alwaysAttending

Lead paint itself flakes. One of the reasons it was used is because it is "self cleaning" in that the dirty top layer eventually sheds off. The most common way lead gets in your blood stream from lead paint is actually usually dust from flaking paint, chipping, sanding, etc. Even these dust level amounts will spike a toddler's blood lead levels because they absorb it much more readily, thinking it is iron or calcium. If you are iron-deficient you wind up absorbing lead as much as seven times more readily!

It's a poor man's YTMND

An IQ test wouldn't indicate more neurons.

Disable your JavaScript for maximum benefit

San Francisco housing is expensive BECAUSE of the incomes. Vancouver housing is expensive DESPITE the incomes. It's more of a housing issue than an income one. If incomes were higher, rents would only go up as well.

love it.

Yes, what a shame it would be for you to have to pay 1st world standard of taxes. I mean, clearly India has it all figured out on how to build a functional society without such an obscene tax burden.

I agree with your claim, but the post I was replying to seemed to imply a positive evolution, which is what I was responding to.

Well there's a difference between evolution and natural selection. What I was implying was that our diet may not influence our evolution through natural selection because modern medicine may prevent us ridding ourselves of the bad mutations or may keep good mutations that will adapt to western diet from rising to the top. So it makes sense that we are more diverse because the best genes are less competitive. But genetic mutations occur no matter what we eat, so, yes, we'll continue to evolve.

The problem with this claim that the western diet is part of our evolution is that we use every trick in the book to combat the negative side effects. I, for instance, have Crohn's Disease, which basically didn't exist 100 years ago. If our Western Diet were influencing our evolution, yeah maybe the population would be healthy because it would be dynamically adapting, but it'd be because people like me would be dead or dying off. But we aren't because of modern medicine. So we're not really evolving that much thanks to our diet. We're handling the negative consequences and getting stuck in a quagmire. Autoimmune diseases are increasing at a crazy rate even now in the East.

In a country that looks down upon unions and guild-like structures meant to protect their workers, you'll never have enough people who trust apprenticeships. Dedicating yourself to one specific task within the private market is too foolish of a thing to do for any smart person in America.

seems unsustainable to hope for better numbers. 3 million subscribers is a lot. The New Yorker is profitable at 1 million. Sure the National Geographic Society does more and its stories might cost more to get written, but it needs to go digital and expand the way other publications are if it wants better numbers.

Part of it has to do with xenophobia and racism. Social Safety Net policy was more popular back when blacks were excluded. Throw in minorities, and people start singing a different tune. It's not like Europe is immune from this either. This is basically the platform of UKIP and the National Front. USA is much more diverse and has to deal with these issues up front. Except in Vermont, where the populace is 95% white. They're much more supportive of socialism. Coincidence?

The European model is somewhat different than the American one even at public universities. It would require some compromise even from the left. I'm not sure exactly but I think there are more Lecturers and fewer Profs in Europe, for instance. In Denmark, the avg Prof only makes $70,000. Adjuncts make around $50,000. I imagine professors (actual tenured Professors) are paid much better in the US.

It's funny because that's a general sentiment among Sanders supporters. They like the way he sounds but don't really follow politics. The reality is his policy isn't all that good. It's just very utopian sounding so people love it. Take his Free College For all Bill. It sounds nice doesn't it? Free College for all! I can support that! But in reality it's quite flawed. Beyond the fact that it's just a new 50 billion dollar tax (and the expectation that States will cover the other 20 billion) applied wholesale over the current 70 billion dollars in tuition paid by public college school students, it's got some really questionable clauses that would undoubtedly raise prices.

Here are some choice requirements put on the schools: (6) provide an assurance that not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institutions of higher education in the State is provided by 10 tenured or tenure-track faculty;

(B) Increasing the number and percentage of full-time instructional faculty.

(C) Providing all faculty with professional supports to help students succeed, such as pro- 9 fessional development opportunities, office 10 space, and shared governance in the institution.

(D) Compensating part-time faculty for work done outside of the classroom relating to instruction, such as holding office hours.

(E) Strengthening and ensuring all students have access to student support services such as academic advising, counseling, and tutoring.

On top of that it actually states states must:

ensure that public institutions of higher education in the State maintain per-pupil expenditures on instruction at levels that meet or exceed the expenditures for the previous fiscal year;

Even if the 70 billion dollars in taxes comes, how are states supposed to support all of this 10+ years down the line? There are absolutely no cose saving measures in his plan. It is all just utopian fluff.

Source (worth the read): http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline...