YamiB

It would be really nice if we could legalize pot and many other drugs in the US, the prohibition of them causes a great deal of violence and suffering through the imprisonment of non-violent criminals.  Unfortunately I doubt it will happen anytime soon because of lobbying on the part of prison and police groups as well as companies who profit from the private prison system.
 
Ron Paul supports some good ideas, unfortunately he is also an crazy racist.

@YamiB said:

@MikeinSC said:

@YamiB said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

Press forced him out pretty much....he didn't have a choice.

 The press? The press tried to avoid reporting it as much as possible. Breitbart spearheaded it and his behavior towards a reporter (attempting to have her arrested when entering his office) and a CNN producer (calling him a "jackass") turned the media against him.   Also, Breitbart at his first press conference was the single greatest moment of the entire scandal.

I think the press was somewhat reluctant at the start with Brietbart being the main pusher or the story since he has a history of spreading blatant falsehoods, though I think it was more clear from the start here that he was on to an actual scandal.   I don't think that Weiner should have resigned. He is one of the few worthwhile politicians that I would group with people like Bernie Sanders.  The only area I know I really disagreed with him was on the Middle East particularly in reference to Israel.

Breitbart challenged the press to name a single time he lied about anything. They, as per usual, failed to actually come up with a single lie he actually promoted.   Weiner being gone is not a bad thing. There are plenty of mediocre intellects who happen to be pricks to be voted into office.

I still disagree on Weiner leaving being a bad thing. Along with Sanders and the now gone Fiengold he was one of the few national politicians that seemed to be pushing back against the regressives instead of rolling over and taking it.  Off the top of my head Breitbart released the Shirley Sherrod video which was edited in a manner to make it seem that she supported the idea of discriminating against poor whites seeking assistance from the agency she worked for.  The full video revealed the the point she was making was that her initial idea from the past were wrong and that economic class not race was what mattered for who needed help.  He also promoted the O'Keffe Acorn videos, which were heavily edited to cast ACORN in a bad light leading to the removal of funding for ACORN by Congress.

He released the video he was given and Sherrod was not the target --- the NAACP (the point was that the audience had no problem with her admission of bigotry against white farmers) was the target. And, note, she admitted to discriminating. She changed her ways, but it doesn't change what she did do. The ACORN videos were quite accurate.

By April 1, 2010, the attorney general's office had completed its investigation and Brown announced its findings. O'Keefe and Giles received immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing three full, unedited videotapes. Brown noted that the terms of the exchange did not exempt O'Keefe or Giles from being sued by the ACORN members filmed in the videos. ... In his report on the investigation, Brown stated, "The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O'Keefe and Giles. Each of the ACORN employees recorded in California was a low level employee whose job was to help the needy individuals who walked in the door seeking assistance. Giles and O'Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos." For instance, a much-publicized recording of a visit to the San Diego office, in which an employee is purportedly seeking information to help smuggle underage girls from Mexico into the United States to work as prostitutes, did not mention that the employee's 'contact' in Mexico was actually a police official. The employee collected as much specific information as possible, then contacted Mexican police, warning them of the plot. Brown stated, "ACORN was not the criminal enterprise described by O'Keefe in his 'Chaos for Glory' statement – it did not receive billions in federal funds and did not control elections. ACORN is, however, disorganized and its operations were far from transparent, leaving it vulnerable to allegations of illegal activity and misuse of funds." Brown also said that despite appearing in the publicized videos as a "1970s Superfly pimp ... [i]n his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp."

@YamiB said:

@MikeinSC said:

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

Press forced him out pretty much....he didn't have a choice.

 The press? The press tried to avoid reporting it as much as possible. Breitbart spearheaded it and his behavior towards a reporter (attempting to have her arrested when entering his office) and a CNN producer (calling him a "jackass") turned the media against him.   Also, Breitbart at his first press conference was the single greatest moment of the entire scandal.

I think the press was somewhat reluctant at the start with Brietbart being the main pusher or the story since he has a history of spreading blatant falsehoods, though I think it was more clear from the start here that he was on to an actual scandal.   I don't think that Weiner should have resigned. He is one of the few worthwhile politicians that I would group with people like Bernie Sanders.  The only area I know I really disagreed with him was on the Middle East particularly in reference to Israel.

Breitbart challenged the press to name a single time he lied about anything. They, as per usual, failed to actually come up with a single lie he actually promoted.   Weiner being gone is not a bad thing. There are plenty of mediocre intellects who happen to be pricks to be voted into office.

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

Press forced him out pretty much....he didn't have a choice.

 The press? The press tried to avoid reporting it as much as possible. Breitbart spearheaded it and his behavior towards a reporter (attempting to have her arrested when entering his office) and a CNN producer (calling him a "jackass") turned the media against him.   Also, Breitbart at his first press conference was the single greatest moment of the entire scandal.

@benjaebe said:

@Pinworm45: If marriage was purely religious, and purely based on the Christian bible, then how do Muslims or any number of other groups (religious or not) been married in the past? Marriage ceremonies are completely irrespective of religion as they can also be performed by approved members of the state, etc. Marriage is a social contract that shouldn't have anything to do with religion because there is a separation of church and state - for good reason.

