SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Whirlpool (the appliance manufacturer) donated washers and driers to schools and increased attendance.
According to Whirlpool's research, one in five school children report difficulty finding clean clothes to wear to school. It turns out that offering free in-school laundry services to kids with attendance problems increases their attendance.
When compared to factors like economic opportunity, unemployment, and institutional racism, laundry seems pretty inconsequential in the fight to keep kids in school. But while that might be the case for their parents, for a ten-year-old who already has the odds stacked against them, having nothing clean to wear to school could be the deciding factor in whether or not they want to face their classmates that day.
I can remember my grandmother telling me that she thought lunches in schools were a wonderful innovation, because they didn't have anything like that when she was a girl, and many children couldn't come because they wouldn't have lunch. I'm sure back then nobody thought of lunch as something school should provide. Now apparently laundry is the next big innovation.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 19 2016, @04:52PM
Hey, did you know that if you burn enough strawmen in life, they all wait for you in hell? I hear they tie you upside-down to a pole and shove hay up (well, down...) your ass and take bets as to how long before it starts comin' out your nose!
You know, your precious Jesus had a lot to say about people like you. He called them "whited sepulcher," meaning a thin veneer of respectability and civility over a heart full of corruption. Just because you work hard at presenting a superficially "cleaner" impression doesn't mean you're actually a decent person. You seem more interested in scoring rhetorical points and "standards signalling" (i.e., pretending to virtues you don't actually have) than thinking any of this through.
I have news for you, Mr. A. Coward: violence is the foundation of the nation-state. What is government but monopolized violence? You sit there self-righteous and smug, and the blood of literally millions of Indians is crying out for vengeance under your feet. The fossil fuels used to keep our electronics running have, metaphorically, a good percentage of blood mixed in with them. What stinking hypocrisy.
THAT is what I mean by you're not fooling anyone. "Self-owned man" indeed; as the kiddies say, you played yourself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @07:57PM
For someone aware of how easily questionable assumptions can be made [soylentnews.org], you sure do make a lot of them.
I don't recall claiming to be a "decent person", merely one trying to converse with reason rather than invective. I've engaged you to try to draw out your premises for scrutiny, as well as present my own for attack, and it's briefly worked in the case or two before you chose to revert to blind ad hominem.
Insofar as the USA is concerned, government is legally a list of enumerated powers delegated to it from normal individual people as evidenced by its creation at the Philadelphia Convention. (I realize that there are people who would like government to have a monopoly on violence, but it [prohibitionists.org] does [oathkeepers.org] not [wikipedia.org].) Violence itself is a merely a tool like any other, one which can be used in response to violence, which is the proper mechanism by which government enforcers use violence in response to a crime: a victim could personally use violence in response to others' initiation of violence, but the authority to do so is regularly delegated to government enforcers via calling 911, etc. Doing so can also help eliminate the appearance of vengeance rather than seeking justice/restitution/etc.
When US government agents act outside of the scope of an individual's authority, those actions are literally criminal. If it is wrong for me to ambush native American villages and slaughter the women and children, what do you think my view would be of government agents doing the same thing?
Curious that you mention use of fossil fuels use for electrical production as last I'd checked there was a functioning prototype Molten Salt Reactor [wikipedia.org] fifty years ago which used thorium as a primary fuel, suggesting that modern MSR designs such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor [glerner.com] should be a no-brainer [youtube.com] in terms of safe, efficient, inexpensive electrical power with the high reaction heat as a beneficial means to drive the Fischer–Tropsch process [wikipedia.org] to turn thorium-bearing coal into synfuels for existing infrastructure. The barrier to this approach: criminal threats by government agents to use violence against anyone who pursues MSR tech.
The dominant theme running through my posts is: "if I as a normal person do not have authority to do a thing, then neither can I delegate authority for that same thing to anyone else", directly leading to my accusation that US government is almost entirely literally criminal. I'm tired of the thousands of "leaf" issues that clutter up the USian socio-political landscape: should I have a magic wand and make any one of them disappear, would there be any significant improvement in the average USian's life? Abortion, energy, foreign wars, domestic wars (drugs), corrupt "justice" system, gun control, resource utilization, social programs/wealth redistribution/gov-as-charity: no. The problem underlying all of these and more seems to be a government acting outside the bounds of its authority. Few people would be happy with a society where other people weren't constantly threatened with violence to conform to some mutated standard of conduct produced by criminal government, but I for one won't shed a tear at the distress of people who can no longer own other people by proxy. I don't ever expect to see an earthly utopia, but I'm trying to hone and propogate the message that a slave-free USA would be a definite improvement in addition to being the only lawful course.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 19 2016, @08:57PM
Okay, that entire wall of text condenses down to one premise:
> "The dominant theme running through my posts is: "if I as a normal person do not have authority to do a thing, then neither can I delegate authority for that same thing to anyone else"
How Do You Know That (TM)? You've stated this as an axiom; I challenge that idea.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @09:06PM
If it was presented as an axiom, it by definition is presumed to be self-evident. If there is a flaw, by all means do point it out.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 19 2016, @09:42PM
Oh no. Burden of proof's on you, buddy-boy. YOU stated this, YOU prove it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @10:12PM
You're demanding I prove a negative? I know of no flaws with my assertion, otherwise I wouldn't present it as fact. If you see a flaw, feel free to point it out, otherwise you're merely uttering "nuh-uh!" as a retort.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @12:47AM
I hesitate to make this post, as it seems quite condescending in principle, and redundant in form. However, as it is one step above describing the definition of common English words, it may have been what you were wanting me to provide:
1. If I do not already have a given thing in my possession, I cannot give said thing to anyone else.
2. Authority is a quality which I am able to possess.
3. Therefore, I cannot give authority which I do not already possess to anyone else.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 20 2016, @03:49AM
Okay, put it another way: what DO you have the authority to do, WHERE do you, or other people, get this authority, and what backs it up? What you want to avoid here is committing some sort of circular-reference fallacy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @04:55AM
For my purposes here, attempting to determine where the bounds of legitimacy lie in terms of normal USians and the choice of proper responses in light of repugnant behavior by government agents, those questions are irrelevant. The creation of the US Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention was done with only the authority the delegates themselves had, and the authority they had was only that which they possessed as individuals, since, as I believe I've shown, authority not posssessed cannot be delegated.
Circular references work in my favor in this case, as either:
- the Constitution was properly created via the authority of an individual (and thus is limited to being no greater in authority than its creator)
- or the Constitution was a creation devoid of authority and thus limits, creates, nor protects nothing and nobody (e.g. established through force/violence alone), and all who operate behind its facade are literal criminals no different than fraudsters, muggers, kidnappers, and murderers
In both cases the existing US fedgov activity is almost (if not completely) entirely outside the bounds of law, thus literally criminal, and that is the root cause of the vast majority of the US' socio-politcal problems. (Once this is recognized, the legitimacy of the current US gov vanishes into the thin air it came from, allowing people the freedom of mind to choose how to conduct themselves when faced with literal criminals rather than being shorn or slaughtered as sheep. I reject the initation of violence, instead propose a peaceful course of resistance via disassociation, which could untilmately result in starving the criminal beast without a shot needing to be fired as fully 75% of the US fedgov budget is taken in via personal income tax returns [taxpolicycenter.org]. Recent history has shown the traditional forms of peaceful redress, such as voting, protesting, and voicing concerns to elected officials have all been subverted. Peaceful success is unlikely, but still possible before resorting to civil war.)