I am very comfortable with what it says too.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, doesn't matter who does it.

I absolutely agree. Too bad you didn't learn right and wrong. Here's a hint - threatening to shoot your kid because he did something you didn't like but there's no immediate threat of harm to anyone? Wrong.

You're just like those wonderful people who took part in the recent "honor killing" in Pakistan by stoning a woman to death because she married someone they didn't like. I find it quite ironic that you are so alike the people you most despise.

Well they both failed to notify congress. Aside from that failure to notify, one of them broke the law and the other didn't.

Your argument is like saying 1/2 = 1/4 because 1 = 1.

Well at least Jon would wait for all of the facts to come out and a court to decide things before murdering his own child.....

There's really not a whole lot lower than a person who would leave their comrades in combat. If I'd raised a child that does that, I'd at least have the decency to clean up the mess myself.

The harm was already done, ask those who had the misfortune to serve with him ... or rather, ask the ones who weren't killed looking for him.

The Rolling Stone article, which is about the most comprehensive source for information about Bergdahl's disappearance and capture, came out in 2012. There really hasn't been any info released since the publication to add to what has been known about the incident. So why the massive sea change in just a few days regarding how he is viewed?

Angry Conservatives Forgot Their Old Angry Tweets Supporting P.O.W.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...er-withdrawal/

I don't think that angle was in a lot of the main stream articles about Bergdahl. From what I remember, there'd be an AP story every so often about him, then in the comments section somebody would claim he was a deserter, and maybe link to that Rolling Stones article. I don't think the deserting angle itself was ever front page news.

Well simple. Back then it was a way to bash Obama and now, they can't let Obama have the victory, so they have to bash him for something else. Consistency be damned!

Maybe "The Consrvative Diva", "Chaos2/504", "Bob", "Hawkeye" and the rest knew of the desertion angle, or maybe they didn't, either way, I'm not sure that's worthy of a big article or why their views are so relevant. You can find a lot of interesting views on twitter.

The last of the WW2 Navajo Code Talkers passed away. This statement talks about a level of honor many cannot understand

I have a good friend who was personally involved in the capture of one of the 5 released.

He said today given what he knows about the individual, and given the choice, he would have preferred to sacrifice his life in exchange for killing the guy as opposed to the deal completed.

I don't have a strong opinion either way. but I found that statement interesting on a different level.

My comment is not specific to this Bergdahl discussion.

I do think there are clearly some things that are "right is right, wrong is wrong" but I also do believe there are alot of "it depends on your point of view".

So for an encore, maybe the Bamster can swing this deal...another good prospect from Gitmo to the Taliban, who can then threaten to blow things up in Mexico until they release Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi from jail. Come on BHO, earn that Nobel Peace Prize, baby.

Well, now, that's an interesting summary of what Oliver North did.

And by "interesting" I mean "minimized beyond all recognition".

:D

SI

We'll never know if it's the case, but I suspect whoever said this is a sophisticated bag and tag operation is probably right. Bergdahl was just a convenient tool to get it all done, though not politically expedient. It's really impressive that after how good Obama and his folks have been at handling the media during campaigns, that he's been tone deaf a lot as President.

I just see the conversation going something like this
Taliban leader: (on phone) Bergdahl? Bergdahl? Uh, yeah! We have him! He is a prisoner of our holy war and jihad against, uh, you" (smirks) "um, western imperialists""
Taliban: (to his subordinate) "Is that the putz in the back? I can't imagine why they want him. I can't believe how stupid Americans can be sometimes."
Taliban leader: (back on phone) "If you want him back, I demand back $10K untraceable US dollars, 5 iPhones, 5 prisoners from Guantanamo, and 9 members of the Asian Dawn..."
Taliban subordinate: (mouths silently) "Asian Dawn?"
Taliban leader: (hand on phone) "I read about them in Time Magazine"
US negotiator: "That sort of thing takes time. The first three are easy. We've been wanting to get rid of those Gitmo guys for years, but..."
Taliban leader: (breaking in quickly) "Fine, fine. You drive a hard bargain. Make it $20K and 10 iPhones and you have yourself a deal"
US negotiator: (thumbs up to everyone in the room on the speaker phone) "Very well. My AA will call you to negotiate the terms of this exchange"
US general: (to another, quietly in the back of the room) "Now we'll be able to track where they go and find the enemy bases. I can't believe how stupid the Taliban can be sometimes."
Taliban subordinate (quietly, to leader): "Did we just agree to accept 5 prisoners?"
Taliban leader (hand on phone): "Hell if I know. As long as they deliver the money and iPhones, I don't care what they do about anyone else. We'll just shoot them when they get back and we get rid of the whiny guy in the back room."



