Bush was a fighter pilot, though, in the 70s.
In order to get out of fighting in Vietnam, he joined the air national guard. Never flew a mission and ended up getting grounded because he didn't complete a physical on time in 1972.
Bush was a fighter pilot, though, in the 70s.
In order to get out of fighting in Vietnam, he joined the air national guard. Never flew a mission and ended up getting grounded because he didn't complete a physical on time in 1972.
Merriam Webster is a descriptive dictionary. They don't tell you how words "should" be used, they say how words are used.
Using literally as an intensifier goes back literal centuries. The earliest written citation we've found of that usage goes back to 1769. It can be found everywhere from Dickens to Brontë.
It's also hardly the first word to go on a similar path towards becoming an intensifier. Very originally meant "genuine", really meant "in fact", absolutely meant "completely", etc.
But who complains about sentences like "I was really bored to death", or "I was absolutely rooted to the ground"? Does saying "it's very cold" just mean "it is a genuine fact that it is cold"?
Literally still means what it means. You can't use literally to mean "yellow", for example. People aren't generally confused when they come across the word.
Colloquially, accidents are random events without intention or fault.
That's why there's a push to use neutral terms like "crash" that don't imply that the "accident" was just a random accidental mistake.
And fault is often a bit of a misnomer. Many crashes are the result of bad design, but the courts would never say "this pedestrian fatality here is 40% the fault of whichever insane engineer put the library parking lot across a 4-lane road from the library but refused to put a crosswalk there or implement any sort of traffic calming because that would inconvenience drivers".
The president can move public opinion, sure.
Yes the states run their own elections parallel to the feds, but that just means they pass 51ish laws instead of 1.
The federal government doesn't run any elections.
States run their own elections for federal offices. The only election run by the federal government is when the electoral college meets to elect a president, and that's usually just a formality.
The president can endorse a system and can probably tie federal funding to implementing it, but AFAIK can't force states to use it.
And I think you underestimate the amount that politics in the US is knee-jerk "we have to take the other side of this issue". There's a lot of everyday Republicans who oppose STV due to assorted FUD from right wing media.
that under STV they could pick their actual favorite AND a safe/tactical vote?
As an aside, STV doesn't let you do that. STV satisfies later-no-harm so it has to fail favorite betrayal. In other words, it guarantees that picking a second tactical vote can't harm your actual favorite, not that voting for your actual favorite is safe.
How? Look at the recent Alaskan special election for the House. If the final round were Begich vs Palin or Begich vs Peltola, Begich would win. However, Begich was eliminated first, so the final round was Palin vs Peltola, and Peltola won.
Palin voters would have been better off voting for Begich; voting for Palin first wasn't safe. Actually, they could have elected Begich if the exact right number of Palin voters stayed home (STV doesn't guarantee voting can't hurt you), or even voting Peltola (STV has odd corner cases where you can defeat someone by voting for them)
It doesn't have to be on purpose. Accident implies that something was just a freak occurrence beyond anyone's control. You can't fix accidents. You can fix crashes.
If you're driving negligently - drunk driving, not paying attention, etc then it's not an accident.
If it's due to bad road design, then it's not an accident.
Could they?
AFAIK, most details of elections are set by the states, right? I think at the federal level, it might require an amendment to require that states use ranked choice, STAR. 3-2-1 or whatever.
Ish.
There's ye as in "hear ye, hear ye". That's a y. It's an inflected form of you, much as they had both thee and thou.
Then there's writing þe as ye.
Maybe, maybe not. People follow the path of least resistance.
Right now, electric cars are a pain because there aren't DC fast charges everywhere. They're great for the daily commute because you can charge them at home, but they're a bit annoying when you want to do a road trip.
What happens when adoption of electric cars goes up? We'll see more charging stations, and fewer gas pumps. When gas pumps are as rare as DC fast chargers are, who is going to want the annoyance of a gas car? You'll only be able to sell to hobbyists who don't mind driving 30 min to a gas station. And will they really want whichever car you're driving?
Yeah. We need to drop it into mount doom.
Edit: apparently the Iceland volcano just started erupting. This is clearly a sign to drop it in that volcano.
If you saw a picture of this guy in the knesset, would you visually recognize that his family is Moroccan? Does this former deputy prime minister look European to you despite having been born in Iraq?. Here's another Israeli politician who was literally born in Baghdad.
As an American, these people would very clearly be considered white. Honestly, the prime minister of Lebanon and the head of Fatah also code as white to me.
Edit: actually, doing a reverse image search, that's a picture of the Israeli Supreme Court. I think the woman on the right might be Gila Canfy Steinitz, the "first female Mizrahi justice". News articles aren't more specific than that for where her family is from, but yeah - somewhere in the middle east or north africa.
About half of Israeli Jews are of north African or middle eastern descent. That's not a "one drop" thing; literally 25% of Israeli Jews were either born or have a father who was born in Asia (outside of Israel) or Africa. The second largest group of first or second generation immigrants are Moroccan Jews.
But in the US context, North Africans and Middle Easterners are considered white, at least as far as the census goes.
It's partly about it being preventable, but mostly about it being expected.
The expected outcome of drunk driving or speeding through crosswalks is hitting someone. It's preventable by not driving drunk or not speeding.
A careful driver in the Netherlands killing a cyclist in a city center on a 20mph road is unexpected and fairly surprising - that would be a true accident. A drunk driver hitting someone on an American stroad is depressingly normal. It's hard to call it an accident.