I'm assuming the person you were responding to is referring to the qualifications to become an armed guard. In PA that requires no training and just requires a background check and a couple of character witnesses.

Actually, there are. PA requires that you pass a criminal background check to become a professionally licensed barber. https://www.dos.pa.gov/ProfessionalLicensing/BoardsCommissions/BarberExaminers/Documents/Board%20Information/BPOA%20Pathway%20to%20Licensure.pdf

Any felony disqualifies you from becoming a barber. And any misdemeanor that the board deems as related to the profession.

Software engineering manager here (In philadelphia, so I know plenty of graduates, I've interviewed graduates, and I've worked with graduates):

It's fine. There are better that cost the same, and better that cost less. The downsides are the cost is very high, and since it's 5 years for many programs, that extra cost per year adds up even more. There are also way worse programs. Drexel has the coop program which is good because it's a forced internship, but you can get an internship while you're in college elsewhere. It also uses the quarter system instead of semesters, so it's a lot of material compressed into a very short time, so it can be hard to get a thorough understanding of things.

The other thing I'll say, it's a place where you get out of it what you put in. If you don't put in the effort you won't learn your stuff, and you could still graduate. Some of the graduates are great, some of them are very unimpressive. I've found Temple's graduates in CS about equal, so for what it's worth... You'd probably get more value at Temple. If you get good financial aid at Drexel, could be worth it...

None of the people mentioned in the article are "illegals," that's what I take issue with in your comment, not the bribery part...

> an investigation later proved they were all in the US legally and were eligible to apply for driver’s licenses but when many of them retested for their licenses they did not pass, the state police explain in the release.

Yeah, I think the title here is misleading, the site as a whole I think is a biased site. And I don't say that in the same way of crowing about all media is evil.

I suspect his motive was "cause chaos" because he does not have a history of being pro-workers rights in any way. I think if there were a republican president he probably would have voted for this.

How much water did you actually use?

This is probably the one place he SHOULD have a platform since he's an expert on soccer. Now, I think what he said is stupid as fuck and he was clearly paid to say it.

Inflatable rats in shambles.

Sure there is, but the courts have been reducing the amount of gerrymandering in Pennsylvania, which is why these races are so competitive.

Where there's a will there's a way. "Fuck the police" "Jury nullification" "I think more crimes should have the death penalty" "You know why saudi arabia has less stealing? They still cut hands off"

If all the accused can get is the dumbest motherfuckers around and retirees with nothing better to do, that isn't really a fair trial for the accused.

I understand what you're getting at, and I think I agree with you based on that last statements about asterisks, etc.

> I should tell you that a functionling legal system is so fundamentally important to the survival of our country that you should be willing to make the sacrifice to do your part.

Unfortunately, there's a big disparity in privilege in this country. Personally, my workplace will pay me in full if I'm on a jury, so it's no skin off my back. Plus, I make enough that not being paid for a week would be inconvenient, but wouldn't really change my life significantly (Although a week's pay for me would be a significant "donation" to the legal system). But that's not an obligation for most workplaces, and most people aren't in my situation financially.

Even paying jurors minimum wage 8 hours/day * 7.25 would be a significant raise. But still wouldn't be sufficient for a lot of people to appear. Which of course, speaks to the big asterisk around why people don't want to appear.

> I should tell you that if everyone with something better to do got themselves out of Jury Duty that it would make the entire system untenable and fill juries with the least capable people.

Having served on a jury, I can tell you first hand, this is already going on. We were hearing a child sex trafficking case, and one of the (male) jurors tried to argue that the victim (15 at the time) might have wanted to be a prostitute.

OK, but you still don't end up bankrupt in France over something like getting cancer, so that disposable income doesn't really tell the whole story about benefits. And they have a 5 year longer life expectancy, their infant mortality rate is 50% of ours.

Although I was surprised to learn we have almost exactly the same rate of poverty among seniors with their stronger pension program.

I had the same issue with Berkheimer. They're a bunch of crooks and I think they do it on purpose. Everyone who moves out of a county that collects with Berkheimer has that issue with them. I think they intentionally don't have a process to deal with this because rubes will pay and they get a cut.

I'm not sure that better off is correct. If you're making 60k, your average american's healthcare will be insufficient for major medical expenses. Also, your average American isn't saving enough for retirement. If you correct for the benefits gap there, the take-home looks pretty similar, with the American having a lower life expectancy and less paid time off.

And they were still trying to score, which I loved!

I've talked to a lot of voters this election season canvassing, there's a shocking number of them planning to vote for Shapiro and Oz. I'm not sure whether I should be glad that they're just not voting for Mastriano, or upset that they're not also voting for Fetterman (because Oz during the primary has espoused the same standard GOP crazy shit they all espouse). Those voters could be Shapiro's margin of victory, but they're also probably, if Oz wins, Oz's margin of victory.

Ah yes, in the wise words of King Solomon, "I answer not questions I deem to be stupid" lol.

Did that dude just try to mansplain the Torah to a Jew? But incoherently?

As a Jew... Wow.

• Israel and loving Israel is not the same thing as Jews. Conflating the two is, in and of itself antisemitic because it denies political agency to Jews, and implies dual loyalties. There are Jews who do not support the Israeli government's policies because of various objections to the things they do, in both the US and Israel.
• It's a well-known phenomenon that evangelicals seek to get all of the Jews to go back to Israel in order to bring on the rapture. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/half-of-evangelicals-support-israel-because-they-believe-it-is-important-for-fulfilling-end-times-prophecy/ that is of course, in and of itself, antisemitic because it's part of a policy that seeks to displace Jews. Looking at the sorts of "prayers" he invokes at his rallies, it seems likely that he believes in that sort of rapture bullshit. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/doug-mastriano-donald-trump-christian-right-1234589455/

Rhynhart has to resign to run. She's not on council, but she does have to resign which is an issue here. She's great at her job as Controller.

I like Domb, although I don't agree with him all the time, he seems to be interested in reforms and less in machine politics than most of the lot.

Domb's pretty good. Rhynhart's very good.

I haven't seen it lately, but I've seen it once in a while... That it's something to do for bored young men instead of crime.

Unfortunately, that's what the rest of us experience with our local cops most of the time.