourfold in today’s dollars, from $11.1 billion in 1960 to $48.2 billion in 1975. By 1980, state funding for higher education had increased a mind-boggling 390 percent in real terms over the previous 20 years. This tsunami of public money did not reduce tuition: quite the contrary.
Interestingly, increased spending has not been going into the pockets of the typical professor. Salaries of full-time faculty members are, on average, barely higher than they were in 1970. Moreover, while 45 years ago 78 percent of college and university professors were full time, today half of postsecondary faculty members are lower-paid part-time employees, meaning that the average salaries of the people who do the teaching in American higher education are actually quite a bit lower than they were in 1970.By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.
LARAMIE, Wyo. (AP) — The University of Wyoming Board of Trustees has approved creation of a new diversity assistant position. The Laramie Boomerang reports that the new assistant will lead the development and implementation of a diversity plan for the college. UW President Dick McGinity says a search committee will be formed to find potential candidates for the job. McGinity says introducing students to a diverse campus is important for many reasons, including success in the workplace after graduation.
A program that supports University of Wyoming sports appears safe from budget cuts that could slash millions from K-12 schools and literacy programs for young readers and their parents.
i. Do you believe that Wyoming was ever "promised" these lands? If you do, back that up and explain why the State forever disclaimed them upon being admitted to the Union.
ii. Wyoming sportsmen uniformly believe that the state acquiring the lands is a bad idea and will result in the loss of public use of them. What do you say to that?
ii. Would you prohibit the sale of the lands for all time? The state's really hurting for cash right now, so why should we believe that would be effective?
iii. What advantage to the State is there in acquiring the lands? Don't rest on platitudes, give us facts and figures and numbers. You know that there's cost to managing them, don't you?
iv. Given that Wyoming has the lowest population in the nation, and this would have to go through Congress, doesn't this movement risk angering the majority of Americans who feel that the lands should have more Federal control, rather than less? So, long term, doesn't this "gimme" type of attitude risk getting our hands severely slapped?
i. Are you willing to accept that the slump in oil may be due to a new economic regime in petroleum production, and we might never get the high prices back? If so, what do you say to the state and nation about that? If you don't agree, back that up.
ii. Are you willing to accept that coal is likely dead, and admit that on the campaign trail. Yes, I know that as a Wyomingite (for those of you who are, and a couple of you are pretty iffy on that), you are supposed to say that clean coal will save coal, but as the evidence of that is scant, are you willing to face it. If you aren't, back up your position with specifics, not airy hopes. And if you propose to argue for investing in "clean coal", are you willing to admit that's a socialist proposal?
iii. Are you willing to accept that global public opinion has clearly turned against fossil fuels, now matter what your personal position may be, and it no longer makes any difference whether a Wyoming politician admits or denies a belief in climate change? The world does, and the world is reacting massively. Given that, how does that impact in real, not imaginary ways, how you see this industry in our state in the future. And don't just give us "the world needs" answer, as that same answer would have worked for wagon wheels and saddles too. Give us a real answer on how you think things need to develop, and how that relates to your intended job in Congress, assuming that it even does.
i. The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. What's that mean to you?
ii. Are you in favor of women in combat? No waffling.
iii. Have you ever been in the service? If not, why not?
iv. Is the military too big, too small?
v. What is your view on the War On ISIL, and don't give me that "Obama messed this up" answer. I want to know what you intend to do right now, and how long you think it's going to take. You propose to take a job on, and my presumption will be that you are going to sit around for two years blaming people who came before you.
vi. Same question for Afghanistan. What are your thoughts?
vii. While on this, would you explain to us your views on our friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most repressive nations on earth, and which doesn't allow any sort of freedom of religions at all. Why are we buddies with those guys?
i. Okay I know that you didn't say you were a Socialist, unless of course you actually have no hope or desire to be elected, or that you are completely delusional, but if you said "no" to that one, what's your feeling on the many odd subsidized programs the US has. One has recently been in the news big time, with the GOP promising that they were going to cut subsidies for a private entity that they did not, but what about you? Are you going to really attack the many socialized, in practical terms, programs that there are, or do you support some? If you do, what are they and why do you feel that's an exception.
ii. Alright, I know you said you were a capitalist and believe in the free market. I also said that you said you aren't a distributist, and that you became a bit queasy as you also don't even know what that is (and bonus points to you, if you actually do, but how far are you willing to take that? What is the government's role in our economy? What is the corporate role?
You may have noticed that our local economy is getting pounded recently. What are your feelings about that?