scottevil110

It seems to me that in order for money to corrupt politics, there must be two parties in play. One is the entity attempting to influence legislation with money. The other is the entity allowing money to influence legislation (i.e. the legislators themselves). My question, therefore, is why is so much demonization focused on the companies giving money, while we seemingly gloss over the fact that our elected officials are allowing themselves to be bought?

Were politicians upstanding people who simply said no, this entire issue would be rendered moot, so why do we focus our rage on Exxon, when someone we trusted to have integrity is allowing Exxon to buy their votes?

Serious question, even though it sounds silly:

If "nearly 70% of kids read below grade level", then wouldn't that suggest that "grade level" is incorrectly assessed? There is no objective level at which a fourth grader should be able to read, is there? Surely what defines a "fourth grade level" is simply a measure of relative ability against one's peers.

To me, this sounds a bit like saying "70% of people are above the median height."

Even though I'm going to get downvoted to hell because that's where we're at now, you guys seem like the right people to ask:

Is there reason to believe that Breonna Taylor's shooting was racially motivated or that race was a factor? Historically, it seems that when the cops go blasting in on a no-knock raid, they're basically ready for violence no matter what (or they wouldn't be doing a no-knock raid).

It seems that her death should be a wake-up call (as it has been for Louisville) about the entire concept of these corrupt raids and antiquated drug laws, but does her race actually appear to be a factor here?

Edit: I stand corrected, I figured I'd get blasted for that.

This seems like precisely the type of person that we are not supposed to "ask anything."

If you hook this up, please let me know. I have no doubt I could get at least a dozen from my own squadron down from NC to be part of that.