Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment
l4m3z0r writes "This rather alarming article discusses a study of high-school students in which they were asked about censorship, protected speech, and other aspects of the first amendment. The results are extremely worrisome: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." and this "Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.".."
Are all/most surveyed students born and brought up in America?
And does the First Amendment still feel the same after newly introduced Bills like PATRIOT ACT?
For instance, some countries have this Internal Security Act which allows government to imprison anyone for a couple of years without trial, and with that shadowing above your head, does it still matter if you're protected by another ancient right?
It's like a F1 driver still feels safe driving on slicks after it starts raining.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.
Now this is NOT an insignificant study. 100k students and only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories? Excuse me? This misinformation must be coming from somewhere... Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?
About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.
Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material. Forcing various institutions to enable filters on content. Yeah, it can't stop ALL the content out there but it is getting closer and closer to that. With the scare tactics and every parent believing that every sensationalist news "story" on the TV is GOING TO AFFECT THEIR CHILDREN they are pushing this crap through without thinking about the consequences.
The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
Of course they don't. Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams. If you did not give the teacher what they wanted you were given a poor grade. It wasn't until college (and I remember our second semester English professor being appalled) that I was able to write how I felt about a topic and back it up with real information. The professor would grade you on your research and your proof and not how he/she particularly felt the topic should be supported.
How can we expect high-school aged kids to think that they should be given a chance to practice their First Amendment rights when they are under the constant force feeding of information?
More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.
That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers. They want people who follow the status quo. Why stir the pot when you can just report the silly rumors, scare tactics and sensationalism, and car chases above California?
How should students understand the first amendment right when they yet do not have those rights in public schools? (and I am not saying that they should have them.) for example; "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." That is not surprising as they in thier school newspaper do not have the ability to pubilsh without teacher approval and "About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't" That is not surprising as thier internet use at school is severly restricted in what they can see. Anouther example is with only 83% of the students saying that expression of unpopular views is acceptible, coming from a very nondemocratic enviorment in schoolI can see how that is easily the situation. Students are under the heel of school officials. although, I am a while out of high school and this was just my experience.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
"Only half the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories"? Yikes.
Inside me is a kneejerk activist who wants to point to this as evidence that growing up, as children have since 9/11/01, surrounded by authority figures who casually restrict freedom of speech in the name of guarding against terrorism, encourages children to pattern their thoughts and behavior along similar unfortunate lines.
But actually, I'd like to know what similar studies have been conducted in years past. If this is the way young adults have always thought, then things probably won't get any worse. What would be disturbing is a trend showing young adults finding restrictions on free speech increasingly acceptable.
They probably don't understand any of the others, either.
The constitution also doesn't say "separation of church and state" .... but I wish it did.
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
Studies show that US schools produce idiots like me. It's a wonder that fast food chains of the nation are still standing.
My comments may be crap...but they are my crap...and I am brave enough to stand by them...Never post as AC!
Pictures at eleven.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I loved High school surveys! I always put "Yes" and the highest number availible for everything.
The same goes for a right to privacy. Wish it was there, but it is not.
Isn't there a fairly large difference between students unterstanding that newspapers are allowed to publish anything and the opinion that they should (or shouldn't) be allowed to basically publish anything? It seems to me more like we have children who are growing up to be facists, rather than we have stupid kids.
If everyone except the kids understands the FA so well, why does the article have to clear up things like "...thought flag-burning is illegal. It's not", etc.
Looks like the kids are not the only ones in need of education about the First Amendment?
And on a light note, illustrating the wisdom of teenagers:
"Teenagers all smoke, and they seem pretty on the ball..." -Zap Brannigan in Kif Gets Knocked Up a Notch
Not surprising, considering the morons I went to school with and the fact that we had one class about that sort of thing. We really ought to be failing more students don't you think?
Most Americans do believe all of that. Schools just enforce it by blocking everything they don't feel is appropriate and not letting you speak your mind. America keeps getting more and more oppressive.
...after all, most adults don't know the first amendment, either, when they go off about how parties other than the government are "violating their first amendment rights."
...eighty percent of the same group, when asked to locate the USA on a map of North America, pointed to Canada.
But only if the government approves of the news article!
How accurate can you consider the results to be? They're highschool kids. I remember when we had to fill out quizzes for things like this in my highschool (mostly smoking related ones). The idea of the quiz for us was to see who could make the best picture while only filling in dots, who can go the fastest, who can make the best use of the "Do not write in this space" area, and so forth.
This will be making some people very happy. Why make censorship laws when people are happy to censor themselves?
Here in the UK, there was recently a story that flag burning was indeed to be made illegal, because it was are common expression of anti-British sentiment. What better way to resolve dislike of Britain than to make any expression of it illegal! Of course, Britain has no First Amendment.
apterous.org
> Only half of the students said newspapers should
> be allowed to publish freely without government
> approval of stories
Maybe the kids thought the question was whether or not newspapers could publish without _corporate_ approval of stories.
In high school I was on the newspaper staff for a while. We had a major part of an issue planned for addressing sex in high school, with various stories and features.
The principal vetoed the whole deal.
Something similar recently came up at another, and the students just left an entire page blank as a protest.
How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I see it in kids today all the time.
This is most certainly due to living in the post-Napster, post-9/11, political & legal environment.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Take this one: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."
Is there anybody who think that newspapers should be able to publish ANYTHING? Say, a list of witness protection program participants? The fact that you are a convicted child molestor, complete with picture, even if you're not? Hey, it's "freedom of speech", right?
Considering that many Slashdotter's knee-jerk reaction is that "all censorship is bad", I find this quite refreshing.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The role of public schools isn't to produce free thinkers and speakers. It is to get the masses to submit to the government.
www.mikesmind.com - www.daddyworkathome.com - www.freetofarm.org - www.tenfoottable.com
That is not saying that the student's don't understand the 1st ammendment. You can understand something but realize it needs fine tuning. You can understand but disagree with, as well. While I may not like how certain companies (CBS) address certain stories (forged documents) I also realize that it's part of the greatness of this country in being able to say what you want, when you want. I may disagree with certain things that are said, but at least we get to have discussions about whether it was right or wrong. Filtering news through the government is a VERY bad idea, no matter how you look at it. Yes, there's sometimes a reason to stifle a story because of a matter of national security, but those are so few and far between that they shouldn't even be an issue.
I'd bet dollars-to-donuts the results would be almost identical.
The problem isn't with the kids; it's the system that allows these kids to develop ideas like these that's the problem.
No child left behind, indeed. Does it count when they've *all* been left behind?
i don't live in the states, but i was always told that flag burning was illegal for americans...
it's not?
news to me.
can anyone tell me the exact law on this? i'm just curious..
The ammendment says Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press...
This statement is inaccurate:
"Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories"
BUT
Everyone thinks this means the press have the right or even the responsibility to report everything without impunity from libel/slander or trade theft. Wrong! It says the government can't take your right away to speak - but does NOT any WAY protect the press from having free reign from civil litigation.
I also would like to add that foreign press seems to think they have 1st ammendment rights in the US as well and bastardize our law on a day to day basis.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Also, just as obviously, the teacher and school shouldn't be the sole place to impart this knowledge. Start at home.
And on a related note...this is why teenagers shouldn't vote. There are the very few extremely intelligent ones that do understand the ramifications, but most need a little bit of maturity first.
I am a high school student. In one of my classes, we have bi-monthly discussions about current events that last the entire period. It amazes me how little some students know about our government. And to be honest, I can't blame them. The only time we ever studied the government was in 8th grade civics. Sure you can take Government class, but there are no other mandatory classes that teach students about our government in my school district.
They are just watching too much American "news", and in particular Fox "news". Heck, the majority of the US population believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. Go figure.
To quote some text on student newspapers and the first amendment.. ..the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school..
Where are my mod points when I need them.... This one goes UP!
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
People die to defend these rights, and some of our students don't even know what these rights are?
Hey conservatives! Maybe if instead of worrying about absitence only education and attacking Darwinism you spent your efforts in communicating why and how we are a free society, and why that is of tantamount importance, we could all get along here, hm? Cuz I'll be honest with you, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with James "Spongebob Is Gay" Dobson if it means we get the message out loud and clear about the Bill of RIghts.
Education is falling through the floor, everywhere. More proof the education system is broken and needs massive intervention. It isn't working, standardized tests do nothing but dumb down curriculum. The education system is more based on making kids feel good about what they are doing, when it needs to teach them what they need to get by in life and do well. I feel cheated out of what I could have learned in school, we need to fix our system before it is to late.
The funny thing about flag burning and all those attempts to make it illegal (or the idea that it already is) is that when you ask a conservative who actually knows about these things, you'll find out that burning a flag is actually the only proper way to get rid of one when you have to - for example, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy. For some reason, those pushing for a law that would make burning flags illegal never seem to know about that.
Not that I myself care about what happens to a flag in the slightest, of course - if you're a soldier and in a fight, you probably have better things to do than worry about than a piece of cloth that probably was produced in a sweatshop in communist China, anyway.
It's funny how these neocons aren't actually conservative in the actual sense of the word, though.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
The general and trivial knowledge of the average high school student is pathetic, at best. Why? Anyone who grew up in public school can tell you, anyone with that kind of knowledge (along with other factors)is considered a "nerd" or "geek" and quickly becomes a social outcast. And they all want to be popular and accepted, so they either feign ignorance or they actually are. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Hve you ever watched Street Smarts? I once saw a college kid who couldn't name the current president of the U.S.
The first amendment, after all, doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law except for laws barring child pornography, the exposure of military secrets, and naughty words on the radio."
Not that I don't favor barring child porn, but you know, if you want to do that, you need to change the amendment...
Yeah, yeah, I know all about our English Common Law system and all that. I'm just saying, you can't blame people for not understanding the law...and frankly, the law is always a mushy, malleable pile of goo if the Supreme Court can change the meaning of pretty plain words.
Advice: on VPS providers
This makes it nice and easy for the government to continue to trample peoples rights in the near future. They don't have to worry about young people getting together and protesting; these people probably won't even know they have rights within a few years....ok maybe thats a tad too ridiculous, but seriously these seems like its a little too convienent to just be 'kids aren't learning enough in schools.' So much of the daily cirriculum is forced upon teachers that there shouldn't be 'accidental' mishaps like this.
Most Christians I talk to seem to assume that "seperation of church and state" is some made up popular conception which doesn't really exist as Constitutional precedent. "Show me where in the Constitution it says the words 'seperation of church and state'!" they scream. They forget that the Constitution was designed to be an evolving document interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and here is what they had to say:
From The United States Supreme Court Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing decision:
Heh, funny, but the apathy thing was a 90's phenomenon. Now, the kids are *actively* seeking restricted rights and are simply not equipped to feel safe and remain free. Damn kids.
the Fark thread about the same article...
Some Graphic Representation of a Survey
Like most studies this one only provides one possible interpretation of the data collected. Another possible interpretation of this information is that students think the media is evil and manipulative, like we do. And they are naieve enough to think that the government interfering with this will make the media better. When I was in high school whenever I saw a problem my answer was always "the government should step in and do X". Only later did I realize how stupid this was. I know many others who had similar thought patterns.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
With USA schools today being so wrapped up in socalizing children, following the "A is for Average" and the Politically Correct mantra, I'm not surprised to hear that student's don't know much about the First Amendmentm much less other important documents that are the cornerstone of the USA. Heck, schools today are re-writing US history to be overly zealous about being politically correct to the point the text has lost the original reason why a group of people moved from England to Holland to the land now called the United States of America.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
Tell us where in the constitution or the Bill Of Rights there are the words:
... or free exercise thereof.
"Separation of Church & State"
Also tell us why people such as yourself commonly leave out the OTHER words
Those kids who put stickers on those books have the right to exercise their beliefs freely and they have the right to freedom of speech.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
We don't need no education...
I'd like to think the parent poster is making a subtle social statement about the quickness to blame conservatives for everything.
I don't know where you went to school, but in my HS the essay writing was more like your college profs. expectations. As long as we could back up what we were saying from the book (essays usually were about the book we were reading), you got a good grade.
Do have to agree the rest of your post though..
I downright shudder when I think about the average American's current understanding of our Constitution.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I thought it was Bill Clinton's fault. Now I'm confused.
When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes.
Why do I always get the extreme minority?
Illegal? Samir, This is America.
I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech. You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for. A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".
If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.
Sounds like you had a learning opportunity and you failed the lesson.
Never confuse volume with power.
That's very true. Every year since the fifth grade, they've shoved it down our throats. My first class about government was 8th grade Civics. It is the only time you are every required to know it.
How many students understand the Pledge of Allegiance? They're swearing allegiance to a republic about which they understand very, very little, and do it gladly, because it's the Done Thing.
People shouldn't be pressured to say the thing until they're 18, at least, and have some inkling of what's going on. They shouldn't be *pressured* at all, in fact.
I was so resentful of having to say it when I was a kid (and only realized this in 6th grade), that I was consistently the only one NOT to stand for it in high school and beyond. One gets some strange evil eyes when you don't do the Done Thing.
Just an FYI, civics classes (basing from your id #) like we had in high school haven't been around in nearly a decade. In fact, my junior year of HS (94 iirc) was the year civics was entirely phased out (and I went to good HS, properly sized classes, music and art programs in good check, etc). (I work in a public school system and I just checked the 2004-05 HS Catalog of classes just to make sure I wasn't misinforming)
American History is still taught, but it's basically as a timeline of events. Civics used to cover everything from your responsibilities as a US citizen to the goals and purpose of the amendments, Bill of Rights, etc.
Basically, everything being taught now comes from a point of view of no judgement calls. If there is something open to interpretation, either it's not taught, or it's taught from a historical context as opposed to the 'meaning' or 'message' of said lesson.
It's how you can teach a religious studies class in a HS. You can learn the history, you just can't preach the subject matter. The same rules now apply to 'preaching US citizenship'.
Just FYI.
I think less than half of the adults understand the 1st amendment.
You include yourself in this group, I hope.
the thing that everyone is forgetting is this: high school is not now nor has it ever been anything like "real life".
witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."
since the dawn of the formal state educational system we have been creatinga purly artificial environment for our children with values, mores and codes of conduct that bear no resemblence to the real world whatsoever.
so... why should these results be a surprise?
2 1337 4 u!
Instead of blindly attributing these figures wholly to decreasing awareness and lack of liberty in schools (I'm not denying these causes), I think that age and maturity (or lack thereof) are likely to skew the results. Most teenagers have "bigger" issues to worry about, personal problems, relationships, relationships, etc which take a higher priority in their lives than something as far removed (atleast at that age) as the constitution. Should it be this way? I don't know...but I certainly think the raging chemicals/hormones at that age certainly clouds up one's thinking.
It's likely that adults, who've pretty much settled down into a stable life (teachers/etc) and have been acquainted with politics, and other such "adult" topics for a while would be (atleast I hope so) more concerned about these issues.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Im a Freshmen in college and I can rember clearly my deep love fro big brother I mean the Clovis Unified School System, Dress Codes, being told what you can and can not write in papers or what can and cant be talked ahout in the class room. With such restrictions in the public education system im not surprised in the slightest that our kids dont understand the basic concepts of there god given rights, yes they read them in the books that there given, but there not shown them by there teachers or parents. I rember I wrote a essay about abortion and was told to go to my learning director because my stand wasnt correct.I also got sent to my Learning Director because my essay on freedom in the united states stated that our rights were being erroded by Bush and that the Patiot Aact helped hid us of our Civil Libertys. Now I ask you how should children learn goverment when the system doesnt let them be free?
Linux is like living in a teepee. No Windows, no Gates, Apache in house.
Libel and slander against public figures is basically an impossible task to pursue. In other words, they can sue you, but they will always lose.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I'm not trying to start and argument or anything, just pointing out that I doubt most kids in high school care. You leanred about your rights in a class you either skipped or wished you did. These things just aren't on the minds of kids.
However, I'm betting if this test were conducted on college students, the results would be a lot different. It's at about that age people start to get interested in such things and investigate into them. Which is probably why there are so many political protests at colleges or being done by college (or college-age) people. Most often when a high school student protests, it's in emulation of someone else.
Paul
I agree with pretty much all you have to say, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you meant by this:
Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?
What do psychology and sociology classes have to do with a lack of understanding of the first amendment?
You might as well have blamed kids skipping history class to take more math.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
This is the link to the opening page which describes the methodology and other information about the study.
Way to go editors. Please don't include actual information for stories.
For those interested you can check my journal for some of the stories which were rejected to see what you've been missing.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Studies show that most studies are conducted in ways that can guarantee the desired results. I can think of lots of ways to ask questions that would provide enough confusion to get the answers they reported. There are also other ways to ask the questions to get the opposite answers or even more ways to ask the questions to get unbiased answers.
If this study were repeated independently I'll believe it. Otherwise, I'll presume it's as fair and balanced as cable news.
Kind of like multiple choice tests, mostly they test your ability to take tests.
I assume you meant "If only Redstaters weren't such dumb walmart shopping, nascar watching dummies."
Yes, and we were put to shame in Iraq. Look at what most of those people risked to go and vote. What is risked in the U.S.? A few minutes of your time.
www.mikesmind.com - www.daddyworkathome.com - www.freetofarm.org - www.tenfoottable.com
...Ban the display of the Confederate flag.
...ban pictures of guns.
... dissent on widely held scientific theories.
...write speech codes that severely penalize students for voicing their opinions.
...and a legion of similar examples.
If the American judiciary can't understand the First Amendment, how the hell are America's students supposed to?
TV channels ALREADY only show what government tells them to show. Did you see any injured iraqis on TV? And there are tens of thousands of them. Or did you think that "laser guided" bunker busters only blow up the bunkers?
Some newspapers exercise "self censorship" as well. This is just so fucking wrong! And flag burning should in fact be illegal, I think.
Also, do you seriously think that the government doesn't have the means to prevent certain information to get published on the Internet? Do you _seriously_ think so, poor naive lads? I mean, come on, one day you publish something and next day you wake up at Guantanamo bay handcuffed to a railing with a bag over your head.
Funny thing is, Americans sincerely believe that they enjoy the most freedoms of any country in the world. For the time being, I think, the freedom has moved to Europe and Canada. US of A aren't as shiny an ideal of freedom as they once were.
Uh, no. Look, I dislike Bush and "his" administration passionately, but that's just pure flamebait... and offtopic, I might add.
The government doesn't control funding for "Air America"; perhaps you are thinking of "Voice of America", which is totally different.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
He doesn't seem to.
Where do YOU get your news? The US Gov't does not filter anything except child porn, and even that is debatable (I think they put it out there to catch the pervs). The CDA act did NOT pass, thank goodness. I can't think of a single URL the US Gov't blocks unless it is the web site of known terrorists, you can even bet illegally via the web (offshore casinos) and make a date with a prostitue, both clearly illegal activities. Flag burning had not even been tested as a 1st Amendment isssue until about 10 yrs ago, maybe less. Folks just didn't do it. Probably 60% of Americans get thier news from the 3 main network newscasts. Talk about left wing, alarmist news which treats viewers as morons who should NOT make up thier own minds from facts. Most parents do NOT censor what the kids watch on TV (or on video..ever see what the teens rent at Blockbuster?). If you believe the data about kids watching violent TV becoming violent themselves then that sure proves someone is NOT checking on the kids. Been a LONG time since I was in college so I don't know what the teachers do. I recall my spouse taking a different view than her Am. Lit. prof and getting marked down a few years back, but I suspect that varies campus to campus and even prof to prof. I'm all for High School papers, I used to be the editor! Maybe the reason there aren't any is the kids don't want to do it? We were not even censored, and we sure had a lot of non-standard ant-administration views about lunch, classes, polcies, etc. Good Government is impossible WITHOUT free thinkers. Lack of thinking (on both sides of the aisle) is a BIG part of the problem in Congress. The only thinking is how does my state (or me) get my cut of the fiscal pie.
I didn't spend any money on wars. All my tax dollars go to USGS and the Forestry Service. Maybe it was someone else who bought the war...
Without the 1st, why bother using the 2nd to defend anything?
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
So in other words their government-provided schooling is doing its job.
Liberty in your lifetime
Shame on you. The activities of those groups you cite are horrible, irrational, and in some cases down right evil. By overstating their responsibility here, you hope all the blame toward these irresponsible groups would likewise be dismissed. A fallacious ad absurdium argument. Shame on you for such weak resoning regarding some rather terrible people.
Well, sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.
Granted, I went to school in the People's Republic of California, but doesn't the US 1st Ammendment refer to *political* free speech? At least that was how the 1st Ammendment was originally intended... "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, 12 June 1823
asking:
can the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?
will get a vastly different answer than:
should the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?
but both question can be reported as "X% of students feel government can strict obscene material on the internet."
Journalists get all bent out of shape when someone doesn't understand that one, but all too often they feel free to disparage the 2nd Amendment - the one that prevents the 1st from being forcefully taken from us.
When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes.
And yet, this is a country where one can get into trouble in school for advocating unpopular ideas - which suggests that the teachers and principals were not being entirely forthcoming in their own answers. An example:
Two boys were arrested for making pencil-and-crayon stick figure drawings depicting a 10-year-old classmate being stabbed and hung, police said. The children, charged with a felony, were taken from school in handcuffs.
If teachers and principals consider a drawing to be an arrestable offense (even if the drawing were in questionable taste), then it is not surprising that the First Amendment is little regarded in schools.
And if the adults are providing "the correct answer" (what they believed the questioners wanted to hear), then there is little reason to be surprised if the students did the same.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Good Red State American's don't want freedom . . . they want super bowls, super bowl commercials, and cold beer with a born on date. This life is supposed to suck ass, and the more it sucks the bigger the reward in heaven.
Freedom of the press, isn't that what leads to disagreements ? Can't we all just adopt the sanctioned viewpoint of our leaders, put this in the past, and look forward to all the great shopping opportunities we have available in this fine country ?
I think that US Adults *particularly in the lower classes* don;t understand the Constitutional framework of civil rights.
This is disasterous when you consider that the US Supreme Court has generally ruled that you don't inherently *have* these rights unless you assert them, so you can lose them simply through ignorance of them on an individual basis (referring to the right not to self-incriminate).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Is that not about who's paying for the whole thing? If your school disagrees with what you want to publish then it's reasonable that it not pay for it to be published. I mean, take this first-amendment complaint of your's to its extreme and they could be paying for you to publish stories (true or otherwise) about how the principal likes to bum-fuck 14-year old boys.
On the other hand, if you're self-publishing then in what way can the principal wield a veto? Obviously he'll have you for defamation but that's his right!
I'm from the UK and we have a right to education here, I'm not sure how it works in the US, maybe you have some kind of contract with your school that means they can suspend or expel you if you publish something they don't like, but hey, it's in your contract and that's the American way is it not? Start another school.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
So let's see your militia get its shit together and start defending the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights. That's what it is there for no?
Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
I got in trouble for telling a teacher that the reason i lost points was "bull shit" that which it was. apperently the linit os fomething @ infinety from the right is possible. But when i was writen up to the office, and talked to the principal, we were talking and some how the 1st came up. Since im on school ground its dosent apply. appernetly the 5th dosen't also because he asked what happend and i didnt answer and almost got write up for insabortination.
It's one thing for neophytes to not understand even the basics of something. It's another thing for the experts to have the same level of ignorance.
How many Congressmen would also have a poor showing?
Welcome to the neocon revolution.
You can bet your bottom dollar that Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham had editorial control over what the Washington Post printed.
Use school money, school controls you. Start an independent paper, school has no control.
This is bullshit. 51% of Americans aren't gun carrying hicks from the south. Lots of rational people all over the country voted for Bush because Kerry sounded like an elitist bullshitter who would say anything to make people happy. People voted on their gut instinct for the person they trusted more.
Why is this a troll? Several educators, not the least of the them a former teacher of the year, share this view. Just because it's a controversial idea does not mean that the poster is trolling.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
What do psychology and sociology classes have to do with a lack of understanding of the first amendment?
High-schoolers are given the option to take sociology or psychology (or both) instead of history/civics courses.
They all fall into the same "credit" but teach completely different topics.
... in its original form, it was FRIST AMDENDMENT!
What's stopping you from hosting a school paper elsewhere (like a blog) and reporting using that? You can put the fluff stuff the school wants in the official paper and then start a second paper on-line that's not bound by the administration.
The school has to CTA which is why they restrict what kind of information gets printed. It's not to keep the student's down. If you were to print taboo topics the school would have a lot of angry parents to deal with.
It doesn't matter what paper you work for, you're going to be restricted in what you can print. It had zero to do with government censorship and everything to do with keeping the readers (and their parents) happy.
Work Safe Porn
Any ideas for how to correct this situation?
(Hey, someone had to say it...)
They're a coalition of center-right bloggers. Smart folk -- and I'm an old fashioned lefty.
http://www.deadparrots.net/
I'll bet they're clueless about Selective Service too, which is what the conscription system is called in the USA.
