[Shadowfax]

Admittedly this seems high. Prison guards do work with criminals–in a high security environment, they may be are one mistake away from death or injury. I am not sure how out of luck you have to be to want to be a prison guard.

But lawyers have a lot of perks while they work those hours, in air conditioned offices, catered client meetings, etc. Even DAs work in government office buildings. Most high-hours attorneys burn out after a few years and move on.

I think a better comparison would be to doctors–they work around the clock in literal life/death situations and get paid very little for all the education and training and stress.

[Shadowfax]

Admittedly this seems high. Prison guards do work with criminals–in a high security environment, they may be are one mistake away from death or injury. I am not sure how out of luck you have to be to want to be a prison guard.

But lawyers have a lot of perks while they work those hours, in air conditioned offices, catered client meetings, etc. Even DAs work in government office buildings. Most high-hours attorneys burn out after a few years and move on.

I think a better comparison would be to doctors–they work around the clock in literal life/death situations and get paid very little for all the education and training and stress.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=gandalf]Also, nowadays, republican does not equal ‘conservative’. Not anymore.

It just means you’re an asshole.[/quote]

Never thought I’d be defending republicans, but let me qualify this…

Not all Rs are assholes, misguided perhaps? The tea part types are. But the Rs that aren’t speaking up and/or doing something about the nutjobs that are taking over their party probably are. Or they’re just lazy and should go on welfare now before their cohorts run our country into the ground and there’s nothing left…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=gandalf]Also, nowadays, republican does not equal ‘conservative’. Not anymore.

It just means you’re an asshole.[/quote]

Never thought I’d be defending republicans, but let me qualify this…

Not all Rs are assholes, misguided perhaps? The tea part types are. But the Rs that aren’t speaking up and/or doing something about the nutjobs that are taking over their party probably are. Or they’re just lazy and should go on welfare now before their cohorts run our country into the ground and there’s nothing left…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=gandalf]Also, nowadays, republican does not equal ‘conservative’. Not anymore.

It just means you’re an asshole.[/quote]

Never thought I’d be defending republicans, but let me qualify this…

Not all Rs are assholes, misguided perhaps? The tea part types are. But the Rs that aren’t speaking up and/or doing something about the nutjobs that are taking over their party probably are. Or they’re just lazy and should go on welfare now before their cohorts run our country into the ground and there’s nothing left…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=gandalf]Also, nowadays, republican does not equal ‘conservative’. Not anymore.

It just means you’re an asshole.[/quote]

Never thought I’d be defending republicans, but let me qualify this…

Not all Rs are assholes, misguided perhaps? The tea part types are. But the Rs that aren’t speaking up and/or doing something about the nutjobs that are taking over their party probably are. Or they’re just lazy and should go on welfare now before their cohorts run our country into the ground and there’s nothing left…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=gandalf]Also, nowadays, republican does not equal ‘conservative’. Not anymore.

It just means you’re an asshole.[/quote]

Never thought I’d be defending republicans, but let me qualify this…

Not all Rs are assholes, misguided perhaps? The tea part types are. But the Rs that aren’t speaking up and/or doing something about the nutjobs that are taking over their party probably are. Or they’re just lazy and should go on welfare now before their cohorts run our country into the ground and there’s nothing left…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=ocrenter]have you considered Chula Vista or Santee? if not, why not? =)[/quote]

I think one their priorities was being close to the beach, so the eastern areas of SD are a bit of a drive to get there.

SF2SD, what do you think of Alameda? It seems to have nice areas and not so nice. And the schools seem to be all over the map. I’d appreciate any thoughts.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=ocrenter]have you considered Chula Vista or Santee? if not, why not? =)[/quote]

I think one their priorities was being close to the beach, so the eastern areas of SD are a bit of a drive to get there.

SF2SD, what do you think of Alameda? It seems to have nice areas and not so nice. And the schools seem to be all over the map. I’d appreciate any thoughts.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=ocrenter]have you considered Chula Vista or Santee? if not, why not? =)[/quote]

I think one their priorities was being close to the beach, so the eastern areas of SD are a bit of a drive to get there.