My understanding was that the only difference between Marriage and Civil Union was that Marriage was Civil Union + your religion of choice, with pure civil union ditching the marriage part. I was completely ignorant in this regard it seems.  Edit: What was all the riff raff I kept hearing about priests not wanting to be forced into performing marriages, then?

Teaching for Learning I - A-
Teaching Fieldwork - A-
Methods of Teaching Social Studies - A-
Human Sexuality - A
 
GPA - 3.7
 
A little worse than last semester, but I tried a lot less because these classes tended to be a bit boring.  This is my second to last semester for my BA.

I'm done with classes for the semester so I'm not currently working on any essays, but I did write one recently based on this book by Alfie Kohn.  It was about 1500 words and I wrote it specifically in relation to the ideas by Kohn that schools overemphasize competition and ideas of schools are too entangled with corporations.  I didn't find this essay particularly enjoyable to write other than the fact that it was pretty quick to write.

Typically I only find essays on history enjoyable when I'm writing them.  The last one of those I did was a few months ago on the Gay Liberation Front, that one came in at a little less than 5,000 words.  It was pretty interesting to write and research.

@YamiB said:

@hunkaburningluv said:

@YamiB said:

@hunkaburningluv said:

@YamiB said:

As somebody trained to be a teacher, the way your teacher reacted was completely inappropriate.  There isn't really much to do about it and I wouldn't suggest complaining unless the problem continues.  If it does continue bring the issue up with the principle and if you are given any formal punishment such as suspension for not participating in the pledge I would suggest contacting the ACLU.I don't understand why so many people are coming down on the OP in this thread as being just as bad as the teacher.  The teacher is in a position of authority and should be expected to act better than the child.  The OP was practicing his rights and if somebody has a legitimate grievance with the United States it is completely reasonable for them to abstain from standing and reciting the pledge. Its not as if there are no legitimate reasons to be upset with the government and society in the United States even if it is better than many third world countries.

there's a thing called common courtesy. The OP clearly has no concept of it. He's being a dick about the entire situation. Granted, the teacher is too....

I don't see what the OP did that is not part of common courtesy.  His response to the teacher was slightly sarcastic, but not out of line.

so he not only shows a complete lack of respect to his country, but his teacher too? He's a wee prick.

Okay no, I said he didn't respond inappropriately to the teacher and in all honesty a teacher who behaves as described is not deserving of respect.  The teacher is the one in the position of authority in the classroom and should be held to a higher standard.Doing some type of protesting action like abstaining from the pledge is not showing a lack of respect for one's country.  Showing displeasure with your country heading in a bad direction is not a negative thing and I personally think it is better to critically examine the country in which you live rather than adhering to blind subservience.

he's being a dick about it - what will abstaining from the pledge achieve? honestly? fuck all, it'll just annoy his fellow classmates and those around him. It's not an effective protest against the US gov's actions. Get online, get to protest marches. Your country is deserving of your respect, it's just the previous gov's actions that aren't.

@YamiB said:

@hunkaburningluv said:

@YamiB said:

As somebody trained to be a teacher, the way your teacher reacted was completely inappropriate.  There isn't really much to do about it and I wouldn't suggest complaining unless the problem continues.  If it does continue bring the issue up with the principle and if you are given any formal punishment such as suspension for not participating in the pledge I would suggest contacting the ACLU.I don't understand why so many people are coming down on the OP in this thread as being just as bad as the teacher.  The teacher is in a position of authority and should be expected to act better than the child.  The OP was practicing his rights and if somebody has a legitimate grievance with the United States it is completely reasonable for them to abstain from standing and reciting the pledge. Its not as if there are no legitimate reasons to be upset with the government and society in the United States even if it is better than many third world countries.

there's a thing called common courtesy. The OP clearly has no concept of it. He's being a dick about the entire situation. Granted, the teacher is too....

I don't see what the OP did that is not part of common courtesy.  His response to the teacher was slightly sarcastic, but not out of line.

so he not only shows a complete lack of respect to his country, but his teacher too? He's a wee prick.

@YamiB said:

As somebody trained to be a teacher, the way your teacher reacted was completely inappropriate.  There isn't really much to do about it and I wouldn't suggest complaining unless the problem continues.  If it does continue bring the issue up with the principle and if you are given any formal punishment such as suspension for not participating in the pledge I would suggest contacting the ACLU.I don't understand why so many people are coming down on the OP in this thread as being just as bad as the teacher.  The teacher is in a position of authority and should be expected to act better than the child.  The OP was practicing his rights and if somebody has a legitimate grievance with the United States it is completely reasonable for them to abstain from standing and reciting the pledge. Its not as if there are no legitimate reasons to be upset with the government and society in the United States even if it is better than many third world countries.

there's a thing called common courtesy. The OP clearly has no concept of it. He's being a dick about the entire situation. Granted, the teacher is too....