Somebody needs to point out to them that they are the slack in the system between US troop delpoyments and the robot soldiers.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Looks like our government raised children are coming along nicely.
Looks to me that we need to start making drastic changes for better now, cause we won't be getting much help from the next batch of super-sheeple.
*DrugCheese rants*
For one thing, they're kids. Their primary concerns are sex, music, parties, video games, movies, being popular, etc. (I know, I use to be one.) The only time they're concerned about their freedoms is when they've been grounded. Another thing: Your average high school doesn't exactly demonstrate the first amendment very well. I'd say that high school is where I had my first real, personal experience with censorship.
I'm not going to flip out about this until I see a study showing that the attitudes of teenagers have been trending in this direction. Do MORE teens believe these things than they did, say, 5 years ago?
If there's no trend, just chalk it up to run-of-the-mill teenage stupidity and forget about it.
Implying that Democrats are fighting for our free speech? Bah!
Wasn't it the Clinton administration that gave beginnings of Congress's desperate grasp at Internet pornograpy controls (ala COPA)? Didn't they twist arms to try to implement Clipper?
To be sure, Republicans trample our rights, including free speech, but if you believe that Democrats are protecting those right, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
I've been thinking about "the right to free assembly" lately. Once upon a time, when people lived within horse-riding distance of their meeting houses, it was possible to exercise this right without any technological support, but nowadays it would be almost impossible to exercise this right without access to, for example, a car. And yet states still consider driving a "privilege" rather than a "right." It seems to me that in this day and age, with access to a car essentially a prerequisite for free assembly, American's ought to have a "right" to drive, protected as a consequence of the the first amendment. In fact, I would think that in this day and age access to a car is more important than (say) access to a gun, for exercising civil disobedience in the face of totalitarianism. We ought to have a right to drive for the same reason we have a right to bear arms, it seems to me. So where do states get off still telling us that this is a "privilege" and not a right?
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
Actually, they ARE *part* of the problem. It is impossible with one STANDARDIZED test to gauge the capability and education level of every kid in my daughter's class, let alone the whole country.
Every kid is different. Every day is different. Every region is different. Every school is different.
Some people do poorly on tests but are highly educated. Some people do great on tests who could care less about education.
Tests should be used merely as a reference. Maybe an indicator. But they should not be used as the whole measurement. There is more to a child than you can indicate on a paper form once a year.
I would *love* to see the demographic distribution/correlation of the students surveyed, in particular Blue vs Red states, private vs public schools, political and denominational majority in their school district, as well as economic backgrounds.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
What's really scary, though, is that so much of Fourth Amendment law rests on an expectation of privacy. School children can be searched with less than probable cause (reasonable suspicion), can be ordered to give urine samples for mass suspicionless drug tests, etc. When these children enter the real world, how will their perceptions limit our privacy rights due to the lessened expectation of privacy that they have been taught is proper?
What do you expect from a government run school. Of course they're going to teach the kids that the government needs to control the press. It's amazing that it's not higher than half.
No, public figures also have to prove malice on the part of the publisher. Simple falsehood isn't enough.
From: http://firstamendment.jideas.org/survey/highschool student/highschoolstudent44-53.shtml
45. Newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story.
24% Strongly agree
27 Mildly agree
22 Mildly disagree
14 Strongly disagree
13 Don't know
I'd say the problem may be overblown by a bad question. I know how I was in high school, which isn't significantly different from how I am now. I'd have to say I disagree that media should be able to publish "freely" because there are many areas I believe the media can do significant damage by publishing "freely", whether they have the RIGHT or not.
For example, publishing CIA Agent's names, publishing misleading information during the course of a trial, publishing obscene materials, publishing troop movements, and so on. There are always lines that shouldn't be crossed.
Never confuse volume with power.
I am not at all surprised by the results, high school kids live in an opressive environment so it's no wonder they think the world is like this.
Far more interesting would be to ask people in college the same question, and see how much an open environment led them to expand expectations of freedoms.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are a perfect example of the kind of person put forth by the Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights as a reason why the Bill of Rights should not be passed. The argument was once you started deliniating rights of the people that some would then argue those not explicitly stated would not exist. That's why they passed the 9th amendment.
Have a good day Exhibit A.
Most Americans don't understand the First Amendment. What percent of Americans know that the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom? What percent know that religious freedom is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment? Lots of people seem to think it's only about speech for some reason.
That is precisely why I didn't vote for Kerry and voted for who I did. I didn't vote for Bush, either (yes Virginia, there were more than 2 candidates running).
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
"How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?"
You can teach them that the First Amendment means the following:
1) What it says.
2) What the Supreme Court says it means.
You can teach the kids about relevant Supreme Court decisions (Hazlewood) that affect their rights. Otherwise, you haven't really been teaching them so much as buttressing their ignorance with your own.
From the FA:
About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.
More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.
Lack of money limits their media offerings, but they'd rather plunge a red-hot porcupine up their asses than cut a football or basketball program, even if their program is losing money.
I don't doubt that schools and students benefit from sporting programs. But what life skills are actually learned in sporting programs? Instead of cutting sports, they cut the arts, funding for computer labs, and so-called "media offerings."
Mr. Holland was right. If they quit teaching anything other than reading and writing, pretty soon the students won't have anything left to read or write about.
.sig wanted. Inquire within.
The professor would grade you on your research and your proof and not how he/she particularly felt the topic should be supported.
Unfortunately, for me, it didn't end when I was in college. Being a conservative, any proof I offered, was dismissed and ridiculed and my grades suffered in comparison.
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
To me, this shows that people (as indicated through their children) are tired of the media's dishonesty and sensationalism and feel that newspapers should be censored.
Only if they can prove malice and a reckless disregard for the truth. Most comedy type work is protected too. The standards are high, it's nearly impossible for them to win.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Quite frankly, as a high school student myself, I am not too surprised. Most of the kids in my school actually think that Saddam Hussein (hope I spelled that right) wanted to attack the U.S. and had WMD's to use on us. Obviously this was not the case, but when I try to point this out they tell me how much of an idiot I am and how I must be wrong. If they'll believe things like this, no wonder they have no problem with censorship
In response to a poster who said something along the lines of how certain things (his/her example was a witness protection program list) should not be published, I absolutely agree. But this question in regards to government censorship was much more simple than that. It had more to do with the government censoring things that it didn't want published for its own selfish means, not for the protection of people.
I think it comes down to public school atmosphere and neglected parenting.
Parenting is a full time job for both parents, and reinforcing things taught in school is one faucet of that job. Many parents, my friends included, think their kids education and well-roundedness will be the result of attending classes in school. They couldn't be more wrong. A U.S. History or U.S. Government teacher has one hour a day in which to cram a 3 hour course-required schedule to 30 students in a crammed classroom. At least that's the way it is in Arizona, one of the worst states for public schooling.
As far as the kids are concerned going to school is something that takes place when they aren't living their lives. I mean, learning is something they do in bits and spurts during a 1 hour course, and it can be thrown out the window during the after school trip to the mall with their friends.
It's really up to the parents to get involved and reinforce the ideas and priciples taught by the public school system. Only by making the student think and ponder the concept of Freedom of Speech will that concept become meaningful to the student, and they can then develop their own opinions about it. Making the student truly ponder it can be a simple dinner table discussion between the student and his or her parents and family.
Unfortunately I know too many parents who send their kids off to school so the parents can do their own thing, then send the kids off to play when the kids get home so the parents can continue to do their own thing. I wish more parents would take the education of their children farther than punishing or rewarding the kids based on the merits of their report cards.
Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
hmmm. maybe now "RTFA" can mean "read the first amendment"?
despite its inherent lack of profanity, i like it.
You're very correct and I was very wrong.
Never confuse volume with power.
Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?
I can't speak for other states, but I can speak as somebody who has been out of an Illinois high school for a few years now.
In my particular high school, two years of history were required: One year World History, one year US History. In that mandatory US History class was a mandatory Constitution examination that had to be passed before a student could graduate. The same was true for me in 8th grade: There was a mandatory Constitution unit and a must-pass test to go with it. Additionally there were other "areas" that students had to complete courses in and although not mandatory, there were classes in Constitutional Law and Business Law. I'm sure the latter had to touch on the Constitution at least briefly; obviously the former was entirely focused on it, and I enjoyed the class thoroughly.
I'm pretty sure that the Constitution test requirement is a state law for high schools. Incidentally, I am also required to pass a Constitution test (or take a specific History class that presumably will cover it in no minor detail) for college.
Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material.
Indeed. I can understand how many students got this wrong. While it wasn't on the Internet, we've been bombarded recently with things such as the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" where it's made pretty clear that free speech rights are not absolute. I'm not surprised that students might not know where and under what circumstances these powers end. Unfortunately our laws tend to be so complicated that it seems only a lawyer can TRULY know for sure exactly what is and is not protected speech. And even then they sometimes have to prove it in court.
The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
I'm honestly not sure what that means. How does one practice their First Amendment rights? By not getting arrested? I'll respond to your specific thought though.
Of course they don't. Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams.
I had the opposite experience. Very few of my high school teachers for ANY subject would force you to regurgitate their opinion. Sometimes they would make you pick a side (pro or con, for or against a statement, etc) but almost all of them were looking for something specific. IE, in a History class they were probably looking for any sort of historical examples to back up your point. In English the major focus was on the quality of the discourse and the strength of argument rather than searching for specific factual points. Largely, the English teachers did not even care HOW a person wrote; I find they were much less concerned with structure of the paper than my college professors have been, and instead focused on the points raised.
That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers.
This is the point I disagree with you the most about (as the others seem to be mostly a different set of experiences). We can argue whether the government or media wants free thinkers, but that's not why schools are not providing newspapers or radio stations or whatnot for their students. It's an issue of money. I imagine the newspaper would be the cheapest (television/radio stations require at least large initial investments), and there are still printing costs and such involved.
As the article stated, 40% of those schools without such programs have removed them in the last five years. The economy has not been the best the last few years so I can fully understand needing to make some cuts such as this. Additionally there are some schools, probably mostly in big urban centers, where funding is a perrenial issue and the money just can't be d
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
They're makin' fools of you son!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I blame you for such blatant stereotyping of people because they are of a certain political persuasion.
In fact, I think that your attitude is exactly why Kerry isn't in the White House today. Honestly, who is going to vote for a candidate who comes off as very elitst when all of his supporters act incredibly elitist, saying things like you are, that Republicans are bible thumping rednecks, and other assorted insults. It simply alienates a lot of people who wouldotherwise vote for you, even if they disagreed with your moral viewpoints a little bit.
Lastly, grouping people like that makes you look less intelligent.
53% of U.S. kids were unable to read the results of the study. Of those that could read it, 76% had trouble with the concept of percentages and 62% were confused by the presence of punctuation marks.
Well, if the purpose of the 2nd is to defend the 1st, then I'd have to say a certain law against the 1st (the law against nuclear proliferation among the people) has already defeated the 2nd (because that's the only weapon you can really use against the federal government and hope to win).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Sorry. Not.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
...don't seem to be exactly unambiguous on the First Amendment. (You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, right? Unless there is a fire. Who decides when you're in some sense yelling "fire" and whether there is on?) And don't even start on the second...
I'd expect you would get pretty poor results if you asked 100,000 kids to list the planets of the solar system in order out from the Sun or the chemical composition of salt -- expecting better on something as hazy as a constitutional amendment is silly.
This is the second time I've seen this statement on this topic. Since (arguably) the Civil War, when was the last time the right to bear arms has been used to protect the 1st, or any other freedoms? Is the only reason why the government doesn't take more of our rights away due to some people carrying guns? Of course that's not reason enough to do away with it, but it just seems silly to say that without the 2nd you can't defend the 1st.
U.S. Kids:
....it goes on and on... every year you read more stuff like this.
1) are 40% illiterate, of the 60 that are literate, few progress past a third grade level.
2) rarely progress past seventh grade math levels
3) cannot find their own state on a map of the U.S.
4) cannot find the U.S. on a map of the world
5) ???
6) Profit!!!
So the United States is a Legion Of Dumbfucks And Ignoramuses.
Sorry.
do() || do_not();
Well, I would have modded it as funny anyways.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
The fisrt 10 Amendments, like any of the others can be repealed or changed, should the People decide to do it. Due to the difficulty in garnering enough support to amend the Constitution, however, the likelyhood of it happening is pretty small. But there is certainly a difference between possible but not likely and impossible.
It is also possible to alter the Constitution through a new Constitutional Convention. The mechanism is there and, in theory, they could even scrap the entire Constitution and start all over from scratch. Again its not likely, but it is possible.
Finally, for the record, IANAL- but I did take a year of COnLaw classes as an undergradute in getting my Law and Society degree.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
58% of slashdot redstaters fail to detect sarcasm on a message bored.
Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
They seem to understand the Second Amendment pretty well... The most infuriating bumper sticker I've ever seen said "The Second Amendment: America's First Freedom."
No, that would be the First article of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the First Amendment.
The selective ignorance is astonishing.
Hear, hear. I agree. Now if we could only get the government to keep Fox news from reporting what they want to and force them to report the correct information..... Oh wait, that's not the point you wanted to make is it?
Today's America is populated by people who were first told that their right to choose to wear a motorcycle helmet was vacated, they must wear one. Later they were told that they had the government had the right to control actions and force them to wear seat belts. The Patriot Act suspends much of the protections of individual. The last 150 years have slowly eroded the original intent of a loose confederation of states into a large centralized government. All this is done for the benefit of "the people" or "think of the children". The last generation or two of US children have been brainwashed into thinking the government has the individual's right at heart, when actually, at every turn, we've had choice vacated, reponsibility deferred, and information subverted in feality to agendas, both right and left.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean much to kids who get felony charges brought against them for "stick drawings depicting violent acts". "It's for the children" "remember Columbine" baaahhhh...for me, it's more "give me liberty or give me death" and "the people who would trade freedom for safety, deserve to be neither safe nor free."
he
Well, here is the study
Future of First Amendment Report (456K) PDF
Country of origin was not taken into account with their research. That variable might be worth examining if student misconceptions were relatively low. Yet, considering the popularity of misconceptions far outweighs the possible number of students born abroad, it's not really worth examining.
Moreover, there are already sociological studies with that data... you can probably find some full-text research on Ebsco.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
That's what my friends and I did in high school - if you take the school's money, or use the school's equipment, it should be no surprise when the school exercises editorial control.
sulli
RTFJ.
[...]the students just left an entire page blank as a protest.
:)
Excellent. You could also have fun a Firefox ad.
In case there are any high schoolers (or parents of high schoolers) reading Slashdot, here's the FAQ from SPLC (Student Press Law Center). I worked on a newspaper in high school and despite the extreme (grade-affecting) hard work found it really rewarding.
http://splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=3
Q: Do high school students have First Amendment rights?
A: Yes. As the United States Supreme Court said in 1969, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." But the First Amendment only prohibits government officials from suppressing speech; it does not prevent school censorship at private schools. A state constitution, statute or school policy could provide private school students with free speech protections.
Q: What about the Hazelwood decision?
A: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision, gave public high school officials greater authority to censor some school-sponsored student publications if they chose to do so. But the ruling doesn't apply to publications that have been opened as "public forums for student expression." It also requires school officials to demonstrate some reasonable educational justification before they can censor anything. In addition, some states (currently Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Massachusetts) have passed laws that give students much stronger free expression protection than Hazelwood. Other states are considering such laws.
Q: What is a "public forum for student expression?"
A: A student publication is a public forum for student expression when school officials have given student editors the authority to make their own content decisions. A school can do that either through an official policy or by allowing a publication to operate with editorial independence.
Q: So if policy or practice indicates the content of my publication is determined by students, the Hazelwood decision doesn't apply to me?
A: That's right. If a student publication is a public forum for student expression, then students are entitled to stronger First Amendment protection. School officials are only allowed to censor forum publications when they can show the publication will cause a "material and substantial disruption" of school activities.
Q: What about underground or independent student publications? Are they protected from censorship?
A: Absolutely. Although public schools can establish reasonable restrictions as to the time, place and manner of distribution of underground publications, they cannot absolutely forbid their distribution on school grounds. Like school-sponsored publications that are forums, a school must show substantial disruption before they can censor an independent publication.
Q: Can a student publication be sued for libel, invasion of privacy or copyright infringement?
A: Yes, and occasionally they are. In such cases the individual reporter and the editor could be held legally responsible. Court decisions indicate that a school which does not control the content of a student publication may be protected from liability. Students need to be aware that with press freedom does come legal responsibility.
Q: Can student reporters protect confidential news sources or information?
A: Some states have "shield laws" and others have court-created privileges that protect journalists from having to reveal this kind of information. However, most states have never explicitly applied these laws to student journalists. You should check your state law before making a promise of confidentiality because once you make such a promise, the law requires you to keep it.
Q: Can I use freedom of information laws?
A: Yes. Freedom of information, or "sunshine" laws, require government agencies such as public schools to open many of their official records and
>
>witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."
Actually, in real life, governments routinely apply laws to the entire population (banning firearms, banning marijuana) due to the irresponsibility of the few. And just as in school -- when it comes down to a sense of fairness or maintaining order, our leaders also don't care who started it.
Rather than trying to make high school more like real life, we discovered it was more efficient to make real life more like high school.
... that was a CIA front running covert ops, recon and support ops in Laos for something like 20 years. When the libs decided to use that as the name for *their* brand of rumor-mongering (and honestly, why do radio wanks HAVE TO SHOUT ALL THE TIME?), I almost swallowed my teeth.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
Unfortunately, some don't and swallow the poison whole.
I dunno bout where you live but my girlfriend took civics today, shes in highschool in Louisiana
But a study on studies may have been replicated by subsequent studies with a majority of studies showing that studies on studies must be replicated.
And in so doing- they voted for the person most likely to take away 1st Ammendment rights. The person they trusted more had already betrayed them- repeatedly, from the "liberalization" of trade with southeast asia to the standing down of our air force on September 11, 2001 to the friendship with terrorists like Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, this guy has done nothing OTHER than betray that trust- but I'll agree- the people elected who they could better understand. Given American business today- such betrayal of ethics and decency is quite common.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
My schooling experience up to and including high school was a vast vacuum of actual civics training. This is also why people don't know what cops can and can't do when they are detained by them. Nobody knows, so when faced with a guy with a gun, you simply tend to obey. Why wouldn't the State love this kind of thing?
... hence, we shouldn't expect anyone to risk their relatively cushy teaching jobs to actually teach American youth about the basis of the legal system. Now we let things devolve to a popularity contest, depending on which depraved faction of retards inhabits the majority party of the Congress and the White House.
I do believe there is an insidiousness to it all, in which knowledge is power, hence anyone can see that a public school system in a Republic-cum-Empire is not apt to actually educate about civics. But the faults go really deeper than that. I can see in retrospect that my teachers themselves were lousy citizens, and that passes on the same malaise.
With the advent of Fox News as an outright propaganda arm of the Republican Party, children really are under assault by anti-Republic forces in the vicious climb of the Imperial ladder. Knowledge of the US Constitution is now dangerous (which was already a well developed philosophy in the 1990s, what with people blatantly ignoring the freedom to own weapons, and the freedom from unreasonable search/seizure)
The Imperial fall is coming right on schedule. The children are apparently so signed-on to this that I consider it inevitable.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Where "fun", of course, is replaced with "run". Hopefully the slashdot editors will let that mistake slip through!
To add, there is a movie/musical called 1776 that was recently banned from public schools in my home county for the very minor thing of one of the characters saying that he "burns for his wife". This is a very liberal county by the way, (66+% by the last election returns). A couple of others I know are fairly certain that that was the excuse and the real reason was that it is too patriotic. (go figure) The school system just keeps getting more and more screwed up in this country. If I ever have any I'm gonna send them to a private school.
On a slightly related not, I sugest reading Higher Education by Sheffield Especially since you work in the public schools.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050 131/480/nyet25301311822
"Newspapers publish without government oversight?"
Students: 51%
Teachers/Principals: 80%
Then it begins to switch:
"Musicians sing songs with offensive lyrics?"
Students: 70%
Teachers: 58%
Principals: 43%
And then it gets personal:
"Students should be able to report controversial issues without approval of school authorities?"
Students: 58%
Teachers: 39%
Principals: 25%
So, 7 percent of students picked NO to "allowed to report if our government jails an entire race of people", but YES to "we should be allowed to bitch when the principal makes detention longer".
That 7% is a large part of the problem, but maybe they will get it eventually.
The principals and teachers who swapped views like the *idea* of freedom, but don't like the little crunchy bits where it poops on *their* feet.
It's also worth pointing out that 80% of the teachers / principals is VERY signifigant- it means that 20% either believe (or don't care) that government should censor EVERYTHING. That's adults, folks, and that bothers me a bit more than "half of highschoolers don't get it".
I had a similar situation entirely by accident. Back in the dim and distant past I registered a .com with my school's name and started posting all the useful information. Last year I was threatened with legal action because it "wasn't material authorised by the school". Last time I checked, it was my hosting, domain and intellectual property I was using.
.com) and they will believe.
Just get something which people treat as the official and definitive (like a
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Well it's not as clear cut as that. If the school is funding the facilities the paper uses in order to open a forum for speech, then the school can't restrict speech based on its content. If the school is funding the facilities in order to promote a specific view then it can basically whatever it wants. It could be argued that the school is opening up a public forum, as the SC found in a case involving UVA banning religious publications. The SC held in relevant part that UVA couldn't institute a content discriminatory ban even though the funds came from the school/government. Just because it's government funded doesn't mean it can be restricted.
The corps is Mother.
The corps is Father.
We won the war.
This, and other lies, brought to you by the gumm'int.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
I got it from the Cornell Law Legal Information Insitute.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Short and simple: nothing new here. It has been like that for many years (US children not knowing basic stuff like this when almost all of the rest of the world knows it and they are not even U.S. citizens). But then again, when you listen to U.S. people, they own everything, their President is President of the world, not the US, Irak is a state of America, Russians are bad people, so are Chinese but don't say so just now, we're not ready to attack them yet and Canada is... what and where is Canada ?
I'm proud of not being a U.S. Citizen, particurlarly since the recent war against Irak and the last election... I feel sorry for most of the U.S. people.
RedVortex
Well where does the school get the money for the newspaper from?
In my old school district, proper civics courses were still around as of 2001, when my brother took them. This included a 1 semester course in American law, including constitutional law basics, and a 1 semester course in government. The teacher of the government class gave extra credit for voting (equivalent to an A on a weekly quiz, no big thing, but enough to get a few kids to do it once - since it was a course given mainly for seniors, many of them were able to vote). American History was a seperate class entirely. This is the Ann Arbor, MI, school district - while I have significant issues with what they've done to the math/science curricula since I went through the system, they taught civics (in the old sense) pretty well.
The teacher I had for it way back when left around that time, so I'm not certain they still have them, but as of 2001 they still existed.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
I suppose the beauty part of this is that, I would guess, the same holds true for the adult population.
Far too many adults that I've encountered have no idea as to what these rights mean, or what their implications are. And just so you know I'm not simply spouting anecdotal evidence, I'll cite the following article:
44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims
To sum it up for the lazy, it basically means that around 44 percent of all Americans surveyed have no idea what the Bill of Rights is for, why it's important, or what the repercussions are for tampering with it. (Yes, I know what some portion of that group are informed dissenters with the Bill of Rights, but I would assert that they are a fringe minority.)
If you're an American citizen, and haven't done this already (or recently!), be sure to read the following:
US Constitution
Amendments thereof
Just reading through the first couple on the amendments list should give you a better grasp on what the whole "Bill of Rights" thing is about.
Oh, and you'll learn all sorts of crazy trivia you probably weren't aware of - like the fact that a right to a jury trial for civil cases requires the damages to be worth at least $20 (which has never been adjusted for inflation, and probably shouldn't.)
That green slime had it coming.
Public schools are administered by local governments, not the federal one.
In the Baltimore County school system, in the 1980s, high school seniors were required to take a "Citizenship, Constitution, and Poltical Issues" class to graduate, which covered exactly this sort of issue.
I also had some of the most free-thinking people I've ever encountered as teachers there. Public school teachers are government employees, not government agents - and they're underpaid and underrespected by their employer. If public school students have positive ideas about government, they're probably not getting them from teachers!
(And when the only alternatives are religious schools or military-style academies, I'd pick a decent public school any time.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
...half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely...
...the government can restrict any indecent material...
...embrace First Amendment freedoms...
This has nothing to do with the first amendment, this has to do with perception. I actually agree - newspapers should not be allowed to published known falsehoods, for example.
As you point out, the government does restrict this. Child porn is illegal. Again, the kids are correct, and this is probably a good thing.
In other words, once you tell them the answers that you want to hear, they can recite them to you. Now that does sound like the high school I remember...