SI

It's going to be a fun 2016: ads showing "You can keep your doctor" warring with ads showing "Bring this prisoner home Mr. President!".

Thoughts on this student loan "Pay-As-You-Earn" program? Not loving it...it seems like it would just add to the bubble and debt of the taxpayers.

Is this a program whereby you pay more as you earn more?

If so, it was an option for my student loan debt (incurred in the early/mid-90s). I ended up not using it, but liked it as a concept. However, based on the stories' of others, I think I lucked out in getting one of the more reasonable companies to service my student loan debt (i.e. not Sallie Mae).

Any cheapening of student loan money kind of scares me. More and more rationalizations to take out non-dischargable six figure debt. I guess that's their own problem, but I think it's a huge long-term issue for the economy, so many people in their 20s and 30s who will never be in a position to save like their parents did.

I'd be OK with it as some kind of amnesty thing for all student loan holders going forward, but not for new loans. The easier you make the money, the more tools you have to pay it back, the more students are going to borrow, the more expensive school is going to be, and the more crushing debt these people are going to have.

Should probably be a tier based on skillset. You want to major in archeology, sure, but the aid is smaller. You want to major in engineering, biotechnology...a better percentage.

Which will then end up eventually creating an oversupply of engineering and biotech majors - kind of like how the late '90s-early '00s were all about the Comp Science majors, and the '10s has been all about the Nursing majors. It's good for a while to address shortages in the workforce, but if you're not on that early wave, things get rough.

According to Vox:

Obama’s plan to lower student loan payments, explained - Vox

And the reasoning for it is quite simply (as somewhat stated by molson):

I don't really have an issue with the refinancing bit. I mean the government is going to make money off these loans anyway - the lowered interest rates will be like 3-4% after all (though they would lose money on refinancing of the debt already held by the government). The loans being only 10% of income seems to be a day late and a dollar short - I mean this would have been a great idea for early on in the Great Recession, but now it seems a bit strange.

A bit strange now? Not from my vantage point - the job market is *still* terrible for anything other than the healthcare field it seems like.

Until this gets solved, I'm not sure much will matter:

Or maybe linked to your performance in school or the school you go to (Go to a Top 50 university, you'll get more aid; meaning you performed in school)?

Do we have many too many universities and colleges? Reallocate the financial aid so more goes to trade schools as well?

What field are you trying to break into? What's your background?

I don't often agree with Arles, but when I do....

The rate of increase in the cost of education is clearly unsustainable. Given that we need an educated workforce, a solution is clearly needed.

And it isn't just colleges, it is private high schools as well. It was ~$1500/yr for the high school I went to back in '87-'90. Now it is $13,650. But at least there you have a 'free' option, unlike with colleges.

Currently trying to break into a PR agency - Creative Writing, English, and Marketing background education wise, but everyone's wanting internship or previous agency experience (i.e. - they're pretending to be entry level positions, but are actually experienced positions they want to pay entry-level wages to).

But just in the general job searches I've done for various cities on various websites (Indeed, Careerbulder, LinkedIn, Monster, etc), the following industries are the ones that have job openings for college graduates - you know, the ones who would be most affected by this:

1. Healthcare professions
2. Direct/event marketing (In reality, a retail salesforce for companies who have outsourced their sales staff)
3. Insurance companies
4. Truck/delivery drivers

Oh if only it were that cheap :(

We're just looking forward to our child graduating high school so we can cut the bills, college is shaping up (based on even moderate estimates for scholarships, etc) to be around 1/2 to 1/3 annually of what we've been spending ... and that's with a relatively elite private college as his leading candidate.