SF2SD, what do you think of Alameda? It seems to have nice areas and not so nice. And the schools seem to be all over the map. I’d appreciate any thoughts.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=ocrenter]have you considered Chula Vista or Santee? if not, why not? =)[/quote]

I think one their priorities was being close to the beach, so the eastern areas of SD are a bit of a drive to get there.

SF2SD, what do you think of Alameda? It seems to have nice areas and not so nice. And the schools seem to be all over the map. I’d appreciate any thoughts.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=ocrenter]have you considered Chula Vista or Santee? if not, why not? =)[/quote]

I think one their priorities was being close to the beach, so the eastern areas of SD are a bit of a drive to get there.

SF2SD, what do you think of Alameda? It seems to have nice areas and not so nice. And the schools seem to be all over the map. I’d appreciate any thoughts.

[Shadowfax]

Rus,

FWIW, I think this was an open minded exposition of where you stand. It seems to fall into the “live and let live” even if I don’t approve of it camp. There are elements of both the homosexual community and the heterosexual community that I don’t particularly like to see displayed, but that isn’t really what this educational initialive is all about (from what I can tell). If you can abide with including them as a part of history, then we are on the same page.

But there does have to be some message that you can’t harass a kid because he identifies with a sexual preference, a race, a religion, etc. different from the majority. I don’t want to see muslim kids harassed by a predominantly christian (and, by those acts, predominantly hypocritical) majority. Same application to “gay kids.”

I would add that at a minimum until jr high school, most kids shouldn’t be and many can’t legitimately identify one way or the other… So the sexuality issue shouldn’t be part of the curriculum, aside from sex ed. Yes, this should be taught in school (as well as at home) because many parents can’t seem to find the time or the courage to talk to their kids about it. And knowledge keeps kids from doing something stupid…we hope.

[Shadowfax]

Rus,

FWIW, I think this was an open minded exposition of where you stand. It seems to fall into the “live and let live” even if I don’t approve of it camp. There are elements of both the homosexual community and the heterosexual community that I don’t particularly like to see displayed, but that isn’t really what this educational initialive is all about (from what I can tell). If you can abide with including them as a part of history, then we are on the same page.

But there does have to be some message that you can’t harass a kid because he identifies with a sexual preference, a race, a religion, etc. different from the majority. I don’t want to see muslim kids harassed by a predominantly christian (and, by those acts, predominantly hypocritical) majority. Same application to “gay kids.”

I would add that at a minimum until jr high school, most kids shouldn’t be and many can’t legitimately identify one way or the other… So the sexuality issue shouldn’t be part of the curriculum, aside from sex ed. Yes, this should be taught in school (as well as at home) because many parents can’t seem to find the time or the courage to talk to their kids about it. And knowledge keeps kids from doing something stupid…we hope.

[Shadowfax]

Rus,

FWIW, I think this was an open minded exposition of where you stand. It seems to fall into the “live and let live” even if I don’t approve of it camp. There are elements of both the homosexual community and the heterosexual community that I don’t particularly like to see displayed, but that isn’t really what this educational initialive is all about (from what I can tell). If you can abide with including them as a part of history, then we are on the same page.

But there does have to be some message that you can’t harass a kid because he identifies with a sexual preference, a race, a religion, etc. different from the majority. I don’t want to see muslim kids harassed by a predominantly christian (and, by those acts, predominantly hypocritical) majority. Same application to “gay kids.”

I would add that at a minimum until jr high school, most kids shouldn’t be and many can’t legitimately identify one way or the other… So the sexuality issue shouldn’t be part of the curriculum, aside from sex ed. Yes, this should be taught in school (as well as at home) because many parents can’t seem to find the time or the courage to talk to their kids about it. And knowledge keeps kids from doing something stupid…we hope.

[Author]

Posts