This "research" is so skewed it is amazing it was published. Everyone knows that this is not correct! How many kids do you know personally? How many of them do not know the First Amendment? The discrepancy is not because you know special people - it is because high school students are very good at telling people what they want to hear! Why are some people so bent on proving that the government is out to get them?
Of course, having people like that is good, because it provides balance and uncovers problems occasionally. But too much of this in the news is why people do not believe global warming...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
I completely agree with your points. It's a big reason why I'm not a Democrat.
:)
That said, the post you responded to was a blatant joke, making fun of the same people you're talking about. I think the key line was "I blame them for everything that is wrong everywhere." Sure, lots of people do that, but they don't tend to state it up front.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
I am one of those annoying parents who seeks to get things "banned" from schools. My problem is when authority figures such as teachers seek to throw use their version of "truth" as the only truth. People scream for you to have an open mind because you do not agree with them. There is a fine line between discussion and promotion. Is it right for a high school class to discuss different ways to kill people without being caught or for a computer class to teach how to break into corporate systems and just tell that there only consequences are minimal if you do it right. Unfortunately this is how sex education is now. They tell you that all you need to do is where a condom and you will be OK. That is their version of the truth but it stronly differs from many beliefs. What place does a "discussion" of oral sex have in high school? My wife had a high school teacher that was seemingly a pervert and liked to talk about such things. Now the whole homosexual agenda is being promoted. At the high school near me the school promotes a day of silence for gay repression. If you don't participate then you are mocked as a homophobe and intolerant. First Amendment only when convenient. Do you see a major problem? I do and I will do everything within my power to fight it and encourage others to help me.
Just because you're mad about the election is no reason to bust out idiocy like "evil neocon overlord." I hate Bush too, but please, reign in your rhetoric.
You also happen to be wrong. A fair portion of the US population did and more disturbingly STILL DOES believe Iraq was linked to 9/11.
Examples: "41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001."
"37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."
(Source: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=50.)
They are not majorities, but they are highly significant numbers. And a majority (62%) of Americans continue to beleive Hussein was strongly linked to Al Qaida. This was as of October 21, 2004.
I'd have to agree, this is not a surprise whatsoever. The kids in these schools are NOT protected by the First Amendment, and the teachers/administrators promote that view, as it makes their daily lives easier. It's the environment that we've created. For most students the first admendment doesn't exist or it has no effect on their lives, this reflects that.
Implying that Democrats are fighting for our free speech? Bah!
More implying that other choices- such as the libertarians, real liberals, conservatives, and socialists support free speech rights far more than the neo* whackos.
Wasn't it the Clinton administration that gave beginnings of Congress's desperate grasp at Internet pornograpy controls (ala COPA)? Didn't they twist arms to try to implement Clipper?
Neoliberal whacko != liberal; his wife also tried to implement a so-called universal health care plan that would have left exactly the same people in charge (HMO executives) who are sucking the most money out of the current system.
To be sure, Republicans trample our rights, including free speech, but if you believe that Democrats are protecting those right, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Republicans are overt- democrats are covert. Those who actually believe in those rights are a minority- especially when those rights conflict with earning a profit.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
in Pennsylvania. Not the whole state.
...by the book-burning, Bible-bashing, fascist-police-state Radical Right, who have taken over their school boards, and infiltrated their little brains through Fox News.
What I find so disturbing is how this generation is so easily cowed.
"The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
h ip .html
Students who take part in school media activities, such as student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.
About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings."
This is either uninformed or disengenuous. High school newspapers have been excluded from first ammendment protections by the Supreme Court.
http://www.fair.org/extra/9403/teaching-censors
The problem is that the courts always overlook the word CONGRESS.
That is the key. Congress can make no law, nothing in the Constitution prevents states or their legislatures from doing it. What does it the over extension of the Federal Courts into the business of the States.
Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment. In fact it probably is more of a violation of the intent of the First to prevent the students from doing just that.
First take away their ability to practice religion. Second make them rely more on their govenment and state appointed officials. Third thing is to ban certain types of speech by law or itimidation (hate speech).
Do not read into the First what is clearly not there. The Congress already recognizes major religious holidays which would clearly be against the First but I don't see anyone crying over that.
The First was meant to protect religions from dominance by one over another, not to put them all out of the public eye.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Editors wet their panties saying "THEY DONT UNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT."
No, the amendment is irrelevant to the question the student was asked. Yes, there is an amendment that under current court jurisprudence makes both of those things the students favor unconstitutional, but that amendment, nor the jurisprudence, are absolute. Both may be over-written or abandoned at any time. In time, these students will be old enough to approve such changes to the Constitution through their representatives, or to elect such representatives who will appoint justices who do not share the current court's opinion on these matters.
And why should they? The education system today tries to ram such ideas into children's minds - 'tolerance', 'diversity', 'the First Amendment' - as though they are dogma without explaining the reasons why they are valid ideas. It grows out of a mentality in education and other academic fields that rejects reason - these students don't need to know why these concepts are valid or not.
Ironically, isn't this the result of the kind of 'critical thinking' that is suppose to be encouraged towards more conservative ideas?
I don't know where you went to school, but in my HS the essay writing was more like your college profs. expectations.
Their are good teachers and poor teachers in both high schools and colleges. I had a high school teacher who was quite willing to give good grades to people with opinions differing from hers, I had another try to get me kicked out of his class for not agreeing that Jesus is god is a proven fact. In college I had professors who were very open minded. I also had a public speaking teacher who gave me a barely passing grade on a persuasive essay when my topic was "legalize cannibalism." This was at a fairly conservative school and I had several people at the end of my speech agree with me and decide cannibalism should be legal. Personally, I thought that should count as very successful persuasion. He disagreed.
My point is, lousy, small minded teachers can be found in any setting.
I graduated from high school in '95 (waves as it fades further into the past), and I had heard about a creative writing journal my high school had in the PAST which ended up canceled when the administration found on a poem in it had to do with masturbation. Could it have been that bad if they had to be told that was the subject?
We also only sort of had a newsletter - it was a xeroxed piece of crap put together by the journalism class after the year book had been sent to the printers. It had a stupid Q&A person and horoscopes in it.
Heck, I remember that I was supposed to hand in my graduation speech to be approved.... oops, did I forget to do that?
Well now we know, the high school kids are ignorant because they've been listening to this misinformation they find on Slashdot. The above post demonstrates the problem. The poster, speaking in an authoritative tone, makes a statement which is completely false. "So, just like the first amendment can't be altered or abolished, the 2nd, 5th, 9th, or 10th can't either." That isn't true. Any part of the Constitution can be altered or repealed, or the whole document can be scrapped by a constitutional convention.
How many US citizens, let alone students, know about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? A document which seems to be acknowledged and recognised in almost every member country BUT the USA?
I've had a long time interest in civil rights and constitutional law but never heard of this document until I became an exile and moved from the US to New Zealand. If you read the document you can see it's actually BETTER for the citizens than the US Bill of Rights. No wonder they don't teach about it in schools!
Umm, no.
They ARE Amendments.
There is NO "preamble" to the Bill of Rights.
Your quote sounds like something from a history book, but it is NOT part of the Constitution, though the reasons it gives for the Bill of Rights is substantially correct.
A more useful link is this which contains an annotated copy of the Constitution.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I wonder if anyone's done a study on what US Kids understand "terrorism" to mean. It seems to be an extremely overused term these days.
I Europe we call the sort of act "collective punishment", though some extremists equate it with terrorism. In the US, they reward it with billions of dollars of military aid.
The right not to self-incriminate is actively pushed in the form of Miranda warnings. People have literally gotten away with murder because the arresting officer never read the Miranda warnings, and the Supreme Court has largely upheld such issues.
It's interesting to note that people in other (mostly English-speaking) countries have occasionally confused their own laws with the laws they see on TV. Not all countries require search warrants or defense counsel in all cases, and police sometimes have to deal with people asserting non-existent rights they learned from television.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
This really isn't all that surprising or even alarming to me. The Constitution isn't most holy writ, it's just a law. If you want people to know the law, you have to teach it to them. I firmly believe that basic con law and contracts should be taught in grade school, or at least in college (when people have attained majority and it starts to matter more). Yes the law is difficult and esoteric, but there's some amount of it we all need.
If someone refused to learn CPR because they weren't studying to be a doctor, we'd consider them to be lazy and a little hazardous to their peers. I think the law falls into the same camp. Certainly you're way more likely to sign a contract in a given day than you are to have a heart attack.
adam b.
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/index.html
I think there are some disappointing results about what students know, but the article was alarmist.
if you take the school's money, or use the school's equipment,
And who pays for that money and equipment do you think?
Interestingly enough, in my highschool, we had an underground newspaper, because the newspaper teacher kept vetoing all the stories that the sudents cared about... Politics, sex, etc. The newspaper teacher hated it, but administration refused to do anything about it...
Unfortunately, the underground paper went too far and published the home addresses/phone numbers for all the teachers. The principal had to shut it down.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
I also would like to add that foreign press seems to think they have 1st ammendment rights in the US....
I would like to add that some of us believe that the rights granted by the First Amendment are not only American rights, but basic human rights.
You are saying in much milder language the equivalent of "Oh, what this? They're not American? Fuck 'em."
And the same goes for other rights, such as those granted by the Sixth Amendment (right to a speedy and public trial; right to know the infraction; right to obtain witnesses; right to obtain councel). *cough*Guantanamo*cough* Oh, pardon me.
you don't teach someone something just by telling them about it, you have to give them a chance to practice it, or they won't really learn it.
...so whay should kids care about it. Seriously in the days of the patriot act and other govenment suspention of our rights?
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
It should be obvious! The NEOCONS ARE Clinton's fault!
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Children go to school to learn about the freedoms that adults enjoy, not to exercise them themselves.
This whole thing brings me back to a point I have tried to make over and over: School succeeds wonderfully at its purpose. Its purpose, however, is not to educate but to maintain a status quo under which individuals sit down, shut up and don't vote.
#define DRM chmod 000
Seriously. Everybody conveniently ignores these two ammendments, which IMHO are the most important ones.
But the press, staunch defenders of the 1st ignore them; the right, staunch defenders of the 2nd ignore them; the left, staunch defenders of the 4th ignore them.
I shiver at the state of the nation, but what is a man to do? Vote Libertarian? Hell yes!
Held and tortured for years without any freedoms whatsoever. Headscarf? Boo fucking hoo. Nazi websites? Try to find a book mocking the black people and Native Americans in your nearest Barnes and Noble.
- Most people wouldn't recognize the source;
- About 2/3rds would consider it subversive
This is when schools were supposedly better.Also, classical electronic media (broadcast radio and TV) have always been under more government control than print media because the electronic spectrum was considered a limited resource that had to be mangaged in the [cough, cough] "public interest." This is why Howard Stern is moving to satellite, and one can see considerable anatomy on cable whereas the exposure of a select bit of Janet Jackson creates an apparent national crisis.
But the print media have had far less censorship -- individuals could (and did) publish pretty much anything. As the cost of printing dropped in the 1960s with the introduction of inexpensive offset printing, the alternative press florished, and it sure wasn't because Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover thought this was a cool idea. Same thing was true a century earlier when being a journalist was a working-class job and not something confined to people with expensive hairdos -- even small towns would have papers expressing a wide variety of political opinions, rather than the "McNews" we put up with today.
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
"we shouldn't expect anyone to risk their relatively cushy teaching jobs"
As soon as I read this I knew you were insane. Perhaps many teachers are bad at their jobs, but teaching 30 hyped up 7 year olds is as far from cushy as it gets. Were you born stupid or did you work at it?
And how many of those kids will be voting when they grow up? I doubt many of those who answered wrong to the questions, they don't care now and they probably won't care later. And to all those who think that not everyone voting is bad or that we need everyone to vote on specific issues: look at this study and ask yourselves "do I want these people voting for laws that will apply to me?"
I believe it's elementary school, like 5th grade, they teach the three branches of government. I think the U.S. Constitution is covered in middle school. It probably depends upon the school and school district.
I'm for state rights (less federal government intervention), so I would hope that all 50 states would require something like the following for graduation. One semester of American Law and one semester of American Government.
Arresting someone without probable cause is wrong. Arresting someone on a hunch is wrong. Searching someone without probably cause is wrong. Searching someone's house without a warrent is wrong (unless in the heat of a moment or something like that, i.e. if someone ran in there).
And in my opinion, copyright and parent crimes, should be on the civil side of the law, not the criminal side, as it seems to be becoming.
Concerning censorship and the broadcast television channels, the ones anyone can get with a cheap t.v. and an antenna. The only compromise I could see would be something like requiring t.v. ratings, and if a network were to violate that, fine them. Since the broadcast channels are free to anyone. That is, broadcast channels is to someone standing on a street, and cable channels is to someone in the privacy of their own home. If someone is naked on the street, it's a violation of someone's right not to see.
Well, there's a reason 17 year olds aren't allowed to be president or serve on the supreme court. News Flash! People with no real world experience don't know how the real world works!
Besides, when was the last time flag burning was a popular form of protest? 1970?
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist" -I guess I should leave then
Except they can indeed label your independent paper as contraband, and forbid it on school grounds.
Not that I think that's at all acceptable, but that's what will happen.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I agree with the principal.
Mainly because paranoid conservative parents could sue the school.
Children do not have rights until they are adults and the supreme court has ruled over and over again in favor of the schools in any lawsuit over civil rights sadly.
http://saveie6.com/
This is unbelievable. Maybe I skimmed through all of the posts too quickly, but not a single person questioned the results of this study. Do any of you remember being in high school? Did any of you ever do anything silly or foolish just for the fun of it? Ever put down ridiculous answers to a survey just to skew the results in an absurd direction?
I don't know that I would take this survey to be the definitive measure of the average students views on anything. In general, polls are something to be viewed skeptically, though noone ever does. There are many ways to screw up a poll and many ways to interpret the results, so I don't tend to take them as seriously as everyone else seems to. You can make a survey say anything you want.
Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
how are you wrong? let me count the ways:
Sitting Walrus Blog
Perhaps these children are actually more in touch with reality than more educated people. Yes you can publish an article the government would not approve of but it will never happen in reality. It is in the interest of the Newspaper to censor themselves in order to maintain close ties with the military industrial complex which grant them access to needed stories. It is much less expensive for a paper to simply report on a government press conference they were invited to rather than alienate, say the Bush administration, and publish harsh criticism of government policy.
Criticism of public policy is allowable if it falls within the accepted realm of debate. Hence papers are allowed to question the method by which American Empire should be allowed to function, however questioning whether or not the military industrial complex is even something that is beneficial to Americans is not allowed to be questioned.
Honestly, we have congressmen who are put in office by the contributions of large corporate donors, which leaves them beholden to these companies. Does this ever make front page? No, instead we have front page news about who a senator is sleeping with.
Wake up people, what these kids are talking about is reality. No matter how much you stick your head in the sand the filtering of public discourse is real.
I conclude that 50% of the students are aware of their 1st amendment freedoms, and I say that's not so bad. Threaten a group of students with freedom impinging restrictions, and quite a few of them will be able to speak up.
Siggy Wiggy Figgy Tiggy a bana bo Biggy!
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.
The fact is that if the government were supporting a regular newspaper in such a tangental way there is NO way they could censor the content. The only reason they can in this case is that the SCOTUS seems to think that all bets are off when it comes to constitutional rights in schools. And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!
How many NRA members realize that "well-regulated" is part of the 2nd Amendment?
--
$tar -xvf
They do have First Amendment rights in the US. If they're here legally, there's nothing stopping them from publishing as they see fit. Sometimes publishing in the US is the best way to awaken the world to problems overseas. The government may not act on it directly, but get a few thousand or a few million people to know about something, and social and financial support just might follow real fast.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
"What place does a "discussion" of oral sex have in high school?"
Hygeine and disease prevention?
Or are facts and reason not welcome in your world?
Seriously you can slant a study just about any way you want just be how you put the questions. Here is an example.
"1. Do you think a newspaper has the right to publish anything with out limitations even a story about a military mission like a hostage rescue? Even if publishing that story would result in the deaths of the hostages?"
If you answer yes then they can put you down no then you are marked in the I think censorship is a good column.
To slant the Internet porn question it is even easier.
"2. Do you think the government has the right to limit access to child pornography?"
The value of the survey can only be determined if you know the questions. There is a science to writing surveys in such a way as to get the results you want.
As to school papers? Oh boy High School papers teach you so much about freedom of the press. Sorry Charley but they are be definition censored to the hilt and about useless. Try and get anything published in school paper about Evolution being taught or not taught in a high school. Maybe look into how much money and other "perks" your High School's football coach gets?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Very true. Any ammendment, or any part of the Constitution can be altered or repealed by a future ammendment. The 21st ammendment essentially nixed the 18th (prohibition). The 17th ammendment changed the manner of the election of senators, originally prescribed in Article I, Section 3.
Furthermore, I would argue that the ability to modify or overturn any law is important. Once you say "This law is permanant, it can't be changed" you've closed the door on democracy. Granted, I doubt very highly enough people would ever want to repeal or weaken the 1st ammendment, but the freedom to be able to do so is nonetheless important.
"What do you care what other people think?" -Richard Feynman
As always the case with new's summaries of findings, I was curious as to what the methodology and wording of the questions were . . .
Specific questions, and a break down of the answers are here
It's funny that so many are responding the way you are, when it is absolutely incorrect. You all are the same as the respondants to the survey, you don't understand the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You have half of it. However, consider a recent supreme court case (last year):
A woman is arrested on murder charges. After hours of police interrogation without Miranda warnings, she confesses. They then read her rights to her and then ask her to confess again. The Supreme Court rules that in such a case the confession was to be allowed in court despite the fact that the Miranda warnings were simply done essentailly after the fact and that it was then difficult to face the police pressure after that point.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Don't blame that drop in student newspapers and media sciences entirely on the goverment. Kids, by and large, frankly don't give a shit. When I went to HS (class of 01 here) the student newspaper was a vapid waste of paper, and media sciences did nothing but announce the previous day's sports events and student birthdays (WTF?)
Now if you were a school official and saw that this newspaper which took X hundred dollars and hours of student time to put together, was largely ignored by the student body wouldn't you get rid of it too?
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
binky: What are we going to do today?
brain: According to this slashdot article our hard work of mind numbing subliminal propaganda has paid off.
binky: So,are we going to take over the world now?
brain: Not today. We will wait. The next generation of preschoolers will wave all their rights. Muahaha
My last year living on campus...
It was winter (a cold one at that) and some jerks had pulled the fire alarm like 2 or 3 mights in a row (around 3 AM).
Well, they wouldn't let us go inside any of the other buildings and had campus cops there to make sure we didn't wander off. Meanwhile, there was ice and snow on the ground and only half of us were awake enough to remember that fact (and so a lot of us were under dressed).
So, you have a few hundred college students wearing slippers, pajama pants, and maybe half had jackets in around 15 degree (F) weather. Nowhere to go, nothing to do.
The stupid jerks wouldn't let us back in unless the guilty parties would step forward about pulling the alarms. We were out there for like 15 to 20 minutes listening to them say "You are all staying outside in the cold until someone steps forward."
They eventually gave up. I mean, what did they think? Was someone really going to fess up to it before? Now coming forward would started a riot because we were freezing and pissed.
As opposed to CNN "news", maybe the New York Times "news"? FOX is alot more balanced than the rest of the bleeding heart liberal networks. The only reason you think they are not is because they actually express opinions from both sides of the aisle. The rest of the networks just give you the liberal, tree hugging, politically correct, anti-war rhetoric drivel. First the DEMs said you can't go into Afghanistan, because no one has ever been successful, we did, we won and they had elections. Then the DEMS said, you can't go into Iraq. Two weeks later we were "bogged" down. Then we took Baghdad and most of the country. Then they said it was a "quagmire". Now the Iraqis are voting and dancing in the streets. Now the DEMs are saying let's not "overhype" the situation. It's as if the democrats care more about the habitat of the red tailed squirrel or the cruel treatment of chickens than they do about freedom of other people. If they elect Howard Dean as the DNC chairman, they can kiss the presidency goodbye for the next 50 years. -Nazz
I think you're correct about that - or at least that's how the schools see their role these days. They're really more of a venue for people to push whatever political agenda they personally have than for any real education to take place.
This is the problem with public education in the first place. The government will seek to interfere if given control and the ability to do so. IMHO, the only reason we avoided that kind of crap for a long time in this country was because public education was largely decentralized - funded, run, and controlled by local and state government. But notice that these days the federal government is seeking to interfere more and more all the time? As soon as a central government (or at least ours) takes over total control of education, then it's over for our country. They will produce generations of students who don't know how to question authority in its many forms or be creative, and everything (economy, civil society, etc) will eventually implode. This is why the $50 billion+ budget for the Department of Education really scares me. The reason that money has been appropriated has little to do with improving education and a lot to do with gaining federal leverage over school funding - and by extension, school curriculum.
Alternatively, you could view this as a business opportunity, since you're one of the "smart ones" who realizes what's happening. Just find some sort of useless shit to sell that all the idiots being turned out by public education will just snap up, and you could become rich! Personally, I'm leaning towards trying to figure out a way to exploit the overly religious (since so many people will just buy anything if they think it comes from a "Christian company", etc).
Hi there.
/. are in the same boat, and a greater percentage of my citizens are in worse shape.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know that much about the first amendment. Or any of 'em, for that matter. Sure, I can say "freedom of the press" for one, and "you can't touch my guns" for the other - but that hardly qualifies.
Moreover, the older I get (I'm about to hit 36) the more I realize the less that I know.
My point - I'm being honest. I'd spectulate that a significant percentage of people who read
What's to be done? The US doesn't have much structure for "continuing education." About the best that people do, is parot back what their preacher or some other illuminary said during the coffee hour. Our attitude is once you've graduated, you're done. Game won, time to score up some $$$! But, if anything, we need to stay refreshed now more than ever.
...but it just seems silly to say that without the 2nd you can't defend the 1st.
Yeah, but it does make a good bumper sticker.
Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
I would wager that these students know even less about the second ammendment.
The flag represents the freedom to burn it.
considering how many died fighting for the ideals it represents
That's not really a reason for anything. Lots of people have died in large numbers for really stupid things. The fact that so many people died fighting for it doesn't make it any more or less valid. It's irrelevant.
He still has a legitimate point. I think what needed to be defined was the bounds of rights. You have a right to security and to be safe, but your neighbor has a right to privacy, which under the curent weight (privacy > security) means you can't conduct a spot check to ensure he isn't hoarding explosives. However, if society viewed a right to security as greater than privacy, you may just have that right.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I, personally, view this as the principle problem in public edutainment. Schools are viewed by the general population as having the first priority of "meeting the needs of the students", or something along those lines. They're always talking about building "high self-esteem" or providing a ground for enlightenment. Though I don't think this is "bad", it's the wrong focus and the wrong approach.
First things first. Public schools first priority should be to teach children how to be "good citizens"-- and no, I don't mean in any fascist sense of "good citizen". Upon completion of twelfth grade, kids should know, at least, the laws they're expected to follow, and the ideals behind these laws. They should be taught about the system of self-government into which they'll be entering, and how to navigate it. The other subjects, such as math, reading, writing, and science, students should know well enough to take care of their own finances, read street signs, write a letter, and not do stupid things like cut into a car battery with a chain-saw.
I'm certainly not saying education should *stop* there, but the priority of public schools should be to make sure that everyone graduating is a functional citizen capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the citizenry. Meet that level of education first. Otherwise, we're doing children a disservice, by expecting them to be good citizens without providing them the means.
Nothing like resorting to hyperbole in the absence of a compelling argument.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
In the future, please do as michael does: post this tinfoil hat material in YRO or Politics so I don't have to consciously ignore it.
For more information, click here.
There is NO "preamble" to the Bill of Rights.
Actually, in a manner of speaking, there is. The OP's quote is taken from the original proposed amendments to the Constitution, said list being drawn up by Congress an approved on March 1, 1789. As a note, there was a preamble to said list, it did include the quote as cited by the OP, and there were twelve proposed amendments, of which one was never approved and one was approved in 1992. The First Amendment was originally "Article the Third".
-- Old Man Kensey
In no way would I like to diminish the relevance of the study, but aren't most high-school kids like this?
As a comparison: There have been several studies made on students' opinion of capital punishment here in Sweden, and a majority were in favor!
For most europeans, this is a horrifying result.
And there isn't much difference between 'there ought to be a law against' and 'there is a law against' in their age.
Is only later in life you understand that the law is something you won't always agree with, but you have to obey anyway.
I don't think people develop the capability to reflect properly about questions of justice and freedoms, beyond their basic emotions, until they get older.
No sig to see here. Move along.