Govt run stuff is not free, somebody's paying for those public educations.

Hence the quotes around free. Society pays for the schools via taxes, whether or not you have kids attending them. You incur no extra tuition costs sending a kid to public schools.

Uh oh. Not good

Iraqi Militants Seize Government Headquarters In Mosul (VIDEO)

LOL

Tuesday's shooting marks the 74th shooting since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 in Connecticut


That frequency means that it marks an average of four school shootings across the United States per month during the past year and a half.


Read more: BREAKING NEWS: Suspect dead and one student killed after shooter with semi-automatic weapon invades Oregon high school | Mail Online

Pure... Unadulterated... Bullshit.

That chart only goes to 2003, the decrease in violent crime has continued since then. It's a very inconvenient fact for both law enforcement agencies trying to justify budgets and gun control advocates.

There's also the issue of varying reporting standards, an increase in the impact of cultures that fail to report violent crime, etc. etc.

Two thoughts always come to mind with these things. First, how many people who were actually killed are listed as missing because no body has ben found.

The second part of this, and to me it's the big deal, it's so random anymore. I feel like it used to be if you never pissed anyone off you would be fine. Now, I feel like you can walk down the street and just be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Is there any data that shows violence is more random nowadays than in the past?

Or are we dealing with just your gut feeling.

It varies to some extent the actual report includes one notable configuration (stranger/known, location, etc) where an increase in frequency & percentage is stranger attacks on victims engaged in "travel, shopping, other leisure activities", as well as the same stranger attacks that occur "while sleeping/other activities at home". Big difference being that the latter involves attackers three times as likely to be known to the victim while the former involves attackers twice as likely to be strangers ... which makes perfect sense given the locations.

The last I checked--and it was fairly recently--the huge majority of murderers knew their victims. I would make sense, though, that the random cases get more media play and it would therefore "feel" like they're more prevalent. They're more interesting/frightening/compelling because of the statement I quoted. I'm not likely to click/watch a story about one drug dealer killing another drug dealer precisely because it feels completely non-threatening to me in my world. But when a kid gets hit in the crossfire or a guy shoots up a movie theater, that's going to get my attention, because of what you said above. I don't "fault" the media for this; they've got to bring in revenue.

If you felt at peace walking the streets in the early 90s and feel nervous about it today, I think your perceptions are just off, and influenced by the nature of modern news and social media. I don't think there's any way to reconcile these numbers with the myth that the U.S. is a "war zone" today.

Im not any more worried walking the streets than I was before, I was always careful in downtown boston and I try to be careful in L.A. now. Im far more worried about psychos with guns showing up in random spots than I can ever recall though, its the stuff I feel we couldnt prevent even if we tried thats freaking me out.

I can't say I felt a helluva lot of peace on a lot of streets in the 90s either. Difference being, perhaps, that I was actually more often on much bigger streets then than I am now ... but with fairly similar levels of trepidation.

Yeah digging into the link gives me this line:

"In 2010, about 1.8 million nonfatal violent victimizations were committed by strangers,
which was a 77% decline from 7.9 million
victimizations in 1993."

Sounds like we should be feeling safer around strangers than before.

There's some debate whether 2012 marked a real, permanent increase in "mass shootings", or whether it was just a blip, but even if you read it the most pessimistic way possible, we're still only talking 100ish victims a year - in the whole country. If you make a list of things that kill 100 or more Americans a year and live in fear of them, you'd never leave the house. If we change all of our laws, and limit everyone's rights, and spend hundreds of millions in taxpayer money to prevent those other things that kill 100 people a year, it'd seem reactionary and silly.

Graph of the day: Perhaps mass shootings aren’t becoming more common

And Boston,there were 40 homicides in Boston in 2013, and 116 in 1990. That's not as a dramatic a drop as NYC, but risk of being murdered is just about negligible (and you cut it down further by not associating with Aaron Hernandez).

Call me crazy, but I'm still going to say that an AVERAGE of 4 school shootings per month over the last 18 months is still unacceptable. In fact, I'd argue than an average of ONE is unacceptable.