Yes, exactly. I don’t think there is anyone in the world who knows me and believes that I, specifically, deserve to be killed. I think almost every person feels the same way. The rare exception being someone who has intentionally profoundly harmed or killed people.
No.
Starting a war is astonishing unwise.
Also, what will happen with South Korea’s strongest military ally (the US) in less than a month?
Actually, banks are a heavily regulated industry and they have to comply with strict non-discrimination requirements including making all reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.
If you know someone who uses a screen reader and is therefore unable to use HSBC’s app, encourage them to file a complaint with the appropriate regulator (in the US, try https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ ).
Banks are very attentive about listening to their regulators.
(Of course, it’s possible that what HSBC did still works with commonly used screen readers for the blind because they actually thought of this.)
Because Donald Trump is above the law – laws simply don’t apply to him.
(Or at least that is how much of the country is acting, INCLUDING the US Supreme Court.)
The answer is different in different states. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/counting-absentee-ballots-after-a-voter-dies
Hear hear! Whenever society picks out a particular minority group and says, “THESE are the ones it is OK to look down on and mistreat” it just makes me want to defend and support that group.
These days I am a strong supporter of furries, never-Trump Republicans, and trans folk.
LOL – good point. I guess the correct answer is zero. 😃
One.
I’m thinking of a comic made to tell the story of a relationship, culminating in a wedding proposal.
The definition of success is different for different cases.
If two states disagree, what alternative would you suggest? “Flip a coin and move on” or “Just give in to the other side” are solutions that are likely to be abused: one rogue state can wreck havoc by making unreasonable demands. Going to war over it seems worse than spending millions in court. The courts ARE our inexpensive, fair way of resolving disputes (even if they aren’t as inexpensive as we might like).
Interesting. When I have sized a wedding ring (something I have done several times because of a combination of not fitting, and of me losing a ring twice over the past 28 years) I obviously had to work to get the right size. Like you, I chose rounded edges which made it easier for me to get the ring on and off my finger. Originally I had a width of 4 mm, and moving to 3 mm worked much better for me. (My fingers are particularly narrow and long compared to most men’s hands.) But I have never been asked what “height” to use.
I would speculate that it affects the weight of the ring. (In my experience, too heavy a ring can be a problem. For instance, a heavy ring May vibrate against the steering wheel on long drives and make my fingers sore.) No one can really see the “height”, so why not go with the thinnest that makes the ring still sturdy?
Removed by mod
That’s the common gag, but ACTUALLY the difference is in whether the recipient of the comment was open to hearing it and whether the speaker intends merely those literal words or has other implications.
I carefully read through the article and did not find a link to the study. Would you be willing to share the link here?
He can appoint two new members to the Supreme Court and then have them rule that Trump, as President, is immune to being prosecuted or held responsible for any state or federal crime but like Bush v. Gore it isn’t a precedent and doesn’t apply to any other President.
Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. Yes, it is completely absurd and would undermine the bedrock principles of our legal system. However, apparently somewhere between 3 and 6 members of the US Supreme Court may be seriously considering it.
(To be fair, he does claim that this absolute immunity would go away if half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate decided to impeach the President.)
Yes. The average cost of cancer treatment is around $150,000 USD here and expensive cases can be much more.
Here is my perspective on the answer to your question:
Our government is not functional. It is not that it doesn’t “want” a healthy work force, but that it isn’t capable of setting any sort of a policy.
The last time the US made any meaningful change in healthcare policy was under Obama. My impression of what happened is that there was a brief (2 yr) moment when the Presidency, House, and Senate were all controlled by the same party. The Democrats passed “health reform” which was basically the Republican health care reform package from 4 years earlier.
In the 13 years since then, the only Republican position on health care has been that Obama’s “ACA” law is “bad”. There is literally no suggestion of what else would be better. (I’m not counting the anti-abortion laws as “health care” – they are seen here as a moral issue, not a health care one.) The Democrats’ position has been a mix of “we shouldn’t let the Republicans take us back to something WORSE!” and “the whole system is broken and needs to be replaced”.
We have two problems. First, our government is structured so that it cannot easily accomplish anything, at least without cooperation between the two opposed parties. Secondly, one of the two parties is insane and wants to destroy the government (and has enough electoral support to win almost half the time).
Here’s what I use:
We broke out some older games that work for 5 players. A full game of Citadels and several hands of The Great Dalmuti. All card games, all with very simple rules so hardly any time was spent teaching them.
Well, I have certainly seen the opposite. I have seen a number of cases where a parent has chosen to leave a significantly bigger portion of their estate to a disabled child because that child would need it.
Ethics is not an area in which there are right and wrong answers – just ethical principles that do or don’t appeal to you. For me, I think parents should have the right to decide how their wealth should be distributed without any “must be even for all children” constraints. But I would never choose to leave my least able-bodied child less for that reason.