Kids don't fully understand the 1st ammendment mainly because its something they have a warped perspective of. I remember studying the Constitution in school, and I never really understood the First Ammendment because I never felt that it applied to me. At my public high school there were very strict restrictions on dress and speech, such as getting detention or suspension for cussing, etc, as well as male students being dragged out of class to the bathroom and being forced to shave with a disposable razor if they had any visible facial hair. I can guarantee that this played a large part in the mislead interpretation I had of the First Amendment for all those years.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
I thought that the FCC had the right to censor what it considered to be indecent.
I thought that the Government had the right to profile and investigate people that it considers to be unamerican.
I have a great idea! Lets put Jefferson in a dynamo and harness the electrical power that can be produced by his revolving remains.
Cheers,
Adolfo
You want to know the real bottom line?
Parents are responsible for their child's education, not the government, not their church, not anyone else in the world, them. We've been screwing things up for years by letting the government run education, and at some point, it's going to have to stop.
Many will say that the government cannot restrict indecent material and for us that's correct. However, don't forget the limited view these kids have of the Internet (yes, Gore's internet). They're in a school connected to an internet that is HIGHLY filtered and restricted by their school district. Federal Law requires it. It's no wonder they think the government can and is doing that for everybody. They don't have enough real world experience yet to know any better (with a few exceptions as always).
Blue skies...
Ironic how little value is placed on democracy by the youth of a nation that seems intent on imposing it on the rest of the world.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You've got it all wrong. The principal was constitutionally off-base in restricting the speech, as it is the taxpayer who is funding the paper. He was acting as a representative of the government, and the government cannot selectively restrict speech in this way.
Anyone interested in learning more ought to google "NEA first amendment" or something to that effect. The National Endowment of the Arts is the traditional lightning rod for speech restriction by government, since there are so many artists funded by the program who try to be deliberately provocative, and so many hicks responsible for legislating funding for the program. Traditionally the supreme court has found restrictions imposed on the speech of funded artists to be unconstitutional for a few different reasons, although I haven't followed supreme court cases much in the last couple of years, and the federal courts (like the rest of the country) are getting dumber and more conservative...
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported.
Then you have the freedom to buy your own presses, publish on your own paper, and distribute you literature off of school grounds. Did your advertisers pay you enough to purchases your own presses? If they didn't, then you were really supported by the school.
OTOH, if they did, then you should have done as I suggested. You would find that the principal couldn't have stopped the activity in this instance.
--
$tar -xvf
what with people blatantly ignoring the freedom to own weapons, and the freedom from unreasonable search/seizure) ...
Seriously, what state are you from. And when was the last time you were in (among other places) Texas.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Meanwhile, insurance rates in this countly are through the roof for buisness getting sued into the ground becasue someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense
That's your public health insurance subsidy. "Have you been injured in an accident?! call <insert lawyer here>."
Not a very efficient system, but the lawyers like it.
Sigh.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Recognize that? It's the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That's not an excerpt. That's the whole thing, every word.
The First Amendment is not a declaration. It is a law, a law that prohibits the Congress of the United States from passing certain types of legislation. None of the amendments are declarations. They're laws that help to define the scope and jurisdiction of the power of the federal government.
The Constitution, in Article V, defines the process for amending the Constitution itself. Any part of the Constitution can be amended, as long as the process is followed. Entire chunks of the Constitution as they were ratified in 1789 are now null and void, having been amended in the years since. The first part of Article I section 3, for instance, no longer applies; it's been replaced by the 17th Amendment.
Because the first 10 amendments are part of the Constitution, they, too, can be amended, as described in Article V. If we --as a country --wanted to change the way the First Amendment is worded, we could do that. If we wanted to get rid of it altogether, we could do that too. Because we, the people, make the rules. We are not permanently bound to a document that was written more than two centuries ago. We can change it in any way we see fit.
So that whole "the first 10 articles of the Bill of Rights are NOT amendments" thing is completely wrong. And the "the first amendment can't be altered or abolished" thing is also completely wrong. Not a little bit wrong, not right in substance but wrong in detail. Like completely wrong.
Oh, you're wrong about citizenship, too. It's right there, in black and white, in the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. That PDF you linked to is all funny-business, and about as academically rigorous as those manifestos by dim bulbs who claim that they don't really have to pay income taxes because of some obscure technicality of the law that only they understand. It's armchair law from armchair philosophers and deserves no consideration whatsoever.
Parent needs, like all tax protestors, to realize that the law does not exist in a vacuum. Since the courts do not admit a distinction between "US Citizenship" and "State Citizenship," no such distinction exists, REGARDLESS of what you may pull out of (in increasing order of probability) US statue law, the Internet, or your ass, on the subject.
The most important sentence in that FAQ is:
"But the First Amendment only prohibits government officials from suppressing speech; it does not prevent school censorship at private schools."
Slashdotter's would do well to remember that, next time they want to cry, "censorship."
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
You all are the same as the respondants to the survey, you don't understand the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
I understand, but there is the concept of in loco parentis for minors, as well as behavior appropriate for school.
Say you work for a government agency, or are a volunteer for one. How much slack do you think you'd get distributing flyers for the Ku Klux Klan? Freedom of speech, man!
With rights come responsibilities, as well as consequences. No one should be fired or expelled for speaking their mind, but there are legitimate issues of disrupting the education of others/proselytization/disturbing the peace/etc.
I fall on the side of free speech, but I also recognize there may be unintended consequences of that speech.
Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.
Just to clarify, this sounds to me as though half of students actually disagree with the free press section of the first ammendment. The way this is worded it sounds like opinion - far more frightening than so many kids just being poorly educated!
When my mother graduated high school in 1969, flag burning was not considered un-American. When I was in high school, we had a discussion in my American Government class (post-911) about flag burning. I was the only person in the class who opposed a constitutional amendment against flag burning. People don't seem to recognize that burning the flag is a statement. I have never burned a flag (except in the Boy Scouts when we retired an old one), but it is still protected speech.
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
I am one of those annoying parents who seeks to get things "banned" from school ... First Amendment only when convenient.
You're doing the same thing though. Can't you see that?
Freedom of speech means the freedom of *anyone* to speak not just those that agree with you.
What is wrong for a day of silence for gay rerpression? It happens. Children should be tought that it is *wrong* to mistreat others because they do not agree with you. You probably wouldn't have any trouble with a day of silence for black repression. Anyone who did have a problem with that would (quite rightly IMO) be branded a racist. See the parallel?
What place does a "discussion" of oral sex have in high school?
That's the best place for it. Parents often don't talk about it because they're squeamish. The only other source of information your children have is their friends - and they *will* talk about it. A lot.
You're trying to deny others right to free speech so you can push your agenda. Using the first amendment as an excuse for doing that is quite frankly sick. You have a right to say what you say, but don't be surprised if everyone just sees the hypocracy and walks away.
You're telling me a horribly underfunded, out of data system for teaching students results in students not knowing one of the most basic rights they have? That just sounds crazy.
You know my solution: don't go to high school. I didn't, and homeschooled instead. Currently, I'm a college student with a 3.6-3.7 GPA (depends on how many xfer credits are counted) and in the honors program. I have a healthy respect for my rights, and for my freedoms. I cannot but help but reaffirm my hatred of public schools by this article.
#define DRM chmod 000
You can thank the Supreme Court for that. Schools were allowed newspaper censorship as a result of a 1985 case concerning a newspaper wanting to publish an article about teen pregnancy. The case is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. Some more info can be found here.
I'm going to have to agree on this one. Let's look at the study's own "facts", shall we?
The study said that "only" 83% of students thought unpopular views should be expressed.
It then compared this to 99% of principals and 97% of teachers with the same opinion.
Wake up and smell the Bawls! Comparing the interpretation of the 1st amendment of people who have not graduated from high school to the interpretation of teachers and administrators who have all gone to college (Including no doubt some history teachers with American history degrees) makes for a biased survey.
It is also the nature of high school students not to want to express unpopular opinions, at the risk of becoming unpopular. I'll bet the a good deal of the 17% of students against unpopular expression are the "popular" kids who are used to always getting their views expressed.
10 Bits= $.25
100 Bits= $.50
110 Bits= $.75
1000 Bits= 1 byte
About 13-14 years ago, when Bush was proposing an anti-flag burning ammendment, ran a Sunday cartoon with an American flag and a warning that under the ammendment, it would be illegal for people to throw out or destroy the cartoon.
Unfortunately I happen to be one of the parameters in this statistic, the problem is that the students are stupid. They don't feel the need to discover the truth, they just sit back and accept what they perceive to be the truth. Though the students aren't the only fault in this, where could they have learned this suppression of rights? The parents. I'm not saying all parents are stupid but this crap has to come from somewhere, most students aren't bright enough to gather their own information so they just take what mommy and daddy inject into their skulls to be carved in stone.
English classes where I went to school, essays were graded mostly on layout (how closely you matched the MLA stylesheet).
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Also, I agree with another comment about how teachers grade your opinion, not your work. This totally happened with my english teacher last year. But, on a more hopeful note, I do see some teachers who try to encourage radical ideas like "free thought", and who de-sanitize curriculum/textbooks (ironically, most of them teach the hybred history/civics courses we have at my school- go figure). But, sadly, most are more worried about their kids getting good enough test scores for them to keep their jobs.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The students are answering based on their experience. School newspapers, School internet access, School society is not the same as that outside of school.
witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."
This is a legal concept frequently used in the "real" world known as "The hand of one, is the hand of all." This concept is usually applied to a small group of people in the circumstance where it is obvious that one of them has perpetrated a crime, but no one steps forth to accept responsibility or point out the guilty party. For example, lock six people in a room for an hour. Open the door to find one of them murdered. Without any testimony or confession from the remaining five, they would all be charged with murder.
Its use with a classroom sized group of children is stretching the idea well beyond reasonable limits. With that in mind however, I have to say it is not a form of terrorism at all but more accurately authoritarianism.
But, then, lots of people also confuse the 1st amendment and think because of it one can say anything they would like about a private party.
The First Amendment provides only protection against your speech, thoughts, and print when the government is a party. Your right to speak up, against, or disparage a private third party whether it's Microsoft, McDonalds, or Coke is severely restricted. As it should be. I wouldn't want someone out there spreading untruths about me.
But the government is held to a higher standard. I could always say Bush is a criminal or whatever. Since Bush is a public figure (politician) and holds the Office of the President of the USG he is subject to the highest duty: he owes me the duty to print almost anything about him.
And just because something is deemed secret doesn't prevent its publication. See the Pentagon Papers case (NY Times v. United States)
But to call Microsoft or Bill Gates a criminal without proper evidence would be an invitation to a huge lawsuit.
That's a huge difference in Free Speech that many people easily forget in their haste to demonize others.
It's hard to appriciate your rights if you never have to use them.
When Vietnam was going on, the first amendment became quite important.
When Rockefeller was able to get a governer to send in a state militia to force miners back to work, and that militia opened fire on the miners with machine guns (new device) and then burned thier tent city down with families still in the tents. The right to bear arms made the difference as tons of people were flocking to defend the miners, so the preident stepped in and sent the national army to break up the event and essentially kick the state militia out of there.
Either use it or lose it.
I'm a gun toting redneck/geek that's a freedom loving eagle scout. I consider myself the kind of person that this country needs more of. Though there isn't enough people like me to stand up and say "WTF?" when something is odviously wrong. People are comfortable to hide behind a flag and the banner of patriotism while forgetting that this country isn't a government, but a civilization. The government is for the people, not the other way around.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
That in itself is arrogant but tolerable. But when schools and other institutions started forcing this political belief upon the general population, principally through the threat of denial of education and other opportunities, that it became "fascism through other means".
You may not like Fox News, but people at least have the choice to follow them or not. That hasn't always been the case with PC.
...93.2% breathed air.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
I'd say more than 50% of adults, including many in Congress and the judiciary, don't understand the First Amendment either.
That high school kids don't understand it is a given. There are so few people who can explain it.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Think!!!
C'mon ppl get real
Damn it everybody I know has an awesome sig.
I disagree. Since the principal is an agent of the government, why would a policeman as an agent of the government be any different?
They are rights granted to US citizens by the US goverrnment. There are around 5 billion human beings who were not born with these rights, and there are but a few hundred million in the US who have these rights, some of whom kid themselves over how easily those "rights" could be taken away.
The book The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics made the point more than 30 years ago that only a small percentage of Americans actually believe in democratic principles.
Unfortunately, all the Amazon reviews are of very poor quality, other than saying they liked the book.
I graduated from high school in 2001, and we had a 'Government' class that sounds like what you're describing as Civics. Of course, I went to a private high school, so maybe things are different there.
Yeah, and now we know what is wrong with our adults. They are more worried about spelling and hurt feelings than content or education. Take the easy way out and critique someones spelling, rather than try to come up with any logic. The standard pathetic attempt to make yourself feel like you are not part of the problem......worry about grammar.
Oh yeah, i also typed this in about 20s, and am not worried about SPEEEELLLING!
And we wonder what is wrong with our culture.
Anonymous coward is put on the name for a reason.
Spoken like a true desk-job inhabitant. Let's put you and all these teachers through manual labor and see how much you'll appreciate your cushy jobs when you return to them. It's winter, jackass. Look outside. I see people doing work. It's fucking awful for them. Compared to them, and the raft of people who are now condemned to manual labor without job security, A TEACHING JOB IS COMPLETELY CUSHY.
Now go suffer in the corner, covering your whack-job head and moaning at how difficult your desk job is. And get a fucking sense of perspective, yuppie bitch. You could be getting a forklift dropping a 1800LB crate on your leg. I don't see too many pieces of heavy and dangerous machinery in the average office.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Assult Weapon is a fancy term for "Scary Looking Hunting Rifle"
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
"When you have something stupid to say, keep it to your self."
when you post instructions to others, first follow them yourself.
Freedom of Speech is that you can say anything that you want. You must also realize that there are two other freedoms which go along with that freedom. The freedom to be ignored, and the freedom to be ostracised for your words.
Also note that nothing was said about congress not passing laws about what would happen IF you said something they didn't like. Apparently, you can say anything you want, there might be severe consiquences though.
You want an example, go stand infront of the White House and yell "Death to Bush" as loudly as you can... Sure, you're free to say it, but you're also free to go to jail for it as well.
--Forest C. Adcock--
I believe you have linked to the wrong study (while it is on the First Amendment and the media it doesn't ask the same questions as this study), the results and questions refered to in the article are here
LetterRip
That's what underground papers are for. I was involved with one in high school - had the backing of a certain English teacher, and even some funding from more open minded types.
I think the environment's going to be a little more hostile toward such things today. I remember one issue we published with a 'how-to' section - one page was a how-to on performing an at-home abortion, the facing page was on how to firebomb your local abortion clinic. We obviously weren't advocating that anyone do either, but people in those days seemed to have enough common sense to realize that and see that we were trying to make a point. Today, you're likely to get expelled and reported to the FBI for inciting terrorist acts.
No. Your links point to the results of a 1000-phone-call survey of all ages (see age distribution at bottom of results). The results are still interesting (and made me very sad,) but they are not the same as those the grandparent was asking about.
You realize that something like 89% of kids go to public schools in the US, not private, right?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Just to clarify, this sounds to me as though half of students actually disagree with the free press section of the first ammendment. The way this is worded it sounds like opinion - far more frightening than so many kids just being poorly educated!
I think we need to find out what parts of it that they think go to far.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Which part? Religion, Speech/Press, Assembly or Petitioning? I can skew that quote so many ways that it is quite meaning less.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
What the ACLU used to say about the 1st.
""Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."- as quoted by the ACLU
Something in the passage above is amiss, has been omitted, replaced with ( "...") in the ACLU's recitation of this important amendment. Have a look at the original wording of the first amendment below and see if you can see what the ACLU left out.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm
What it says now
"It is no accident that freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society."
This is even more depressing when you consider that more than ever before in our history we have the ability to "self-publish" - via the internet.
Post to a newsgroup/forum/discussion list. Start a blog. Build your own website.
All of these options are within reach of more people than a printing press has ever been. Yet our kids aren't taught enough to realize how important this is.
- Brian Roach
What about the question "Is there such a thing as seperation of church and state?", because this is a big one that always comes up. Because a ton of people I talk too of all ages thinks there is a seperation defined in the first amendment.
i on.billofrights.html#amendmenti)
In actuallity there is no seperation defined in the first amendment, or any other amendment, just the restriction of the government enacting laws that limit the worship of a citizen. (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
It's just certain people in the government, now, that like to censor the use of churches during politics, because they know their base doesn't attend or beleive in what people that go to chruch beleive. But I am guessing because this is being reported on CNN that the group that conducted this research blatently ignored the most disgusting representation of the first amendment that has been going on for the last 50 years. There are those out there that have even convicned judges to enact laws to take down religious based artifacts from court houses because they violate the first amendment.
I admit that it wasn't until I was out of college until I really started taking my constitutional rights seriously, so don't blame this on the students. It is the teachers fault, and the teachers of the teachers, that are really to blame for pandering to teachers unions, which tend to lean in the direction that doesn't usually support the first amendment in it's entirity.
If the school is funded by tax dollars, then the principal is indeed an agent of the government, and is thus subject to the first amendment. Private schools are another matter.
A principal does have a competing duty to maintain discipline. The guideline in Hazelwood is that censorship may occur only to prevent "material and substantial disruption".
Instead of sponsored speech, you may be thinking of commercial speech, which is its own legal world. High school newspapers are, AFAIK, supposed to encourage journalism, not public relations.
Have you read it? because actually, you're mixing the Articles with the Amendments. The commonly known "bill of rights" is the set of the first ten Amendments:t ion/constitut ion.table.html#amendments)
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu
Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]
Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]
Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]
Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]
Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]
Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]
Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]
Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]
Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]
Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]
The "declartory articles" are the Articles of the Constitution, and there are only 7. Article V sets up the Amendment process to the Constitution. Notice the dates for the first ten Amendments? They're not the date of the signing of the Constitution (1787), they were added 4 years later.
The "Original" Constitution consisted of:
Preamble ["We the people...."]
Article I [The Legislative Branch]
Article II [The Presidency]
Article III [The Judiciary]
Article IV [The States]
Article V [The Amendment Process]
Article VI [Legal Status of the Constitution]
Article VII [Ratification]
Signers
How can we expect high-school aged kids to think that they should be given a chance to practice their First Amendment rights when they are under the constant force feeding of information?
If you had the chance to see the new Hal Hartley film, The Girl from Monday, I am sure you were laughing with me when one of the main characters was found guilty of a crime and sentenced to "two years hard labor teaching high school."
My apologies to all the high school teachers out there that are trying to make a difference, but what was most funny about this line was how well it reflected the level of quality of my high school teachers.
I don't think your example is apt. Your complaint that "governments routinely apply laws to the entire population... due to the irresponsibility of the few" is called the Rule of Law. Laws are always applied to the entire population, if they can be called just at all. Laws are not about "bad guys" and "good guys."
Also, the parent is talking about a class being punished for the actions of one. Banning pot is not punitive: it is prohibitive. Very different.
> Those kids who put stickers on those books have
> the right to exercise their beliefs freely and
> they have the right to freedom of speech.
Of course they do. By the same token, a student who has a sticker saying "Yahweh is a fraud invented by the power-hugnry to control your mind" are also protected, but I wouldn't want to be the kid in many US public schools who put that on his book.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Vote Libertarian and ensure that the divide between rich and poor grows even larger as the uneducated remain uneducated and only the already priviledged have access to education and democracy!
What?
U.S. Law Makers Don't Understand the Second Ammendment.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
How many Americans(high school students and adults) could pass a citizenship test? Does anybody know sample questions from a citizenship test, I'm sure quite a few adults would get quite a few questions wrong. Foreigners are required to pass, even though American-born citizens would probably fail.
Make your computer faster: rm -rf
Radical islam: a coupla thousand.
U.S., in the name of freedom: a few hundred thousand.
we're winning!! w00T!!!!111one
p.s.: anon coward=lamerz.
Just last week, my younger brother in middle school told me about an incident where the school prohibited wearing clothing with American flags on it on May 5th for Cinco de Mayo, with the potential punishment being suspension.
I couldn't believe that the administration thought the American flag would be offensive. I plan on calling the school and complaining about this, and would like some advice on what to say.
I was planning on bringing up the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court Case. Can anyone else give me some advice?
These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,
So now K.I.T.T has a new purpose. Bring on David Hasselhoff.
During the 1990s, I lived in Massachusetts. I had plenty of occasions to visit Ohio then, and I returned to Ohio in 1997 to the present day. I know exactly what's going on. Weapon confiscation was only right around the corner. Since then, the people have been taking back their right to keep and bear, and now Ohio has a concealed carry law that frankly annoyed the people in the state capitol ... as if I gave a flying fuck. As for Mass., I'm sure they still have their big signs along the turnpike stating that bringing a gun into the state is a felony ... again, as if I gave a shit, but it only demonstrates how little Massholes cared about the US Constitution.
And don't hold up Texas as some sort of shining state. What are the statistics of police seizures in Texas? Nationally, seizure went through the fucking roof for the entire nation. Texas has police with budgets too, and I'm sure they just loved the income from seizing people's properties. For instance, in Texas, if you're caught with drugs in your car, what happens to your car when you're arrested? In Ohio, the same event results in the Gestapo simply taking your car and then auctioning it off, which is unreasonable seizure by any measure.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
I think it was later reversed due to the threat of a lawsuit though.
So the system is still as intact as it was? Just because someone in power does something illegal, that doesn't negate the law, they just hold themselves out to reprimand or reversal.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
That's what I've never understood. It's not an act of desecration to burn a flag. You're supposed to burn any flag that has ever touched the ground. End of story.
By the way, if you want a fun time, try pointing this out to people at your 4th of July* gathering. Those teenagers who are draping a flag on their shoulders and sitting down - those flags should be burnt.
*I do this 3 days before Americans.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
...but since teenagers apparently are capable of understanding what they do enough to be executed for it, they probably are responsible enough to vote for those that will do it to them.
And if they don't know enough but government believes they should have and holds them responsible for it anyway, perhaps it might have taken better care to teach them what they should have known in the first place.
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm living on the wrong side of an Ayn Rand novel.
Because the school newspaper acts as a representative of the school, and the school is run by the principal, he was not acting as a government censor but as the chief editor.
You point out that the taxpayers are funding the paper. This is true, but it doesn't change that the principal was well within his authority. Assuming this was a typical public school, he was hired by the school board which was in turn elected by the voters. It's the principal's job, regarding the paper, to make sure that the paper is consistent with the wishes of the taxpayers. He made the (probably correct) decision that a majority of the community's taxpayers would rather not have that article published.
When a school official acts to control what goes into a school paper, they are acting as a representative of the "shareholders", the taxpaying members of the community. They don't have to be fair and unbiased, they just have to not offend the people who pay the bills. It's no different than any major news network. The head of CBS can veto a story because it would offend a major sponsor, or because it would offend enough viewers that it could cause problems for the network. For better or worse, this is not censorship, it is self-regulation.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
The majority of professors in higher education might lean to the left; however, this survey was of high school students, and I think you might find that the majority of high school teachers lean more right than left, but I can't think of any survey to show one way or the other.
What?
Things US school kids are forced to learn, practically at gun point:
-The pledge of allegiance, recited fascist style
-That evolution is just a theory damnit!
-The name of every single (male) US president
Things US school kids probably should be taught at an early age:
-The Bill of Rights, from memory
-The policies of the 3 major political parties
-Where a few countries are
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Why should they care about the first amendment? The kids have been taught that the first amendment doesn't really apply if what you say might offend someone. None of the other amendments in the bill of rights seems to get much consideration either.
How many people support the second amendment here?
All we have to do is label someone a terrorist or pirate or pedophile (or whatever the boogeyman of the day is) to circumvent the 4th through 8th amendments.
The 'commerce clause' has beaten the 9th and 10th amendments to a pulp for years..
Lets start putting soldiers in our houses (3rd amendment) so we can finish wiping our backsides with this archaic document.
-- G
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Q: What about underground or independent student publications? Are they protected from censorship?
A: Absolutely. Although public schools can establish reasonable restrictions as to the time, place and manner of distribution of underground publications, they cannot absolutely forbid their distribution on school grounds. Like school-sponsored publications that are forums, a school must show substantial disruption before they can censor an independent publication.
For me, that decision came about three years too late. My senior year, in 1985, I published an underground newspaper at my small-town school. I used my dad's typewriter, made copies at a copy place in another town, and passed out only a handful of copies to my friends. That was Wednesday.
Friday morning, I was called into the principal's office. He had a copy on his desk, with my name written on the front (in the receptionist's handwriting, strangely enough). He tried to get me to divulge the identity of the other contributor. I refused that request, but his threat to expel me if I printed another issue. I think that was the time I spent three days in in-school suspension, too.
A friend of mine's dad, a lawyer, advised me that two months from graduation isn't the best time to rock the boat.
In the end:
* The journalism teacher, who had no involvement in my adventure, was fired/quit.
* The school rules were rewritten to explicity ban underground newspapers.
* The principal never figured out who wrote the article.
* The girl he blamed, a fellow senior, got a kick out of being thought the co-conspirator.
* The girl who actually wrote the article (which exhorted students to listen to their teachers), a sophomore, moved to a private school.
* The principal retired a couple of years later.
I'll have to scan and transcribe the paper someday... but my 18-year-old earnest ramblings about teens and sex look a lot different through these 38-year-old eyes.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?
Write the feature anyway. It's not like the principal has editorial control. As a last resort, publish it yourself and distribute it in school.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Charged, perhaps, but less likely convicted. Granted, that still imposes hardships, but that's more a matter of how the accused-but-not-guilty are treated, not a matter of mass punishment.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Where do you get that wacky idea? The first ten amendments make up what is called the Bill of Rights. The preamble is for the original 7 Articles (which you can read, along with the preamble, here); it has nothing to do with the Bill of Rigths. Unless the National Archives and Records Administration also can't be trusted. I mean, even though they actually have the original document, they might be getting their history of it wrong. Maybe. Anything's possible, I guess...
Seriously though, the Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1789. Twelve amendments to the Constitution were proposed on September 25, 1789 -- ten passed. Those first ten amendments are actually genuine, according-to-Hoyle amendments to the Constitution. They were proposed (instead of altering the original document) to ensure that the "vague" wording of the original articles couldn't be abused by a tyrannical federal government to trample on the rights of the citizenry. They are collectively called the "Bill of Rights" because of these guarantees.
The NARA article A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution has a lot of good information in it. You seem like someone who might be interested in reading it. What better way to "Get Learned" than to get information straight from the official source?
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
So here's what you do if you really want to get the word out - take the article, print it yourself, and hand it out to students just off of school grounds. The principal can't do anything about it, and it actually gives the article much more edge, since it was "Banned by the school! Read what the principal doesn't want you to read!"
"Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose." --Douglas Adams
I believe most U.S. adults have a hard time understanding the First amendment as well.
Just for example: the claim there is a separation between church and state, which is not to be found in the U.S. Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". It is not quite the same thing. I know the article is concerning the freedom of speech, but there is more to the first amendment than just freedom of speech/press. Just my two cents.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
The urban legend when I was a kid was that if the flag touched the ground you had to burn it.
You're wrong.
From your own article:, "The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime."
Bin Laden doesn't like Saddam because it directly opposes what he wants: a new Middle East governed by an Islamic fundamentalists theocracy. Saddam represented a direct contradiction to that - Saddam hated Islamic fundamentalistm because he was afraid it undermined his authority with the people. Look, if you were in total control of a country, would you WANT your subjects to believe that there is a HIGHER power, with moral laws above YOUR laws? Think about it.
Sorry for this off topic post, but anyone who thinks Saddam had ANY part in 9/11 or that Osama and Saddam were allies has been watching too much Fox News or is too gullible to filter out the neo-con propoganda.
when all of his supporters act incredibly elitist, saying things like you are, that Republicans are bible thumping rednecks
Lastly, grouping people like that makes you look less intelligent.
Indeed it does!
...this sits at -1, because it's the truth.
No one wants to have an honest debate about any of these topics.
How can we have any type of debate - much less an honest one - about foreign policy when these liberal pseudo-intellectual blog-readers think, quite literally, that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, or anyone remotely conservative/Republican, or, God forbid, *neoconservative*, are the worst kind of evil incarnate, whose only wish is to continue lining their pockets at the expense of US troops, and especially the "brownskins"? That there are no other considerations at all, that Panislamic radicalism isn't real (and if it is, it's exclusively the fault of the US and no one else), that "conservative" automatically equals "ultra right wing fundamentalist Bible thumper", and only liberal/progressive people know what's best, and everyone else, ESPECIALLY people who voted for Bush, are either complete and utterly moronic victims of neocon propaganda, OR the greedy fat cats who want more riches at the expense of the rest of the world?
Fuck, these people talk about *Bush* having a "black and white" view? Damn. I've said it before: these are the most closed-minded "open-minded" people on earth.
And it's precisely because of this fucking rampant nonsensical yammering on the internet that people don't know left from right or up from down and read everything that reinforces this idea they've internalized for whatever reason that anything having to do with corporations, business, or conservative policy is EVIL, and only liberal/progressive/quasi-socialist ideas are good; that military action is never proper (unless instantiated by a liberal), and ESPECIALLY any preemptive action; that there is only one side to the story: theirs, and they can throw to the wind the concept that 25 million people are FREE, and that this freedom is not "imposed", and indeed cannot be, because freedom is the default state; that it is acceptable for the United States to fight for its own interests and those of its allies, and that there are very real threats that have been growing in this region for the last two decades that Europe chooses to ignore (or, possibly let the US handle so they can simultaneously have their problems solved while also not looking like the bad guy, and having a responsible party like the US to blame for any problems, to boot); and I could go on.
If people have any question WHY we are in Iraq, they should read this recent post, as I believe it is my least long-winded writing on the topic.
These leftist bloggers that have so captivated this loony left want all the rights and privileges of "journalism" - indeed, many paint themselves as the only TRUE journalists, while all the "corporate" media is simply the collective mouthpiece of the Bush administration - but want none of the responsibility. To this argument, they may hide in the refuge of "Oh, but we never said we were journalists! It's just our opinion! We have no obligation to do or say anything!" but they know damned well they're influencing people with their incendiary, extremely one-sided rhetoric, that ignores the fortunes of millions of people, including our own.
We would never have the collective national will for a World War II-scale military campaign again. If today's technology existed then, there would have been hundreds of "Abu Ghraibs", and I shudder to think of what kind of despotic totalitarian world we live in had we not the will to fight for what is right, not only for ourselves, but for all people: and that is freedom. Liberals, especially slashdot readers, will no doubt laugh endlessly at this, thinking about their last lame list of failed US military actions, or travesties they believe were prosecuted by the US in the name of profits, or some other liberal vomit du jour. Or perhaps they'll choke on the hypocrisy of things like simultaneously blasting the Bush administration for sending troops to Iraq - then saying we don't have ENOUGH tr
73 percent of high school students think downloading music for free is a constitutionally protected exercise of their first ammendment rights...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
high school is not now nor has it ever been anything like "real life".
That's the problem though. High School SHOULD be like "real life", as it is preparing our kids to enter "real life". We have a system that doesn't prepare them and then wonder why they fail. What sort of sense does that make?
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
Funny; I could write pretty much anything I wanted in my high school English class as long as it was good. It wasn't until I got to college and lost two letter grades on a Religion 101 paper - one for using "he" as a pronoun referring to Jesus (?!?!?!) and another for saying "1862 A.D." instead of "1862 A.C.E." - that I learned what it meant to be censored in school.
Off-topic P.S.: It's un-PC to say "A.D." because it means "Year of our Lord", but perfectly fine to define a "common era" that begins with the birth of Christ and use that instead. That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard from a hypothetically intelligent person.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I think it better demonstrates the problem of government funded publications.
A modern day witchhunt.
I'm in law school. I just took Constitutional Law. I am staring at the full text of the Constitution.
1. There is no preamble to the Bill of Rights incorporated into the text of the Constitution. Congress may have written a preamble when the Bill of Rights was composed, but it's not included in the Constitutional text.
2. The first ten amendments are amendments, just like the last 17 amendments.
3. Any part of the Constitution can be amended. ANY part. There are no exceptions. The Supreme Court cannot declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional, because amendments are part of the Constitution. Even the part of the Constitution specifying how we amend the constitution can be amended. There is no "do not amend clause." Through amendments to the Constitution, Congress and the States could abolish the Executive. They could abolish the Judiciary. They could abolish Congress. Congress and the States could, in geek speak, "deltree Federal_Government." Whether it is a good idea to amend the Constitution is another idea altogether.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It is hardly fair to point the finger at kids not understanding the first admendment when the adults seem to not read or believe Article one.. No direct taxes without being apportioned to the States. It says it loud and clear, yet millions of americans pay trillions that they do not have to every single year. Dig deeper, and you will see that there is no law that makes wages federally taxable for the typical American. As a matter of fact, anyone who lives in the 50 states, and works for private or publically owned companies do not owe 1/4 to 1/3 of their pay to the federal government. Shocking I know. But true. It is a great deception. One I invite you to examine. This is now possible thanks to the internet and the mass dissemination that it provides. Hook yourself up with Title 26 of the USC and curl up by a fire, and tell me where my wages are made federally tabable.. They aren't.
Chew on that a while.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Remember the "prohibiting free exercise thereof" is more important than the unwritten "separation of church and state"
I agree that the government walks a fine line as it can't prohibit free worship. If a particular religion requires praying outside, and the only place you can do it is in a public park, then obviously there's going to be contention with the "officially sanctioned" use of public land for religious purposes. Some would argue that if a state-official happens to partake in the ritual on the public land, then they are infringing on non-member's rights. I do think, however, that this goes too far. Even the president of the United States is allowed to express bigoted opinions about the exclusive correctness of one subculture. The electing minority have hated presidents for less.
But understand the other end of the spectrum. Around the time that the US was founded, you were either for the state-church, or you were exiled / persecuted / killed. Many people who do not share the majority faith (myself included) are sensitized towards the possibility of this form of persecution coming back to haunt us. The moral-majority feels it is divine right to promote their ideals at the expense of non-believers. and often singleing out non-believers. Some even feel tremendous bigotry and are willing to take people's lives for their cause. America is full of examples where the "moral majority" persecuted individuals and groups. Secularism is a backlash from these European AND American roots.
Secularism is based on the belief that we can't trust the majority. History has shown time and again that we can't. So the United States has thus-far chosen to willfully restrict the proliferation of religious doctrine (the ultimate in justifying otherwise illegal/immoral activity). As a long enough period of time passes, and people forget their roots, they will make attempts to undo these artifical isolations. As an example, we placed "Under God" into the Pledge back in the 50's and 60's out of nationalism and anti Russianism (Communism has nothing to do with Atheism; marxism maybe). If you're Muslim, it's innappropriate to refer to God by any other name than Allah. If you're Athestic, having to say the pledge is to lie in public.
Forcing the pledge on someone is no different than forcing Jews to merely say "I accept Jesus Christ as the son of God". They may or may not care about such simple words, and may or may not be willing to die to avoid saying them. The pledge is something that allows you to state your nationalism. But part of this nation has been disagreement, so by singling out those that reject a religious ammendment to the pledge is to purposefully "exile" a minority subculture from expousing their nationalisitic pride.
The fight for secularism often has to do with government mandated institutions. If you are required by law to partake in an institution, and your local community is bigoted, then it is possible that you will be persecuted, not by the government, but indirectly through the hand of the government. Unfortunately, the most outspoken case of secularism aren't usually good examples of this, so Secularism gets a bad name.
I don't recall his name, but the man fighting to remove "Under God" from the pledge, and fighting to prevent their school for saying prayers, is a perfect example of bad publicity for the secular movement. He and his daughter aren't personally being violated in any way, except for his sense of repulsion. He's fighting for a vague principle of hypothetical oppression (the daughter doesn't even care). That unsubstantial situation is likely to do more harm, causing backlash from those that feel they are losing their sense of religion in this country. Such a situation is likely to over-compensate back towards a non-secular state. And thus, ironically, produce the sort of oppression that such secularists fight against.
In summary, Secularism and Non-Secularism are like ying-and-yang, never being rid of one another, but rather never staying in imbalance for long.
-Michael
-Michael
and in doing so, sent a clear message to all neighboring countries that should they grant protection to terrorist organizations we'll summarily remove them from power.
Or rather a message was sent that the United States will attack whom ever it wants, when ever it wants. So, you (the foreign power) had better not cross us (The United States), or we will find your links to terrorism and hit you with a preemptive strike.
Don't let anyone kid you, Iran is next on the chopping block. I'm not against invading Iran, so much as I'm against the inevitable lies the Bush administration will use to justify such an action. He would probably have a lot more support if he was just more straight forward about the motivations for his actions.
I agree with you that these are human rights, and as rights do not exist at the whim or pleasure of the state, but reside in ourselves
However, your weird idea that you are not a US citizen is quite beyond me. If you believe this, then I assume you forgo using highways, Pell grants, Social Security, Medicare, anything derived from federally funded science, etc. Otherwise, you are just taking other peoples money and then whining about it.
Sue for money. The girl who made a confederate dress for her prom, but was thrown out because of it made a pretty penny: at least $25,000! At least eventually we can bankrupt the school system into submission.
That link you posted did not show what you claim it does. All it showed is that if you take a bunch of rulings, laws and definitions out of context, you can use them to different conclusion than that of the Supreme Court (and it didn't even do a very good job of that). Which is a no brainer - any large body of law will inherently have inconsistancies and vagaries. Our founders recognized that.
That is the whole point of the judicial branch of the government - to interpret the law! Their interpretation is the authoritative one - not yours, and asserting and pretending that a laws should be interpreted the way you want them to be does not make it true. You can challenge the interpretation in court, you can get congress to write laws that override the current interpretation, but until then that judicial precidence is as much a part of the legal system in this country as the laws themselves, and is just as enforcable.
As for the ammendment you are again patently false , as many people have pointed out - any of the constitution can be modified by amending it, as defined in the constitution.
Although the matter is called into question even more in that (in the US) education, and funding of the public school system, is compulsory.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Actually, in real life, governments routinely apply laws to the entire population (banning firearms, banning marijuana) due to the irresponsibility of the few.
And, just like in real life, it only really hurts the innocent.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
We did write the feature anyway, the decision had come down when he got the press ready sample. We had the whole paper ready to go to print when this happened.
We did publish it ourselves and hand it out.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
that understand the difference between dependent and independent clauses.
This is what No Child Left Behind was implemented to remove! If you bothered to read the principles of the law, and actually understood the dire state of the education system before N.C.L.B. was put into place, then you'd have a completely different outlook. During the 90s, the educational system in this country took a huge hit, and the quality of civics, history, geography, and anything in social studies was pushed to the side, in the efforts of pushing a "kinder, gentler" educational system where noone failed, the teacher and the students could be open and friends, where the teacher didn't actually have to teach if the student couldn't fail.
It took 10 years of yelling about the decline of the US's education system, and this administration finally did something about it, and who balks? The teachers of course, since they're taken to task for putting out bad "products" for an awfully high cost. We've tried throwing money at it, and every year it gets worse. Well, its time to stop, time to remove the underperforming teachers, and bang some knowledge back into the student's heads.
Lets see... A government desparately trying to gain unprecidented and grossly unconstiutional powers. A founding document that prohibits its doing so. A populace that is highly educated as to its civic history and won't allow such a thing to... Oh, wait.
John Dewey, founder of the modern education system, often wrote that the purpose of education was not to teach children to think as independent rational beings, but to teach them their place in the social order. He viewed education as a tool of the rulers, to be used to ensure his vision of a utopian, egalitarian society. In other words, he was trying to create good little drones to work in the factories. These were his stated intentions.
Now we have a country where Dewey's system of education has been implemented to the last detail. The nature of the cirriculum is controled by the State. Now, the State seeks to expand its power. In order to do that, it must first subvert the constitutional limitations placed on its power. In order to do that, you need to ensure that the public is blissfully unaware of what rights it is losing, and why those rights were explicitly protected in the first place. If you control the only substantial source of education for the vast majority of the populace, you can do just that.
I am currently 22, having left high school five years ago. Even at the time, as a teenager in a civics class, I was appaled by the total lack of depth and context in the presentation of the material. We did at least study the constitution, in that we read the text and were quizzed on the Bill of Rights, but we were given no context, no attempt to justify the necessity of these rights. I got the distinct impression that those of my classmates who did not investigate political theory on their own would be woefully lacking in terms of civic knowledge.
That was, as I said, five years ago. I have a couple of friends slightly younger than myself, who just recently graduated, and they naturally have friends slightly younger than them who are still in high school, and I am sad to say I can confirm this report's claims. While my friends are rather better versed than most in political matters (try hanging out with me and not being...), their friends are horrible. The predominant attitude towards freedom is that the constitution is antiquated and useless, "everything changed after 9/11", and that we have to sacrifice our freedom for security. When asked the obvious questions such as "why?" and "how so?", the response is usually along the lines of "that's how it is, that's how it has to be."
While it is widely accepted as necessary and beneficial, compulsory "public" education is one of the most basic tools of the total state. It is too easily abused as a tool to warp the minds of innocent children, and force them into a state of complacency and acceptance of a destructive political orthodoxy. It must be abolished if we are to retain what is left of our freedom and restore what has been lost (if you're wondering what I would replace it with, see some of my previous comments. I don't want to type that book again). Children grow up thinking that the State that now exists is the legitimate governing body of the US, when in fact it has broken every stipulation of its founding charter, the constitution. They are brought up never knowing of the abuses, the atrocities, the corruption that has characterized their government for generations. If a generation is raised with no concept of freedom, with no inkling of what is being lost, then we are truly doomed. The parents of that generation will be the last to know freedom.
If that was reall the case you could have writen the ACLU and probably gone to court with the school district. YOU CHOSE not to protect your rights so they got infringed that is how it works. I bet the town you live in has all sorts of vagrancy and public disturbance laws that are in fact Unconstitutional, due to being vage. Most towns do. The thing is its on the books and they are carefull for the most part not to try and charge anyone with it who has the resources to fight it in court or if they do they make sure the fine is small enough that you'd rather pay it then deal with it otherwise. The point is this, if you don't insist your rights be upheld you don't have any. It has always worked that way in America and that probably is for the greater public good. You could have run your articles if you had really wanted you just did not want it enough.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Numerous times in the history of the United States, laws have been passed (eg the Sedition Act) which did, and were later declared to, violate the First Amendment.
Even if you go to jail, that doesn't mean that the laws you supposedly broke are constitutional. The government is not allowed to impose whatever restrictions it wants on the right to free speech whether it does or not.
It seems that even Slashdot doesn't understand the First Amendment either. The Bill of Rights was written as an organic document. Each amendment ties into and relates to every other, and to focus on just one amendment to the exclusivity of every other is like trying to make cookies by just using flour. Also, the meanings of each individual amendment and the Bill of Rights as a whole drastically changed with the 14th Amendment and Incorporation. Unfortunately, when so many are ignorant of any individual amendments, you can't expect most anyone to understand the Bill of Rights as whole, or pre and post-Reconstruction understanding of such.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Yes, while that is true, the grandparent is correct that our rights are not given to us by the constitution nor the wording within, but are part of whatever it is that makes us human and as such, cannot be taken away. The government may stop us from expressing our rights, as in censorship cases, but our rights are part of us, and cannot be taken away. The bill of rights simply lists some of the more important ones. It was only added to appease certain states that wanted those rights listed. The original thinking was that they need not be listed as they are already ours, and listing them would make people think that those rights are the only rights we possess (this is why the constitution is mutable, there are other rights that may not have been discovered yet, the right to privacy that has come up in recent years comes to mind). So yes, the constitution as we have it can be scrapped, but the ideas and rights contained within can't be.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
That number would probably be about as depressing as the percentage of citizens in general who have read it.
It's not like it's a long document. Even a really slow reader should be able to get through it in a couple of hours, stopping to look up the hard words.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Welcome to the Naturalization Self Test! If you weren't born here -- would they let you in?
A majority of Americans wrongfully believe that a majority of Americans believe that Iraq was behind 9/11.
Okay, so I just made this statistic up, but since hardly anyone bothers to back the oft-quoted "Americans believe Iraq caused 9/11" statistic with sources, I figure I'm in good company.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
Congress shall make no law blah blah blah, you didn't read that part? Try reading Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, which is pretty easy to find with google. It says that you cannot have religious freedom - freedom to HAVE religion - if the church and the state are one. The intent was clear and frankly it's pretty easy to decipher just by reading the amendment. Congress is not to make a law that respects or prohibits any religion. Since government works by law, there is your separation of church and state. This all basically came out of observation of England, in which place it was very bad to be a protestant some years and a catholic other years depending on which kind of regent was on the throne. It meant that there was no religious freedom. It was not an attempt to stop religious people from running the country, because it doesn't matter why people vote the way they do, only that they voice their opinion. It was only an attempt to ensure that people would be allowed to HAVE an opinion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
According to the article, some schools have discontinued newspapers because the cost is too high. How much does it cost to provide a one-sheet to 500 students? Perhaps $10 in photocopying or laser printing?
Who's sucking up all the money?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Sir, I point you to the relevant portion of the fourteenth amendment, specifically:
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This is at times highly relevant to the purposes of interstate commerce law. Also, very important to tax law if you have earned income in more than one state in the course of a year. This is also often a touchy point for college students when the subject of in-state and out-of-state tuition comes up. So, all in all, it is a very important issue, and not just to tax protesters.
bance.net
The whole school system is fucked up.
:)]
Everything is being taught in order to pass a test...in the end the whole class ends up learning absolutely nothing.
Teacher's dont tech kids to think more open mindedly, and the students who are free thinkers are usually put down.
example:
1.My friend wrote a brilliant paper on socialism - analyzing different positive effects on society, economy... Another kid in the class wrote a complete bullshit paper on democracy - just kissing ass on how America is so great and how democracy works for all. My friend ended up getting a lower grade, just because the teacher did not agree witht the paper. Because teachers are so biased, many students are reluctant to actually write what they think and usually just end up just kissing ass for a good grade.
2.In class my friend and I usually end up fighting against the rest of the class on topics of discussions, such as weather or not people of different cultural backgrounds (i.e Muslims) should be "watched by Big Brother". The scary thing is that most of my classmates think that its ok for the government to control the media and limit the rights of citizens (and especially those of specific cultural backgrounds). [I'm not 'Middle Eastern', in case you think that I'm defending muslims for personal reasons. I believe in freedom - especially to express yourself. Excuse the horryfic grammar, I'm also an immigrant
Side note: I'm really tired of the bullshit saying: "If you dont like America get out of the country". Many older people have said that to me, and I think that it is a very ignorant thing to say - it's a bullshit counter to the flaws I usually bring up. There are many flaws in the American system, just like any other system, and it is those who rebel - fight for our rights - that, I believe, will reform this country to a better place.
You're wrong, unfortunately. Under the Hazelwood Supreme Court decision pricipals of a school have the right to censor a school newspaper if they decide its contents will disrupt the school day.
"Now this is NOT an insignificant study."
It is just more proof American's no longer deserve the government framework they are given under the Constitution and the founding fathers worked so hard on, cherished so much and thought so hard about.
American's really need an extended period under a really repressive dictator so they stop taking it for granted. Fortunately or unfortunately it appears likely they may get something approaching just that under the extended reign of the New Republican Party. The 10 trillion dollar question, if they do end up in something tantamount to a dictatorship, will they even care. As long as they are making a living and have something on TV every night to watch, even if it is censored in to the ground, will American's be happier under a dictatorship and having their government think for them.
You just wish American's would relearn:
- the importance of voting
- the importance of understanding the real issues and separating them from the scare tactics and BS both parties are shoveling out in their campaigns these days,
- the ability to tell good, solid candidates from incompetents who are only good at vicious campaigning (not that I'm naming any names)
- the independence to reject the candidates from the two parties if they suck and elect an independent or third party candidate who doesn't suck
Americans probably should learn a lesson from the Iraq elections. They turned out in pretty good numbers in spite of the danger and in spite of the fact they were pretty much a complete sham(oops, OK maybe they weren't such a great lesson).
Example from slashdot of people who doesn't deserve to live under America's constitution:
- Lord Kano who will vote for any incompetent for President as long as he says he is pro life and pro gun. The candidate can apparently completely screw him on every other issue and in fact no other issues even enter in to the decision.
- Numerous posters in a recent thread that said it was A-OK to torture people, because they are all airline hijacking terrorists, though in fact in many cases they aren't.
- Posters who've said its A-OK to give the President the power to arrest anyone he wants, anywhere in the world. hold them as long as he wants without due process, without access to a lawyer or their family, without charges, because he needs these powers to fight the never ending war on terrorism. OK as long as your cool with being arrested and disappeared from the face of the earth too, and are cool with spending the rest of your life being interrogated if not outright tortured.
@de_machina
I had a similar experience on my high school paper. The principal quashed a story about gang activity. But he was very explicit about the fact he was interveining as the publisher of the paper and that he didn't have some sort of other authority.
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
Once you talk elected, you talk government. Once you talk government, you talk first amendment.
The first amendment and freedom from censorship exists to combat the exact situation you propose: the majority silencing the minority. If the minority offends the majority... well, thats why we have things like the NRA, the EFF, the ACLU, the CBLDF, and so on...
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
My suggestion was serious, but I think you're being purposely obtuse...maybe with the intent of irony? Of course a hypothetical "right to drive" wouldn't apply to people who create a public hazard by driving, any more than the right to bear arms applies now to citizens for whom gun ownership constitutes a public hazard. Likewise you also know that a gun in the wrong hands can kill 60 school children just as easily as a car in the wrong hands...and you also know that all guns are not "handguns"...so I assume all those reasons you cited were intentional strawmen.
The reason why "taxis and other public transportation" wouldn't work, of course, is that under a totalitarian regime public transportation is controlled BY the totalitarian regime. "In Soviet Russia, they don't bus you to the political demonstrations..." to paraphrase a slashdot meme. The notion that chatrooms are a credible threat to totalitarianism is an amusing conceit however, I will grant you that!
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
It was in The Times a couple of months ago, so I'm pretty sure it was legit. I don't know how far the suggestion got, or whether it's still going to happen. Can't find any trace of it on the BBC website though, sorry.
apterous.org
I'm not sure how it works in the US
School newspapers are not subject to editorial control.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Mod parent up, insightful, funny!
I constantly find this in all the forums I read. . . People (I don't want to generalize too much, but so-called libertarians seem to be, by far, the worst) who don't read the Constitution but rather allow some schmuck to do it for them then rail at others to read it. . .
I am a 16 year old in an AP history class in a southern highschool.
We are constantly bombarded with the teachers opinions, which she states as complete fact.
Some of instances I can think of off the top of my head include:
Constant bashing of Kerry (Before the elections), while supporting Bush (She outright told us the war in Iraq was good, without giving a reason why)
She told us government censorship of the media and propaganda are good tools and should be used during war times.
While studying American imperialism during the early 1900s, she explained why it wasn't really bad and the only instance where she said we "Were the bad guys" was the war in the phillipines.
She points out how good some candidates have been because they were religious fundamentalists.
She comes up with utterly ludicrous ideas, today she told us that if you smoke marijuana you are helping destroy America, because terrorists are the ones giving us the drugs to create a similar effect as was seen in the opium wars.
She constantly rants about things that completely contradict what the book says.
But the part that disturbs me the most is the way she states it as fact, and it almost angers me to see the other teenagers taking it in and nodding their heads as if she was reading it out of our text book...
And this is in the most advanced history class available to my grade, I would hate to see a lesser class.
How did you get humiliated? Did you get your mom to make you crappy cafeteria food? Did they hire somebody to come beat you up?
Man, you really missed out.
We did publish it ourselves and hand it out.
Looks like you learned the right lesson then.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The sad thing is, Iran had a democratic government until it started to nationalize its oil. After that western nations funded groups that toppled the democracy. :/
"Based on November's vote, 51% of Americans don't believe in the First Ammendment anymore anyway- and think the second is far more important."
I think you're wrong on so many counts. I don't know of a single person who voted for EITHER candidate in November who based their decision on the 1st Amendment. It simply wasn't an issue. I listened to NPR, CNN, FoxNews, AirAmerica -- it wasn't an issue. Stop flaming.
The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy. Religious freedom is the primary reason for our existence as an independent state. It's the only reason we can argue about politics at all. It's only reason Kerry showed as well as he did; he had the better part of the national media in his corner, and there's nothing the ruling party could do to silence them. Thank God.
The press is ultimately the voice of the people. Once it's been silenced or censored, there's no point in holding elections any more.
The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is merely a tool to protect the First.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
much like the "Christian" vs. everyone else war dear Mr. Bush is conducting as we speak? Give me a break. Theo was killed by an isolated nutcase. Terrible as that may be, every ethnic/cultural/religious group will have a couple of total idiots willing to do the unthinkable, often when ordered to do so by someone who is either just as much of a maniac but at least smart enough not to run around with weapons him/herself, or by someone who has a little agenda of his/her own...
Fear of or hatred towards a certain group of people is a wonderful way of distracting a populace from the real issues at hand. The Americans did it with the communists first and with the muslims later. Hitler had the jews. Stalin had...well, pretty much anyone with an IQ over 60. The Japanese massacred the Chinese. The Chinese massacred other Chinese. There's always someone "wrong" to blame for everything...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I wish I had mod points, because you would be going up. I'm sorry your post is now lost in the muck of the -1 mods, but all it takes is a couple idiots. There is a reason that I don't filter anything, and this is that reason. Thank you for your post, it cleared up the questions I had about that statistic.
-Doug
You hit the issue almost perfectly, but you should note the linked PDF isn't just similar to dim-bulb tax protest manifestos, it is in fact a dim-bulb tax protest manifesto. Chech out the main part of that site, which links to other fine documents such as "The Great IRS Hoax", "Income Tax Freedom", and, my favorite, "Social Security: Mark of the Beast."
Where is your HS located? Just checked and my HS still has Government as a graduation requirement. IL also has a state and federal constitution exam which is required for graduation. Of course I have no idea how thorough any of these are anymore.
Q.
Linux is not Windows
No, you're wrong.
a) Public schools are generally run by local governments, which are under state control. The First Amendment to the federal constitution does not apply to state governments.
b) Even if it did, the guarentee of freedom of speech does not mean that the government has to sponsor that speech.
c) Even if it did, minors do not have the full range of legal rights, just as they don't have the full range of legal responsibility.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
I did exactly that, I and a few friends published a paper when we were high-school age, and I ended up being suspended for two days because the administrators didn't approve of the content. Some reader brought one to class and read it there.. I had put my real name on it because I believed in my first amendment rights and figured I was safe.
I was wrong. The american educational system actively discourages personal expression, at least the part I was put through in So. California. I would not send my kids to be suppressed there.
That's interesting. I wasn't totally sure that the NEA situation would be 100% analogous to a school, and yes, that would be an important distinction.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
I'm amused that you missed the point of the bumper sticker. You seem to think that people in the "lower classes" (to quote the GPP's elitist rant) can't recognize that the Second Amendment is not the first amendment. Perhaps you're frustrated that a group of people believe the Second is more important than the First, when you believe differently? That would miss the point as well.
:) It's a bit of a stretch, but it's close enough for a joke on a bumper sticker.
The Second Amendment was America's first freedom *historically* - in the first second of America's existance as a country, quite a few Americans bearing arms were standing around the surrendering British.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The phrases you're looking for are "chilling effect" and "lawyer's fees".
Another problem, that is not restricted to young people, is failing to identify a false authority. (For example, asking the police a question about a point of law.)
So you are saying that the media has done its job in presenting an overly biased and slanted representation of the situation in Iraq?
-Doug
Or rather a message was sent that the United States will attack whom ever it wants, when ever it wants.
Or perhaps that perhaps you should open your country up to weapons inspectors and get out of their way as you agreed to when we let you keep your country earlier? Perhaps you should heed one of the last 200 warnings of "No, really, you need to let us in, like you agreed to do."
Just a thought, but that's what most everyone I talk to thinks we went into Iraq for.
Although there undeniably are fundamental muslims, I don't believe us 'liberals' need to 'stop worshipping the altar of diversity and tolerance' and go searching for an Islam vs. everyone else world war.
Fundamentalism (Muslim, Christian or something else) should be fought, but I'm sure this isn't a war you fight with guns.
War only breeds more fundamentalism.
Works for me.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Now go back to your corner and redefine "arms" to include fun things like assault weapons and exclude scary things like vials of anthrax and nuclear weapons.
IF the intention of the 2nd Ammendment isn't merely to have a means of providing food for one's family by killing game- IF it is to protect us, as a last resort, from a tyranical leader taking over the country, then it does follow that arms includes EVERYTHING the US government currently uses- including assault weapons like the M-16, anthrax, poison gas, and yes, nuclear weapons. If not- well- better be prepared for your definition to become reality- militia=terrorist cell.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I don't understand the reference to psychology and sociology. If you're saying that people are less informed if they study these types of courses (or that this area of study is pointless), you should keep in mind that this is essentially a sociological study.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
Children do not have rights until they are adults and the supreme court has ruled over and over again in favor of the schools in any lawsuit over civil rights sadly.
So the police could arrest your son and hold him for a year without charging him? Do you even realize how ridiculous your position is?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
It actually depends on what state you're in, even if your paper is advertising supported, it is still printed under the aegis of school approval.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it (the ability of a school principle to censor a school paper) varies from state to state.
Wrong! That's almost as bad as the students in this story. The first amendement does not apply to "government". It only restricts what the federal Congress can do, and has no effect on state or local government officials:
Was she arrested before the first confession, or brought in for questioning, confessed, arrested, then asked to confess again?
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Not in my old HS they aren't (IL public school). 2 semesters of US history, 2 semesters of world history, and 1 semester of government are all required for graduation.
Q.
Yes, Bush voted for McCain-Feingold (the worst hit the 1st Amendment has ever taken), but Kerry would have voted for it quicker.
More stupid perception overcoming reality I see. Hint- Bush not only never voted for McCain-Feingold, he very quickly decided that the spending limits in it applied to everybody other than him- and raised hundreds of millions for his campaign.
No one was betrayed by this. In fact, the people were empowered (they are able to make trade decisions that formerly were left just to government elites).
Nope, sorry. It's just a different set of government elites is all- instead of our elected representatives, all trade must now be vetted by the World Trade Organization- and individual citizens are still left out. MORE left out if anything- as part of our sovereign rights as a nation have now been turned over to the WTO who has the sole right to write, interpret, or nullify our trade agreements.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
it's very simple. you have the freedom of speech, so you should be able to publish everything.
but if you are too critical and say only 50 journalists are allowed at the press conference, you simply aren't going to be one of them. not that you're not allowed, but strangely *chough* your place has been given to a more cooperative journalist.
Privacy is terrorism.
Maybe the kids thought the question was whether or not newspapers could publish without _corporate_ approval of stories.
This is exactly the way it works.
It's the editor's job to ensure that articles published in his (or her) paper conform to that paper's standards. Why? Because the paper exists to make a profit.
The New York Times caters to the left end of the political spectrum, and realized long ago that such an editorial stance will yield higher sales.
The Wall Street Journal realized the same, but caters to the right.
The National Enquirer caters to those who don't give a rip.
Take an editorial from any of these, and try to get _corporate_ approval to publish in any of the others, and see what happens. They're incompatible. They target different consumers.
Note, however, that at no point has a federal, state, or local governmental body told any of them what their editorial position will be. In the US, the markets decide.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
kids have never known what freedom (of the press) really is.
Schools, in order to deal with lawsuits about how such-n-such kid was "exposed" to a lifestyle or something or other they "shouldn't" have been, have been an absolute hammer of conformity.
School uniforms, dress codes, censorship of t-shirts and buttons, regulations on number of ear piercings, restrictions on where you can and can't spend your lunch hour, restrictions on the books that can be in the library, restrictions on what books from home you can read, censorship of school newspapers and newsletters, random locker inspections, "zero-tolerance" for drugs leading to expulsions for possession of Advil or sudafed or even sharing a cough drop, and of course the prison-level security systems of metal detectors and barbed wire fences...
they've never known what a free society is. A high school history or government class can talk a good story about it, but the truth is they've never seen it, they'll never really know what it means.
In fact, even the examples of Watergate or Iran-Contra have been so perverted and distorted by the right-wing media that they're useless. The worst part is that the right-wingers are using the same so-called "Freedom" of the press and speech to condemn that very freedom.
(Plus, most kids don't get exposed to constitutional instruction 'til their 11th and 12th grade years anyways, so asking 10th graders what they think is pointless, because they haven't even been taught what it means).
As long as kids are never shown what freedom truly is, they'll never learn to respect it. It'll just become a buzzword for saying, "well, I can vote...whatever THAT means".
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Examples: "41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001."
"37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."
I'm sure that my comment is buried too deep in thread to be noticed, but I really dislike these statistics. It's much more fair to state that 37% of americans don't know who actually attacked the US on 9/11. While I'm sure many people actually believe that Iraq was behind the attacks, a question such as "Several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis" actually plants the idea in someone's head by the nature of the question. Most people, out of ignorance, will probably answer "yes".
Now, if you take that poll again with the question rephrased as "What country do you think that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers from", I think that the poll results would be much different.
I'm not defending americans here, but I think that statistics like that are misleading. I believe that the public is more ignorant than they are deliberately misinformed...
Then again, perhaps I'm being optimistic. =)
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Are you trying to say that the award in the lawsuit was partially outrageous?
Oh please, do shut up.
When I was in High School we started an underground newspaper.
The Principal, Vice Principal, and the Dean of Students called me into their office and told me that I couldn't distribute it on school grounds any more. I told them to read the Constitution. I told them to go read Tinker v Des Moines.
Who knows? They may have won that if it had went to court. But, they let other groups distribute their literature on school grounds, and they had not published any guidlines for what was and wasn't acceptable to be distributed on school grounds. I waited for them to try to punish me for it, but the punishment never came.
If you want to have any freedom of speech left, you have to be willing to challenge those people who would erode your ability to excercise your right to it.
Honestly, our underground newspaper was silly. It was angsty and comical and rebellious and annoying to anyone who was over age 17 or so. But, at least we cared about freedom of speech...
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
Right-wing Americans claim that Reagan did it.
Conservative Brits contend that Thatcher did it.
Liberal Americans name Jimmy Carter and his focus on human rights issues as the reason for the fall.
Catholics believe the Pope made it happen.
Islamists attribute the collapse to Osama Bin Laden and militant muslims and call Americans arrogant for not acknowledging this
Most Slashdotters see nobody else but Cowboy Neal behind all of this
But I ask you. Can it be a coincidence that the dissolution of the USSR took place in the very year Linus Torvalds posted version 0.0.1 of the Linux kernel on Usenet? I think not. Isn't it obvious? Soviet communism was supposed to be just an immediate form until a new and truly communist society would start to exist. With true communism in the form of Linux out(*), there was no need for the USSR anymore.
(*) MS' Ballmer: Linux is communism
Aaahhh. Yes. One of the most insightful pieces of ST I ever read...
You're most of the way there. Parents are responsible for the kids. More so when they're young, but kids are a pretty good running commentary of their parents (some genetic influences aside.) If the kids aren't inquisitive, you can be the parents are dullards.
The problem with the government running education, as you alledge, is that WE are the government. Those ill-informed kids have ill-informed parents. And they vote. They are enabling other's political ambitions, which is ruining the educational system. That's why we keep getting stuff like "Intelligent Design" popping up. The parents are morons, and they want to legislate further tripe. There's a school shooting, and all of a sudden the kids need to "work in the community" to learn how to be good.
Utter nonsense.
Kids need to be taught how to reason, how to mine facts from sources, and some basic knowledge in which to navigate the world (Math, civics, Science, and English will do it.)
In a few generations, we'll have informed voters again.
The chief irony, of course, was that by trying to punish me for doing nothing wrong, the school reinforced the exact points made in the essay.
That's an odd thing to say. What does having a right mean if nobody recognises it?
If you are not granted your rights, you can shout as loudy as you want that you have them. It won't make one bit of difference.
'Should' is not a very convincing word.
The jihad in Afghanistan. Both left and right want to give Reagan credit for this -- and indeed his admin sent tons of money and weapons to help the future Taliban fight the Soviet empire -- but that money would have been useless without people to do the fighting, and especially the call to global jihad that drew fighters from all over the middle east into Afghanistan. The Soviets were mired in that war for 10 years and lost a ton of resources there, plus it had a huge effect on the Russian population (many Muslims, and many people of other ethnicities, who longed for independence). The right wants to credit Reagan for everything because he is their hero; the left wants to blame Reagan for "creating" al Qaeda by funding the mujahedin, but both explanations are flat out wrong, not to mention completely insulting to the people who actually risked their lives in that bloody war.
I totally agree with you, and I have had heated arguments with my friends who are high school teachers about how to go about this, and whether what they are doing does not fulfill these goals.
Granted, they are by and large social science teachers (mainly history), and so see the knowledge they try to impart as direcly related to your stated goals.
However, the big barrier to all this, as you allude to, is the attitude that the student must come first as an individual, and that students should not be screened, categorized, "tracked" or anything else, even with the goal of improving that child's education. Much of that springs from "Uhmerkin" ideals of individuality and privacy that are often twisted to the right under the guise of "patriotism".
Where I give my strongest assent is you point that putting the basics of "good citizenship" FIRST doesn't preclude all the other subjects. I would go so far as to assert the converse: putting citizenship LAST makes all the other subjects irrelevant.
I don't usually feed the trolls, but I have to bite on this one.
/. . I've worked both manual labor and as "desk-job". Both can be hard, but in totally different ways. I worked in a factory up until I was 22 to pay for college. My dad is an electrician and I've spent countless saturdays in my teens helping him on the side-jobs he used to take. Both jobs would send me home compleatly physically exhausted.
"Spoken like a true desk-job inhabitant."
This is probably one of the dumbest comments I have ever read on
Today I work a desk job. I go home compleatly mentally exhausted. I pretty much always have a head-ache from staring at a computer screen all day. I go home and veg out in front of the TV.
In fact I sometimes really envy my dad because he gets to be out in the fresh air, sunshine, and is being physically active. OTOH he sometimes really envies me because I'm in where it's warm, dry, and I sit on my ass all day.
The point being is, work, if your actually working and not just sitting around, is hard. If it wasn't it would be called happy fun time or something. But it's not. It's called work for a reason.
Actually, the meaning of the word "militia" is at the whole heart of the debate.
Actually, the meaning of the word "militia" is largely irrelevant:
Prefactory clause: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
Operating law: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The preface may clarify but not restrict the operating law. The "militia" part is a comment, not code. Anyway, the first four amendments all grant rights to individuals as individuals, and "the people" means "each person" throughout the constitution, so both the language and the context make it clear that this is a right of an individual regardless of membership in any group such as a militia.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why is this a troll?
Because it doesn't follow the status quo. Duh.
A modern day witchhunt.
I think the issue here is that the school is acting 'en loco parentis', or 'in lieu of parents'. It basically means that the school has the same rights over a minor that the minor's parents have. Just like a minor's parents can stop him or her from printing a story, so to can the school. No first ammendment involved. Also, I don't believe that the Constitution grants rights to minors. Sorry, you don't have the right to free speech until you are 18.
I was not aware of that study, but it meshes with results I also would imagine - that college students think differently than high-school students.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Legally the principal did not have the right to veto any section of your student Newspaper.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
That's partially true, but the difference is that the government, and by extension, the school, is allowed to control what its own publications say. That's why we have a free market press. If we could trust government news to report everything 100% free from bias, we wouldn't need CNN, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, C-Span, NPR... you get the idea.
I completely agree that the government cannot and should not control the output of any of these news outlets. However, when the government IS the news outlet, we cannot and should not expect them to report news that is contrary to their own interests.
Similarly, I don't expect Fox News to deliver a story detailing evidence of bias in Fox News reporting. I also don't expect CBS to run a story about how great smoking pot can be just because some of their reporters really think it's an interesting and relevant piece.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
Actually the "don't have to pay income taxes" thing is something completely different. I don't understand it completely, but it has to do with the way we get payed. It's something dumb like "wages" aren't actually taxable but "income" is. I know there are 2 terms and what you make at your job technically isn't "income". Anyways, I'll continue to pay my "income" taxes because I know that it's a nessasary evil to keep this country functioning. Of course, I may not WANT it functioning in it's current condition.....
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
On Children's education, those with reponsibilities include: Parents Teachers Children Government Voters Tax payers Citizens If voters elect politicians move the funding for education info tax cuts, then voters are responsible for issues in education. A blanket statement like "Screwing things up" is too absolute and therefore wrong. For example I think my child is at this stage getting a good education from dedicated individuals. Brendan
Well, just remember: you might not see much sympathy when China uses that line on you 30 years from now.
It's punitive if you're suffering from severe pain or inability to eat due to loss of appetite from cancer treatments, and you cant get cannabanoid treatment because the government doesn't want addicts getting their hands on it.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Perhaps you are one of the people the article talks about :)
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
I don't understand.
It only restricts what the federal Congress can do, and has no effect on state or local government officials:
Wow, I guess when Bush talks about no child left behind, he meant they were all left in Texas.
Oh wait Congress sends federal funds to local schools.
I don't know where exactly you got your ideas from since it has very little to do with any interpretation of the first amendment in any recent history by the SCOTUS. In your view, the police department could walk in to the local newspaper without a court order and demand that they not print any stories about the chief of police's bribery case, since the police department isn't the US congress.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
John Taylor Gatto (the link in the parent post) is one of the only reasonable voices on public education systems that I've heard in a long long time. For the record, my S.O. is an elementary school teacher, and I work in post-secondary education.
The Canadian (and American) system is Hegelian (think leviathan), Taylorized (think Henry Ford), and hegemonic (think corporation and nation-state partnering). I'm saving up money to be able to homeschool the kids... and no, not to protect any ideological or religious belief, unless "curious skepticism" and "attention stamina" and "critical thinking" can be called ideologies.
I worry about the kids growing up surrounded by intelligent, energetic, overnourished sheeple, in a society that is trying to redefine freedom away from ethics and into centralized and delusional moral codes.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Because of the coverage from most media outlets on the justification for the war in Iraq; most notably, Fox News. It was statements like this that helped confuse the nation:
"Sept 11 was the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world. We are going to war because Iraq helps terrorists and we don't want them to repeat 9-11. Are you behind us?"
While never stating outright that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks, the implication is pretty obvious, and I'm not the least bit surprised that so many Americans believe Saddam was the mastermind behind 9-11. I remember scratching my head and going "Huh?" often whenever Donny Rummy would make the most elegant jumps over the chasm between the truth and what the administration said was the truth.
Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
"A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press"."
First off, you mean "Voice of America." Secondly, that's a special case since they are also restricted from broadcasting to audiences within the US. A "more better" analogy would be PBS, over which the government has control only over (their share of) the funding, not the content.
The majority of comments appear to be from adults. Figured I should provide the perspective of a high school senior. The school I attend is an abberation within the public school system, having a little under 200 students and being focused primarily on technology (our website even has a link to slashdot).
My peers and I have been taught very little about government. We have taken one government class in high school, and it was a joke. It wasn't the teacher's fault - she was trying to meet at least three sets of requirements and we had one semester. We got a brief glimpse of a few topics, and some busywork so her gradebook would have the right number of points in it. Basically, it was a wasted class. Our student government is even worse. We make no decisions beyond our prom theme. What we need is not more classes on government and history. We need fewer restrictions on the teachers, even if that means we aren't all receiving an equal education. An equally poor education is not something to be pursued.
As things stand, I learn nothing in the majority of my classes. This has been the case through middle school. There are exceptions, but most of my knowledge has been gained from independent research, usually to the detriment of my grades.
I'll wrap this up. We need massive educational system reform. Teacher salaries should be considerably higher. There should be a better review process for the continued employment of teachers, and this process should be controlled by employed adults from a variety of areas. It shouldn't be controlled by students, as we would most definitely abuse that power, and it shouldn't be controlled by school administration, as they have already demonstrated incompetence in the process. Class sizes need to be reduced (my school has pulled that one off), and open exchange of ideas should be encouraged, not just permitted when it doesn't "disrupt the learning environment".
I happen to totally agree, and have a sick friend in CA using pot to ease his pain. But while the law may be wrong, that is not what punitive means. It is not intended to punish.
A couple decades ago a high school class did a similar survey.
Using tactics similar to push-polling, by phrasing questions in terms of "getting rid of technicalities that coddle criminals", these civics students were able to persuade a frightening majority of Americans to be in favor of abolishing the Bill of Rights.
Current rhetoric, clothed in patriotism and fear of terrorism, is, in fact, persuading Americans that civil liberties are worth sacrificing.
Not that the U.S. has any monopoly on nationalism - the other 2 major world powers, Russia and China, have politicians using nationalism as a distraction from their own inept or corrupt policies.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The beginning of the end came during the Khruschev era.
Khruschev, unlike Stalin and Lenin, was a patriot for the system and cared about the survival of the USSR and the Soviet system of government beyond his own time of service. He hoped to decrease military spending and increase spending on domestic issues such as agriculture, education, housing, etc.
As long as the leadership (central committe, politburo) was convinced that the USSR maintained military superiority over the US, Khruschev was allowed to be a little more liberal with his spending. During the 1960 US presidential election in particular, there was a lot of talk about the "missile gap" and how the US had languished under Eisenhower/Nixon and needed its military might strengthened. Then, of course, Kennedy was elected and reassured everybody that there was no gap and that the US was indeed strong enough to take on the Ruskies. Add the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis in the mix and the Soviet leadership's grip on the economy closed again.
Khruschev was all but over after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and so was the Soviet economy. As the parent stated Brezhnev's uninspired leadership never challenged the military spending habits. The irony is that by not spending enough domestically, the USSR assured that their economy would dwindle and falter. Gorbachev understood the issues and was working toward solving them as much as he could with increased trade, glasnost, etc. but that put him at odds with the leadership and the military who were more worried about spending to match Reagan's SDI boondoggle. When the coup was attempted it sparked the endgame. The system had reached the tipping point and collapsed in on itself. Gorbachev had liberalized the country enough that it wouldn't stand for the military's coup.
Certainly, Reagan's spending sped up the endgame; but the fall of the USSR really began in earnest when the Soviet leadership ousted Khruschev. While certainly no altruist, Khruschev did indeed believe in his country and wanted it to thrive. Anyone who doubts this should read his speech to the Communist Party Congress in which he denounces Stalin and his policies. It was a move that was daring and shocking in its bravery.
Having said all of that, I'm glad we don't still have a Soviet Union to deal with. I like not worrying about nuclear war every morning, though I wish they'd keep tighter control of their stockpiles.
This terrorism thing doesn't even come close to the anxiety I felt about the Soviets. THAT was a scary time.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
"Troll" is a bit harsh, though he's verging into that territory. It is "An outrageous message posted to a newsgroup or mailing list or message board to bait people to answer." I'd call it "outrageous" not because it's entirely untrue, but it is deliberately inflammatory, stated without support, and as far as I can tell rather overstating the case.
I say "overstated" because it's at least partially true. History classes are designed to cast positive light on the US government, and to cover up or lie about the negative. But that indoctrination isn't some massive federal program; rather, it's 50 state indoctrination programs.
More to the point, it's overstated because while the history program is heavily rigged, it's not the entire curriculum. Every teacher I know is there to teach students, and they're not teaching dialectics in chemistry class.
In short, school is NOT some big program designed to create automatons, and you're pushing the bounds of common sense to say so in a single sentence without clarifying what you mean.
So it gets marked "troll" not just because it's controversial, but because of the way it's said. It goes to far and offers zero support. If asked to metamoderate it I'd probably mark it "unfair" because it's on-topic and the poster isn't in general a troller; he's just badly stating an opinion.
You'll note that now he's been modded way up.
consequences
Now *there's* a word that I don't think any of the students in question, their teachers, and 90% of slashdot understands.
Many people think freedom of speach means freedom to say and do what you want without repercussions for their actions.
It's like when the Dixie Chicks were suddenly facing boycotts for renouncing the president in Germany. They complained how it was their *right* to do so and that their rights were being limited. They were just unhappy at their fans who were using *their* rights to free speach as well.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
No. The First Article was not ratified. The second became the 27th Amendment in 1992. The thrid-twelfth became the the first Ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
So I'm reading this First Amendment/Free Speech article and sitting overlooking Sproul Plaza as I do so. I'm a Berkeley student, so I know I have some bias.
I am not at all surprised that high school kids are ignorant. True, this is a generalization -- there are many who aren't, example: I grew up in a very conservative rural town, and even there, there were kids, regardless of their political affiliation (by and large, Republican), who actually knew what 1st amendment protections they had.
The ones that ARE ignorant are not the ones who end up here, behind a booth on Sproul Plaza (for those unfamiliar with Berkeley: You will never see a more wretched hive of free speech and activism). In general, they won't amount to much in the political machinations of the world (oh, they may become CEOs, who knows? but they'll either have to learn something in that timeframe or they're not going to make an impact)
The real trouble is the same old story about high school -- creativity and individualism is discouraged, especially speaking out. Period.
I think my point is to say "What else is new?" and "How does this affect the big picture?". High school sucks, man. Get over it.
There's a diffrence between understanding something and agreeing with it. These kids may know perfictly well what the first amendment means, but that dosn't mean they have to go along with it if they think it's wrong.
These kids arn't stupid, they're just facist.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I went to a public school in New Jersey, and up until today I thought civics classes were relics from the 60's.
2nd ammendment = Right to armed militia.
In the context of the constitution, this language means armed citizens with the purpose of protection from tyranical govt, be it a states militia defending states rights from federalism (remember the colonies?) etc. This is inferred since the Bill of Rights primarily is to limit the powers of the Federal government.
Not arms for protection from each other, not arms for gathering food. Those things of course were allowed as there were no laws against them, but they were not garaunteed by the 2nd ammendment. It's just not in there. Your personal right to bear arms is a side effect of this intent.
Protection from the federal government's continual errosion of rights and liberties is THE reason for the 2nd ammendment. It is THE reason you have the right to own a gun.
Now, any "armed militia" that protests federalism is by current definitions "a terrorist group". The Bush "Global War on Terror" is therefore a war on "armed militia" and by extension a war on the the intended protections of the 2nd ammendment. We must therefore repeal the 2nd ammendment in the name of Homeland security, to outlaw the "domestic terrorist militia".
If you want to own some guns for sport and personal protection that would have to be a non-constitutional issue, something subject to federal and state regulation.
Rhetoric asside, who has successfully used the 2nd ammendment to protect the 1st?
Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
No.
Now it's just called US Govt. and you take it with Economics your senior year.
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
Wash the flag.
Not my quote.
Also, as stated, respectfully burning the flag is the only proper way to dispose of the flag.
Saddam was however, campaigning to unify rogue terrorist organizations against the USA.
Ohh, there was almost certainly the usual Arab-Isreali nonsense going on, but where did you get the idea that Saddam was trying to do anything against the US? If you had actually been following the story, not only did Saddam destroy his WMD's in the hopes of getting the sanctions lifted (yeah yeah, stupid petty politics made him resist the inspectors and look like he was hiding stuff), but the final US intelligence conclsion was that Saddam actually had hopes of eventually restoring good relations with the US! Remember, the US had formerly been Saddam's benefactor. And why had the US been Saddam's benefactor? Because of the dangerous fundamentalist Iran next door. And that dangerous fundamentalist Iran was still next door, still a threat to Iraq, and still at the top of the US's list of undesired governments. Iran still provided a very same motivation for Iraq and the US to play buddy-buddy. And Saddam really did hope to get the sanctions lifted and get back his cozy position as one of the US's allies-of-convenience.
Saddam was a bastard, but the US has a long track record of being quite generous to politically convient bastards.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Please, I'm curious...why should cannibalism be legalized?
The US has also refused UN weapons inspections.
as you agreed to when we let you keep your country earlier?
Taking and holding Baghdad was judged impossible in 1991, and it's probably impossible now. The difference is that Bush Sr. had the sense to listen to his military advisers.
Perhaps you should heed one of the last 200 warnings of "No, really, you need to let us in, like you agreed to do."
Warning someone 200 times that you're going to kill them doesn't make it legal to do so. The same principle applies to nations.
That's a fine sentiment, but there is one thing it ignores: kids spend just as much time (if not more) at school as they do with their parents. This time distribution must mean that schools have to be parttialy responsible for the education (in the moral sense, as well as the purely scientific/artistic/gymnastic senses) of their charges. Which is where PTA's come in: a way for parents to influence the way the surrogate parents (ie the school) raises their kids in the parents absence.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
The mean IQ is defined as 100.
I agree wholeheartedly. When I read Little Black Bag in the late 1980s and if I thought it insightful then, today I'd have to say it was absolutely prescient. Another story that has stayed with me for over 20 years now is C.M. Kornbluth and Fred Pohl's The Space Merchants about a society where corporate influence over government has become so great that products are allowed to contain unadvertised addictive compounds. These days I keep thinking back to Heinlein's If This Goes On. George Bush is just one step removed from Nehemiah Scudder.
As opposed to the cute and cuddly bolt-action rifles?
I can see it now: the Rainbow Monkey 30.06...
In fifth grade I circulated a petition to keep my teacher from punishing the whole class at once. It worked, and I got to get and spend recess with my friends. It was important for me because I was in a large school, and the brainier kids were spread out among classes, so I only got to see my friends during recess when everyone went out on the playground.
As far as "who started it" I never got around that--I got bullied plenty more than my share and generally got in just as much trouble, if not more than the bully. Oh well!
I'll counter your anecdotal evidence with another anecdote. Here in Alexandria, LA civics/free enterprise (two half credit courses) are still required to graduate high school.
This is a perfect segue to my original point. Lack of standardization in education is a real problem. I find it absurd that a student in a Southern California public school has to follow a different set of rules as a student in the deep south. The federal government should manage all of the nation's public schooling and quit letting local idiots on the school boards impose their own personal morals and values on the children in their community.
My junior year in high school I was suspended for wearing a dress to school (I'm a heterosexual male, fyi). It was homecoming week's "tacky day" and I thought it would be funny to wear a nice old-fashioned floral print dress over my clothes. The principal flat out told me, "It may be unconstitutional, but I'm the boss in this school and what I say goes."
Um hm. Yeah. Kids these days, they all suck, they are dumb, they have no clue, blah blah blah blah.
The world has been going to hell in a handbasket since Plato's day. People said the same thing about YOUR generation.
Next up: Singers these days! They show their breasts and gyrate in a sexual way! It is just horrible! Why can't they be wholesome, like Elvis?
You gussed it, back in the 50's, Elvis was the evil influence wrecking America. Oh, and those kids were going to hell in a handbasket, too.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Lets see. You want public school education to improve but you do not want administrators to have the power to fire underperforming teachers, or use standardized testing to evaluate student achievement in education, and foster the lie that the establishment bestows and protects 1st amendment freedoms.
Sorry. I think capitalism should be abolished and replaced with a meritocracy and a gov't that acts as an environmental advocate, but childish wishful thinking is not a sign of a mature mind, capable of making realistic assessments.
I have zero problems with principals having 100% editorial control over the school paper. It closely reflects today's reality, where a few mega corporations control the country's papers.
When I was going to public school, back in the late '70's, a similar "crisis" came about. The school permitted the use of the intercom in the morning as a "morning radio" station, and would pipe in popular music selected by the student DJ. One day, he started playing Pink Floyd's "Brick in the Wall". The principal felt this undermined the reputation of the "noble" educational mission, and banned its play. The poor DJ vocally protested this censorship, violated the ban, and eventually lost the morning slot. I felt strongly and sympathetically for him, but even I, as a teen, knew that the "noble intentions" of the educator was a lie. Primary school was a vehicle of propaganda, from history, societal morality, to american culture. Its no surprise the principal, wrapped in the flag and 1st amendment, would censor airplay of that song.
I'm not a supporter of using the public school to "lie" to students about how the real world works. You're whining, not addressing the problem. The "solution" is to encourage kids to blog and put up competing school newspapers as websites. If you want some form of gov't imprimateur to the practice, let the journalism teacher evaluate those websites for extra credit. That way, you instill the values of a "free" press, and still reflect the reality of our culture. (i.e. - Official organs spin through their teeth, and soon, you will have to go through lots of little guys for the truth.)
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Standardized tests are a great indicator of totally failing to educate, however. Way back when I was in high school (and dinosaurs roamed the Earth), the district had standardized tests to locate individual schools with problems, and prevent social promotion. Some teachers complained about "teaching to the tests" but the reality was the tests were darn easy to pass.
In the first year the tests were offered the bar was set very low, in case there were problems with test itself. On the math test, 26% was a passing grade. I believe that one could pass that test by answering 'B' on every question. At one high school, more than half the students failed. The mind boggles.
There may be more to a child than you can determine from a test, but a test can nevertheless determine that a school system has totally failed a child.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Please, I'm curious...why should cannibalism be legalized?
Why should it be illegal? It was a common religious practice in some parts of the world. It is just recycling meat. Certainly their are health concerns, but most of them are mitigated by proper preparation. If my friends want to eat my flesh after I die and I want to include a provision in my will to allow for that, what logical reason is their to prevent it?
I'm one of those people who thinks space travel will probably happen via generational ships if we don't make ourselves extinct first. Perhaps they will be large enough to support a complex ecosystem and recycle us that way, but just eating the meat is a fairly effective first recycling step. It is also one that is taboo in our society for no real reason.
I have no idea what part of "Congress shall pass no law" these pinhead idiots in suits and ties can't understand, but the citizens have the right to free assembly and association, free speech, free religion, and the pinhead idiots can't take that away.
it is the FIRST amendment, with priority over all others.
you have issues with that, cuba and vietnam and china are calling, and if you let me know, I'll help you pack to live in the world you prefer.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Yes, Education is important (Mine left me only knowing how far behind I am), but unlike going to war, it really isn't the Federal Government's job as provided by the constitution. It really should be left up to the states, or it needs to be added to the part of the constitution that talks about what powers the Fed's have.
Actually they are part of the problem because they distill the entire curriculum down to a set of facts. Teachers therefore teach these facts in order to get the kids to pass the test without teaching the intricate interconnections among the facts and the relationships that make the facts matter. It doesn't matter if you know that John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln on April 14th of 1865 if you don't understand why, and that's not something that can be expressed as an answer to a multiple choice question. Standardized tests make school about passing tests rather than learning.
Note that I'm not against standardization of testing. I'm against the sort of standardized tests that we have because they have to be taken over the course of a class period. We need comprehensive standardized tests that involve essay questions to demonstrate an actual understanding of the subject matter instead of multiple choice questions that anyone knowledgeable in test-taking can pass with even a minor grasp of the material.
The survey reads:
"The First Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution more than 200 years ago. This is what it says:
Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees."
If the former question was asked then I'd be gravely concerned about the level of English comprehension displayed by the sample audience. However, the statement posed is asking for an opinion on the amendment. Consequently, what we see here is the result of the granted freedoms. Students have an opinion and have a right to express it. Rather than seeing a problem, I see the system working.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
It is also understood to apply to pre-existing Establishments of Religion. E.g. Christianity is a religious establishment.
Congress shall make no law [treating, honoring, or showing respect for] an establishment of religion [such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.], or prohibit the free exercise thereof [and showing legal favoritism for one is implicitly prohibiting in some form the free exercise of all others]
An official state exhibition of a religion such as displaying the Ten Commandments in a courtroom can be seen as prejudicial against those who practice a religion other than Christianity (or Judaism I guess?)
If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.
Just a quick clarification. A principal at a public school is an agent of the government. Legally, when he speaks, it is as an agent for the municipality under which he is employed. That's why principal's and teachers have to be so damn careful about what they say and do. They fall under a different set of rules in that respect...just like police and elected officials.
-Tom
Typical whining conservative, blaming the liberals for their failures. No one forced you to go to the particular college you paid money to attend. There are tons of quality, "conservative" colleges, from "University of Chicago", to Yale, to Cornell, to SUNY Binghamton. Its your own damn fault you didn't properly examine the college you attended. Or your parents fault, for not educating that you could be penalized for what you publicly "proved".
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
The basis of our philosophy is that all people are entitled to certain basic civil rights, and that among those are the rights to life and liberty. We also recognize other fundamental civil rights like the right to own property and the right to religious expression.
These rights aren't granted to us by anybody. We're endowed with them by our Creator. And they're not just reserved for the citizens of a particular nation or the members of a particular class. Everybody has them.
This belief lies at the very basis of our entire political and social system. It's axiomatic.
You can express the opinion that you don't think that's how it should be, if you want to, but good luck. People have been trying to do that for hundreds of years now, and nobody yet has been able to.
Always amazes me how many people and organizations will defend the 1st Amendment but tear down the 2nd Amendment. We lose one Amendment and we are well on our way to losing them all. Take away the 1st Amendment and it becomes hard to get the truth out there. Take away the 2nd Amendment and you take the People's defense away.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
In a public school, the principal is a government employee and an agent of the government. If he/she blocks content, then that is government-sponsered censorship. Here in California, we have an explicit law against such censorship of public school papers. Sadly, it's rarely enforced.
You don't have any rights until the that magic moment at midnight, according to cig stores at least, on that anniversery when you get Constitution rights. They can do almost anything to you without fear of reprisal. I thought the usual "tax without repre." applied or do "stupid,"
i.e. young, people not get that?
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Ever wondered why this "big bad govt is screwing up our kids" feeling is pretty much unique to US culture? I don't recall ever hearing that in Scandinavia (as a significant component of public opinion). Could it be that the public school system in itself is not really the major problem?
I definitely agree in that in the end it's in the best interest of the parents (when kids are young) and students themselves (when they become aware of the reality... somewhere between 8 and 30 years) to follow up on quality of education, but claiming that the actual act of education should be handled by the parents is impractical, and in the end, ridiculous. Most adults actually have lives outside of just overseeing their kids life... and those who don't, should.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Not to mention trade or the common defense. Anybody who denies enjoying US citizenship should discard all possessions that weren't manufactured or produced in the United States, and also should immediately report to the nearest British, French, Spanish, Mexican, Austrian, Turkish, German or Japanese embassy to apply for citizenship in one of those countries. It doesn't matter which one; at some point in the past two centuries, our federal government has defended us from them all.
It's not just about benefits and entitlements. We literally owe a debt of gratitude for our very liberty to the federal government which so often has employed the economic, diplomatic or military might of this nation to secure it for us.
Again, Google is our friend. This phrase was originally written by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter(full text in that link). It was referring to the clause you mention to try to describe what that meant. So, to sum it up, that phrase was written down by one of our "forefathers" as a commentary on it, but was not, technically, in the Constitution.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
im sorry. my generation is stupid.
Yep, in spite of the politcally correct crowd we still have a first ammendment right to offend each other.
The Houkster "Oh yeah brother, what you gonna do when Houk O' Mania runs wild on you? Besides wet your pants in laughte
The Second Amendment was America's first freedom *historically* - in the first second of America's existance as a country, quite a few Americans bearing arms were standing around the surrendering British. :) It's a bit of a stretch, but it's close enough for a joke on a bumper sticker.
Uh, no. The first few seconds of America's existance as a country was a bunch of men sitting around talking (and writing) about it. It was later when they needed to take up arms to defend what they declared.
Learn to love Alaska
These are the rights that they get from their parents... they are confusing them with their constitutional rights. as they get older they will realize their rights are greater than that of a child.
nothing to see here....
love is just extroverted narcissism
I'd have to disagree that if the government took total control of education that people would simply cease to question authority, be creative, etc. Looking at history, oppression breeds resistance. Although it is clearly not exactly the same for subtle oppression (like the schools discouraging creativity), I believe the outcome will be the same.
Sig is a crazy old German guy.
The homeschooling part is not expensive, as long as one parent is home to do it. As far as materials such as books, these are readily available and often for a good price used.
We've moved to the "unschooling" approach, which in many ways is even less expensive. I want my children to be able to think and express themselves, not to mention, love their family. It's an investment in time that will return more value than you ever could believe.
www.mikesmind.com - www.daddyworkathome.com - www.freetofarm.org - www.tenfoottable.com
Actually, terrorists are even WORSE than a full blown nuclear war. At least during the Cold War both sides were smart enough to realize 'if I nuke them, they'll nuke me' and therefore never did it. (Or 'if you shoot me, fuck it I'm gonna make sure we BOTH go down.')
In terrorism you have people who are training/telling/preaching that the western world, capitalism and democracy is this 'big bad evil' that soldiers of Allah must fight. Now its no longer the 'young teenage kids' who have to fight and die that people protest about, its all about the 7-13 year old kids who have to fight and die now. Why? Shock effect, 9 year old kids wielding AK-47s and RPGs? No way right? Media effect, American soldiers shooting bombladen children running towards their barracks? We have to pull out! The fact that the leadership doesn't give a shit about what happens to their people? Thats so immoral, that'd NEVER happen so all those news reports MUST be false!
If you watch/read any small/grassroots/extreme liberal news channel/newspaper, theres a LOT of crazy shit most Americans don't know about, let alone consider the existance of. Genocide? Yup, Baton Rouge. Biological weapons being used? Of course, Japan. Kidnapping? We've all heard the stories from South America. Roadside bombs? England had a couple a few years back by the Sinn Finn. The list goes on, terrorism is EVERYWHERE. You just don't hear about it because theres too damned much to report. That and not every terrorist in the world is willing to get interviewed or not put a 3/4 inch hole in a foreigner's head.
The use of BCE and CE is mostly used by people in interfaith dialogue. It's common usage among the various theologians at my college, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era
Of course, if you are pissed off with the idea that it's taking Christ away from chronology you can simply mentally substitute Christian for Common. I'll be sticking to Common Era though.
Of course, I'd much rather measure from the Unix epoch. That, or perhaps the birth of Stallman (unlike the Christian story, whereby the saviour was born TO a virgin, in the GNU story, the saviour was born to STAY a virgin - see below)
http://www.stallman.org/saintignucius.jpg
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Man, I gotta brush up on that important stuff. Who knows when it'll be needed on some game show?
All you have to do to understand how stupid America is, is to listen to when Howard Stern interviews some stripper and he asks her a question like "Who's the President of the United States?" AND SHE DOESN'T KNOW!!!!!!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Name names. Blow the whistle. Do something about it. Risk your grades. Risk the acceptance of your classmates. If you don't stand up for what you believe in, you deserve to live in the world as it's thrust upon you.
If not now, when will you speak out? When she says the world is flat?
Want me to put my money where my mouth is? Give me her name, school, class and watch things happen.
Fine, I'll build my own moon base! With blackjack...and hookers...in fact, forget the base! - TripMaster Monkey (862126)
A basic problem is people don't know what the first amendment says. It is common quoted as saying "freedom of expression" and "separation of church and state". It says neither. The amendment as commonly stated does go to far.
The right to freedom of speech was put there to protect the right of people to criticize their government and other powerful people, with no intention that it protect naughty pictures. Now with Supreme Court rulings and campaign finance laws, dirty pictures are protected but criticizing the government is not. No wonder kids are confused.
And let's not forget that the first amendment says congress may not make a law "respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the practice thereof". You can't pick out a religion for special treatment, and you can't make a law that restricts religious practice unless that law is necessary to protect other constitutional rights. Pretty simple.
If "separation of church and state" is in the first amendment, why is the state allowed to enter church property to make an arrest? Why are crimes committed on church property prosecutable?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I had a teacher in high school who had similar habits, albiet she leaned to the far left. This kind of reinforcement of opinion is sickening, and even if i did agree with it, I would disagree with the presentation of it as fact.
Our educational system needs change in this respect.
Marijuana was banned because of the paper industry (go read up on it).
I'd consider a garden variety toker to be fairly innocent.
Are Firearms banned?
Live in DC? They are banned some places and restricted in others. Criminals, being criminals, get them illegally anyway. Gun control has not been shown to reduce crime. Instead, it may increase it.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
And even when the Bush admin finally agreed (were forced to agree) to elections, Bush made sure that elections were postponed until after the US election!!! No matter how many Americans and Iraqis were killed in the meantime. Now he's gloating over having single handedly brought democracy to Iraq! It's nauseating. And the media swimming in it, like they're amazed Iraqis know how to stick a piece of paper in a box. This comes after we learn that the US has given up its search for the weapons that supposedly started this war in the first place. And you call the left hypocritical??
Finally, a sobering thought on this from an Iraqi blogger: "The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America... Congratulations Bush- we are a threat now. " (from riverbend).
But what life skills are actually learned in sporting programs? Instead of cutting sports, they cut the arts, funding for computer labs, and so-called "media offerings."
Everything I need to know I learned from sports.
I learned that the bigger you are, the more likely you are to beat the shit out of smaller people. As a smaller person, I learned the faster you are, the more likely you are to avoid a beating. As a slower person, I learned I was fucked no matter what I did.
I learned the better you were at useless activities (usually pushing a spherioid through some sort of goal) the more likely you were to get laid. Corollary: I learned how to cope with blue balls.
I learned about teamwork. It takes a team to truly humiliate the weakest player.
I learned about the political system. Important players didn't need to work to get good grades. Not-so-important players (say, those on the bench-warming team) better bust their asses.
I learned about loyalty. Admiring anything about the other team that wasn't a cheerleader leads to certain pain.
You can learn a lot about the real world from sports.
The most important thing I learned: the head of our basketball team in highschool is now the manager of a gas station. At 37.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You're over-analysing the joke - but I guess that's normal on Slashdot. ;)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
We lost all our rights when we allowed our citizenship to be traded away for being consumer whores.
Now they teach kids about interest rates instead of their inalienable rights.
You couldn't be more wrong.
"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school-house gate." -- Justice Abe Fortas, Tinker v. Des Moines majority opinion.
Kids in the USA don't understand *a lot* of things. It's no shock to me that they don't understand their most fundimental laws.
I remember having a conversation with one who claimed, in no uncertain terms, that the US invented democracy. Hell, democracy isn't even an english word.
Another had no idea that Canadians burned down the Whitehouse in the war of 1812, and went so far as to tell me that I should get a history lesson. Such irony.
Not only do american schools do a truly *terrible* job of teaching american history, they do an even worse job of teaching any kind of world history. Most of them grow up thinking America is the center of the universe.
I understand this is a bit of a generalization, I apologise to those americans who took their education seriously enough to get their facts right. However, a surprising number are completely clueless.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
So much for belittling our kids for not knowing about the first ammendment. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/flagbur ning/topic.aspx?topic=flag_statelaws
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Section 1 of the the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First is applicable to state and local actions as well.
Also, I don't believe that the Constitution grants rights to minors. Sorry, you don't have the right to free speech until you are 18.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights. The Bill of Rights is only a listing of protections of rights that inherently exist. They're there in an attempt to prevent having another bloody revolution because the government because too powerful and ends up pushing its people to overthrow it.
Having stated that, there's clearly nothing to distinguish this protection based on age (though the statement of "all men are created equal" could be claimed as only applying to males). The point is more that adults (read, 18+ year olds) are the only ones with the power/ability to seriously overthrow the government, and most parents aren't interested in helping protect the rights of their children; ie, most parents are bad parents.
So, it's not at all a question of if children are granted rights. The only real question is at what point will the children be willing and able to rise up against their parents/the government to rage a war to stop such Draconian law. I can only guess what the new "age limit" will be. Maybe it'll be 6-7, when the kindergarteners first reach school and are exposed to curse words. By that point, though, curse words won't really exist (though racist words might do), so they'll have to progress to backing morally reprehensable positions to shock/awe their peers.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
The comparison would be skewed. I suspect that the ratios of well-educated to not-well-educated is different between the college-bound and those that don't go to college.
I'd like the study to be done on our political representatives, all the way up to the President.
What kind of results would we get there?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Ok, I'm probably not the first one to do this, but I wouldn't be happy with myself if I didn't do this. For those who would actually like to read the results of the survey, check out this site, http://firstamendment.jideas.org/results/results.p hp.
I feel it is very important that those who report the results of a survey should understand the Methodology of the survey first. We live in a world of headlines and AP articles that do not divulge the full story. The reason why these students answer these questions so erratically can be mixed. However, the most flaming questions brought up in this article are found at the end of a 53 question survey. After looking through the verbage, I can see how a student would get tired of reading all the questions and answering. Check out question 40, (the first real question about the 1st Amendment). It actually comes back as only 12% strongly agree that the First Amendment goes to far. However if you look at question 42 of the student survey, you'll find only 2% of the surveyed strongly agreed that people should not be allowed to express unpopular opinions.
I guess my point is, a lot of the world will take that little one page article they see on msnbc.com, cnn.com, and such and run with it. Instead, don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution and don't believe everything that gets posted on the web or slapped in a newspaper article. It's a big world, go explore it!
VD
That's a fine sentiment, but there is one thing it ignores
Not at all. My point is that the buck rests with parents. Parent's must choose where to send their children to school, they must know the teachers, the curriculum, the principal, the school board, etc. It all rests on the parents. The school has no authority and the kids know it. The teacher can do nothing to the children, and the kids know it. If I was Steve Ballmer, I'd be dancing around the room chanting and clapping, PARENTS, PARENTS, PARENTS...
I'll even go one step further and say this. I think the real issue rests with fathers and (many/most/some) men's lack of desire to demonstrate any significant leadership in the life of their children. I know that personally, I would frequently prefer to let decisions be made for me and pretend that I have no power/responsibility in my family's life. This sort of thing has to change.
As part of an experiment in political science in college, we hand copied the Declaration of Independence on to notebook paper and took it to a local mall and tried to get people to sign it. The really sad part is that no one would sign it. We were called "Communists", "Anarchists", "Socalists", "Wierdos", and a variety of other epithets. Mall security ended up having to resecue us from a very physically threatening mob.
All in all, it was quite educational as to people's stance and understanding of their rights. If you don't know what your rights are, will you know if someone is violating them?
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
adults would probably fare worse, I'm guessing a 1/4 of them know the kids do
In my school in NC, there's a course required for graduation by the state called ELPS (Economical, Legal, and Political systems). It rolls Civics in to the curriculum. Also, schools here offer AP US Govt.
There is really no significance to it being the first amendment numerically. The original Bill of Rights had twelve amendments in it. Only the last ten were ratified (ergo the third proposed amendment became what we call the first amendment) originally. Another was ratified not long ago and became the 27th amendment. The last one of the original twelve has still not been ratified, and likely will not be because it's very impractical.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Why the hell are you modding this funny? It's true. (Mind you they're not usually powerful enough to actually hunt with, but the Gov't doesn't seem to like civilians having powerful weapons, re: 50bmg -- they can't seem to make up their mind lately. Either you can't use it because it's not powerful enough (5.56 NATO vs. deer) or becasue it's too powerful (.50BMG vs. Stryker) Unfortunately, these two categories sometimes seem to overlap.)
". . . you must believe that ordinary citizens should be able to possess fully-automatic rifles, explosives, and other arms . . . "
."). Many of them were well aware that even with the best of intentions their new system could turn toward totalitarianism (monarchy, plutocracy, corporate fascism, theocracy, whatever).
That is the intent, yes. Remember the Founders had just finished an armed revolt against their government. Read the writing of the various people involved in the revolution and subsequent establishment of a Constitutional government (". . . it squints toward monarchy . .
These people read their history carefully, and recognized that EVERY FSCKING GOVERNMENT in history ended up oppressing and abusing its citizens.
So, yes, we do have the Constitional right to any weaponry we can get and learn to use, up to and especially including current military weapons. The Founders understood that the leaders of a nation tend to stay upright and responsible to the people when they have nooses around their necks . . . or automatic rifles aimed their way.
New Hampshire has the right motto: "Live Free or Die." Deal with it.
Happy Monday,
Mal the Elder
PS Yeah, I'm too damn lazy to log in, and I could care less about karma points.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on September 17
Oh joy! If they dedicate THE WHOLE DAY to it (woo hoo!), and they keep the lunch break short, they may be able to squeeze in a full FIVE HOURS! Yeehaa!
Hell, half the kids would probably need the full 5 hours just to read the damn thing. And that's without stopping to look up the words with more than two sylables in a dictionary.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
OTOH, if they did, then you should have done as I suggested. You would find that the principal couldn't have stopped the activity in this instance.
Of course he would have stopped it. Kids get suspended all the time for activities off school grounds. If they had, on their own time, gone to Kinkos and used no school time, money, or facilities, but tried to distribute on school grounds, they could have been disciplined for it. Even if they targeted school kids at times and places that were outside school, they could have been disciplined. You obviously haven't been keeping up with the reach of school punishment.
Learn to love Alaska
It's interesting to ask the same question in other countries. Here in Australia if you asked the same question kids would say they had the right to free speech etc. Except they don't, at least not constitutionally. So many kids (here at least) seem to assume that we have the same constituion and laws as the USA.
I wonder what it's like in the UK and other countries?
LOL...That's exactly what I thought after reading the comment... :)
Or Chile. A recent event you may remember happened on the anniversary of the US-sponsored coup.
Hands in my pocket
All the amendment says is the government can't prosecute you under X circumstances.
It does not mean you constitutional rights at school or work. Freedom of speech means you can get fired at work for example.
But at my former highschool they had drug sniffing dogs check all the automobiles and school lockers. If you refused the search that gave them resonable doubt. Nice hu?
Again the courts ruled in favor of the school.
But can the government lock your son or daughter without trail? Absolutely. If he/she is defined as a terrorist than due processes no longer applies.
http://saveie6.com/
Garbage. It was an attempt to short-circuit political and academic debate in favour of a single point of view, sometimes through repressive means.
PC suffered terrible publicity, was attacked by civil libertarians and defenders of academic freedom, and was occassionaly challenged in the courts. It deserved everthing it got.
And yes, it was a pretty easy target for conservatives. It was a pretty easy target period.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America; and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
We are pledging our allegienace to THE flag and to the republic that our flag represents. If you haven't noticed, flags are symbols, and this piece of cloth happens to be a symbol for the greatest nation on the face of the earth, in the entire history of the earth, probably forevermore. It also stands for the ideals that our nation stands for, which are what our country was founded over, and what our soldiers and citizens bleed and die for. They are:
* One Nation - We can unite, even though we are different. Let's end all the useless wars of old Europe, all the pointless violence, and unite behind common ideals.
* Under God - Only God can rule man. If a man thinks he can rule man, he is a tyrant and should be killed. That's why we went into Germany, into Japan. That's why we freed Cuba and the Phillippines in the Spanish-American War. That's why we fought against our own blood in the Civil War. That's why we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and why we promise to fight in Syria, and North Korea.
* Indivisible - We have united, never let us separate! We hold our elections and have a system of government wherein the minority can voice its opinion, and the majority cannot trample their rights. There is no need to divide, not now, not ever.
* Liberty - The concept that man has a free will that no other man can impose upon it. You believe this, don't you? Man is free; that freedom came from God. It cannot be taken away by man.
* Justice - The concept that men are accountable for their crimes, and that men have a duty to exact those punishments or suffer the wrath of God. In other words, if your neighbor has his jewelry stolen, it is a crime. As a society, we have a responsibility to catch the criminal, exact a punishment for his crimes, and return what we can to the owner.
* For all - No one is beyond the law in our nation. No one is above another. This applies to all - men, women, children, blacks, whites, Canadians, and Americans.
One day, your country will begin to understand these ideals, perhaps to the point that you will adopt them into your government.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Well, you selected the 'government' so I guess that makes it your fault, ultimately,
I go to school in Albany, NY, and we know quite well the definition of cold. I even read in that student paper today that this very thing happened over the weekend, but not to the same degree (no pun intended). I don't live on campus, and I'm glad, but this being a state school, the campus security are real cops.
"Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported."
Doesn't matter! If I go out and start a newspaper, and it's 100% advertising supported, which means that I have no out of pocket cost, I still have full editorial control and rightfully so! It doesn't matter whether I'm making a profit, losing money, or breaking even,; it does't matter whether I want to charge my subscribers, whether I want to cover my costs with ads, or whether I want to do a George Soros and pull it out of my pocket for the public good: I still rightfully have frickin' full and totally legit editorial control. It also doesn't matter whether it is a private person (me) doing it or the gov.
Read my blog: HansMast.com
You may disagree with these attitudes, but guess what protects them? Yep, you guessed it. The First Amendment.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I think you and I have a significant disconnect when it comes to the meaning of the word responsibility.
I saw a production of 1776 performed in Faneuil Hall in Boston. My landlord was John Adams.
:)
Good stuff it was.
"How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?"
Actually, that's a VERY good example to bring up when explaining how the first amendment works, by explaining how the first amendment does not protect you.
I'm sure that everybody reading this has encountered a situation wherein some goober on a web forum was banned or had their posts removed for violating the site's TOS or otherwise for simply being a jerk, and then screamed "[web site name] is violating my first amendment rights!"
The response to this is simple: the web site operator is not the government. And, neither is your principal. The web site owner can do anything he or she wants with their web site, and your principal can do anything he wants with the school newspaper that he oversees. Anybody who thinks that the first amendment will protect them from being banned by a web site or censored by one's high school principal lacks a fundamental understanding of the first amendment.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
OTOH, If the students started their own newspaper and were responsible for publishing it, the principal could not censor it.
Read my blog: HansMast.com
"A woman is arrested on murder charges. After hours of police interrogation without Miranda warnings, she confesses. They then read her rights to her and then ask her to confess again. The Supreme Court rules that in such a case the confession was to be allowed in court despite the fact that the Miranda warnings were simply done essentailly after the fact and that it was then difficult to face the police pressure after that point."
You seem to be asserting that the police were in the wrong to extract an additional confession since they only read the suspect her rights after her initial inadmissible (pre-Miranda) confession. I disagree. Your statement that it occurred "[a]fter hours of police interrogation without Miranda warnings" makes the police look like bullies who should have their case thrown out. But think of the dangerous precedent. It's difficult to legislate a "reasonable" amount of time so we usually get laws that specify an occurrence as a demarcation point. That is, anything a suspect says to police before getting Mirandized is inadmissible as evidence. If we follow your logic that the police in the above case were only reading the woman her rights to get an admissible confession after she volunteered (or was coerced into) the first one, then what do you want to disallow? Anything already said pre-Miranda reading?
In that case, as a criminal your best defense would be to confess immediately before being read your rights. Think about it - if you immediately confess to the first officer that approaches you then your case is almost identical to the one you cite except for the "hours of police interrogation." But time frames are a gray area anyway. You could claim intimidation, or some other cumulative effect of multiple officers, a crime scene, etc. Should you then avoid prosecution simply because the officers had to read you your rights to get you to confess again?
Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If my government won't allow me to speak freely, to practice (or not practice) the religion I choose, to speak to other people about these thoughts... I really don't care so much if I have other unspecified rights.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
With regards to taking and holding Baghdad (which I agree would be impossible if the majority of Iraqis thought that the US had territorial/empire ambitions), it wasn't the military advisors that said that it couldn't be done in 1991 (Though they did warn that doing so would require more time, money, and cost more lives). The decision to leave Saddam in control stemmed more from our promises some of our coalition members (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc) than military necessity. It was hoped, at the time, that Iraqi's would take care of the dirty deed of diposing Saddam themselves after the 1991 Gulf War. Of course that didn't happen. Those who did rise up against him were crushed. (The mass graves you see now)
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Hear, hear. I agree. Now if we could only get the government to keep Fox news from reporting what they want to and force them to report the correct information..... Oh wait, that's not the point you wanted to make is it?
Yeah, what's wrong with a little fraud. Say they present "Joe Politician thinks that Iraq is behind 9/11" and continually imply that 9/11 was done by Saddam, knowing full well that Iraq had absolutely no connection to 9/11. Would that be responsible? Should known lies be protected speech? Would the government not be able to go after them, but it would be legal for, say, Iraqis in America to sue them?
Where do you draw the line with Fox News's hate speech based on lies? How about Rush, or the other talk show guys?
Learn to love Alaska
"Assault Weapon" is a fake term that was invented specifically because it had no meaning, and sounded like the well-defined term "Assault Rifle". Banning "assault rifles" was worthless to these people because by definition an assault rifle is fully automatic, which have already been banned since, like, 1924.
On the other hand, make up a phony word that means whatever you want it to, and you can ban anything, including those darn scary looking rifles with the foldable stock that function EXACTLY like a stinking normal hunting rifle. But they look scary. And banning them makes me look like I'm doing my job as a congresswoman.
perhaps you should open your country up to weapons inspectors and get out of their way
Huh? They did. The U.N. was in the midst of the weapons inspections when Bush decided to invade before they could finish. Jeez, do you suppose he was afraid they wouldn't find anything?
The guy who was in charge of the inspections saying they were making progress and for everybody to just hold on and let them get their job done. Bush essentially ordered the U.N. to pull out the inspectors or they would get caught in the crossfire. When the U.N. refused to sanction an attack, even after hearing Powell recite phony evidence cribbed from obsolete early 90s intelligence, we attacked anyway as the "coalition of the willing." In the previous Iraq war at least Bush Sr. bothered to establish the pretense of a United Nations effort. Dubya's message to the world is Get the F*ck out of our way.
The parent post is an illustration of the point of the original article, that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it and forget the truth.
mod parent down
If you claim to be a teacher in an article about education where you call your students stupid, please at least take the time to use decent spelling and grammar because otherwise we're going to blame you and your ilk for their stupidity!
See, the logged in person gets all the glory (modpoints) and the anonymous coward gets naught.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
A poem...
I am the student
I am the learned deceived
The dreamer not permitted to achieve
I am the disciplined kept on a leash
The one biting my tongue not licensed to speak
I am the oppressed, tyrannized, the victimized wishing to be free
I wish behind gates where I've been penalized
My age is the crime for which I've been institutionalized
I am the pupil
The follower the listener
The prisoner, analyzed, corrected, improved, then approved
The taught with a thousand censored thoughts
I am the listless puppet whose limbs move wherever they aught
I am the child, the adolescent, the youth
The pet taught to be passive
If I do not heed I will face rebuke
I see the way I am supposed to see
And speak the way I am supposed to speak
I assume my position and am where I am required to be
I must be discrete not to displease
I'm the slave told I am free
I am the hypocrite that pledges to the hypothetical flag
The fool that faces this foolish rag
Driven mad by the fact that I'm promised life, liberty, and happiness.
-- Nathalie Lawhead
Oh, and this little piece.
People discover the meaning of life between getting piss drunk and the following hangover.
"I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment."
The GP's statement is correct. Sorry, but it's your understanding that's off.
Others have probably explained it better than I have, but perhaps an example will help here. Say, for example, once you graduate from high school, you get a job at the Department of Health and Human Services. Your first task is to launch an employee newsletter. Your job is to write the copy, then show it to several people for approval. If one of those people asks that you not publish a particular story -- for any reason -- you don't have first amendment protection here, regardless of the fact that the person who killed the story is a government employee.
I can't quote case law to explain why it works this way, but for me it's one of those "common sense" sort of things.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
It is in the U.S. government's interest (or any government's, really; this isn't just a U.S. problem) to keep people ignorant about what rights they really have. That way, when those rights are eroded, the people will be too ignorant to complain.
Look at Cory Doctorow's recent experience with American Airlines. He was asked by the airline to write down the addresses of the people with whom he was staying, but when he asked what law required this, he was simply told, "It's for your safety," and "It's a federal law," but no one could tell him what law. Since most people are ignorant of the extent of their rights, many people think taking photos of bridges or burning the flag is illegal, or that they have to tell their airline with whom they are staying on their vacations.
In President Bush's America, the government tells you what your rights are, regardless of what the Constitution and its Amendments say.
This is what you get when you put the government in charge of our children's education. Did you really think the government would teach them what the government didn't want them to think?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
My last year of high-school I had to test of computers class (because for whatever idiotic reason, scoring perfect on the AP Comp Sci exam isn't enough in itself to test out of "Advanced Computer Applications", the official name of our basic computer class) and there was one question on it where we had to write an essay on the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharers. I wrote how it is disgusting and nearly or wholly unconstitutional that the RIAA is strong-arming everyone into settling instead of fighting against the tactics, not necessarily the charge.
:-)
The teacher said no one else had done an essay like that and most had said they're afraid of the RIAA suing them. She agreed with what I said, but she was young (~25). Good looking too, if I wasn't in school I prolly would have asked her out
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
a) Public schools are generally run by local governments, which are under state control. The First Amendment to the federal constitution does not apply to state governments.
Wrong. Federal laws supercede state laws, and state laws in turn supercede local/municipal laws.
Constitutional laws -- such as the 1st Amendment -- supercede Federal law. We are, after all, a "Constitutional Republic."
Hence, the 1st Amendment applies to all levels of government, from the Federal level on down.
This is basic Civics/Government stuff...
b) Even if it did, the guarentee of freedom of speech does not mean that the government has to sponsor that speech.
Correct.
Indeed, any sponsorship of the government necessarily means that taxpayer money is used to promote the speech, and although such sponsorship happens regularly enough (such as in California, where a the state pension plan agency was working to oppose President Bush's attempts to partially privatize Social Security, or the recent scandal surrounding the promoter of the "No Child Left Behind Act", or various works put out by the ONDCP), it's almost invariably condemned as a waste of taxpayer money and a sign of overbearing government abuse of power (as if governments abusing their power were uncommon).
c) Even if it did, minors do not have the full range of legal rights, just as they don't have the full range of legal responsibility.
Incorrect. 2 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment rights of minors, saying in the majority opinion "minors enjoy the protection of the First Amendment"
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Judging from the homeschoolers I've met and love, it's a f*cking evil thing to do to children.
:-)
1. Crippling of social development. It is an understatement to say that the regular social activities of homsechooling just don't cut it. Like it or not, a socially crippled person is just as screwed in society as an educationally crippled one, if not moreso. Being social creatures, this stuff also screws with happiness and feelings of self-worth.
2. Nutcases. Many, if not most homeschoolers are homeschooled because by brainwashing religious nutcase parents. This means that most homeschool-support programs and activities in your area will make a mockery of your worries that your kids might be among sheeple at school.
3. Networking. Lifelong friends are made during school years. Homeschoolers I know have a vastly smaller pool of friends and acquaintances than schoolkids, and those friends are often of a lesser quality - selected by necessity simply for being of similar age, rather than for good character or complementary personality. Schoolkids get to select their friends from a pool of hundreds or thousands they can spend time with with nearly every day. With big enough social circles, friends beget friends and are gateways to yet more social circles. Having too few on the other hand can result in dwindling circles, as people leave/move faster than the rate of crossover into new circles. Obviously, this will depend on how social and outgoing a person is.
4. Inevitablity. Assuming you want the kids to go to university, they're going to have to sit highschool exams (or whatever the institution requires), so they have the learn the public school curriculam anyway.
5. Life. To do a serious job of educating your kids, you will have to sacrifice years that you could be working, or developing yourself as a person, or doing all those things that you're still young enough to be able to do. That's a very real, and very high price, for a gamble - there is no guarentee that your efforts will result in better adjusted kids, but you will absolutely lose a huge chunk of your life. (You're presumably not so naive as to think spending most of each day with your kids is going to be nothing but bonding moments
I don't know what the solution is, but the results of homeschooling that I see make the flaws of average public schools seem the lesser evil by far. My personal (and inexperienced) thoughts would be some kind of dual-education - putting kids in a good mixed-gender school, and teaching them you own curriculum for an hour a day (perhaps at expense of route-work non-educational homework rather than cutting into their own time). It's a difficult problem. The only real solution seems to be to move to another country and put the kids in school there, but then you can't move back without inflicting #3...
It does not mean you constitutional rights at school or work. Freedom of speech means you can get fired at work for example.
You can't be expelled for what you say, as a counter example. One obvious exception would be threats of violence.
But can the government lock your son or daughter without trail? Absolutely. If he/she is defined as a terrorist than due processes no longer applies.
That's crap. The bill of rights apply to everybody on US soil, terrorists included.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Not to troll, but if the 1st Amendment isn't an Amendment, then why it called an Amendment?
because people just started calling them that. I mean, it makes sense doesn't it? It was after the constitution was done with.
And here is a little thought process for you. We made the government correct? So therefore, we gave it power. It cannot have more power than we orignally had because we can't give the government what we didn't possess at one point. It's a violation of the basic laws of nature.
So now you're telling me that these amendments GIVE me rights?
So we gave congress the authority to give us back our rights?
You can repeal the first amendment, but that doesn't mean that freedom of speech is unlawful. Hell, throw away the first 10 amendments, I'll still use freedom of speech. Sure, I'll get arrested, but they can't stop me from using my unalienable rights (not unless they kill me).
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
State. Our area was it's in precinct, so they were real cops (guns and all). They loved to keep reminding us this.
However, they were in cahoots with the RA's. The "fire alarm" was on the whole time; the premise being that if the fire alarm's one we're all supposed to be out of there. And, of course, the cops and firemen were more than willing to enforce it because they were sick of doing this every night as well. They wanted the jerks as well.
The other buildings (ie, student center) were closed for the evening except for the other dorms. However, they told the front desk not to let anyone unless their badge said they belonged there (we had different stickers for each dorm).
So, it was a sucky night. And, of course by the time I got back in I was so wide awake from freezing my juevos off that I stayed up the rest of the night.
Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Which is sort of tragically funny given the topic.
l _o f_Rights)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bil
Since that's wikipedia you can go through and change the law articles to read however your stupid ass thinks they should read. Have at it!
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Kids really don't come out of school with a real understanding of their rights. Here are a couple of reasons why:
* Government interventions: the govt intervenes in situations that were formerly handled by teachers and principals. 10 years ago a kid would not get locked up by the police for drawing a picture of someone getting stabbed. Cops would not show up in uniform for in school detention.
* Students don't loose their rights, they never have them. Back in the day, no one inspected your locker, processed your for saying something, asked you to pee in a bottle, metal detectored you or profiled you for deviant behavior unless you gave them a real reason. And then rights were lost until you earned them back.
* School rules are often litanies of "no student may" and "is not permitted on school properties".
* Zero Tollerance policies have eliminated discression in enforcing rules. The result: student rights are trampled by an almost boolean intrepetation of rules. This happened to my neice: she had genuine flat tire within 1/4 mile of the school on the way in. No one could stop to help her because they would automatically loose a letter grade under the zero tollerence for tardiness policy - so she had to wait by the side of the highway for help. When the tire was fixed, and she got to school, she recieved after school detention and lost a letter grade and worse yet, a further tardy would result in an F for the entire semester.
It would be very cool and useful if there was a voluntary "student's bill of rights" type of program that would help students learn what constitutional freedoms are, but also gave the school a framework for dealing with the irresponsible use or infringing on another student's rights that didn't require court involvement.
-- $G
What was the last one, or where could I read it? Excuse my lack of knowledge, but I'm not american, I 'm just a swede who would like to know more about your culture and laws and compare them with ours (I think its interresting that you do not really have any rights, just that your government does neither except some very specific. In sweden, the government have all the rights, except the ones (quite some :) that are excplicitly given to you, but those are then also your rights, and can not be stepped on by anyone, government or not. In practice, I don't think the differences are that big, it's just a difference of legal tradition)
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
right, you can throw out all the amendments and burn the constitution, but that doesn't mean you no longer have the freedom of speech.
If the government passed an amendment saying you couldn't urinate, would you just hold it and burst? No, because your a human being. You have unalienable rights that are not granted to you by a government. They are given to you from a higher source.
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
When I was in primary school in Iowa in the 1960's, the school encouraged parents to volunteer to assist the teachers on a regular basis. We often had somebody's parent in the room with us in my grade school.
I would complain to the school board if I wasn't able to oversee my child's classes in some pre-arranged manner. OTOH, I found that keeping tabs on the textbook and assignments told me enough about what was going on most of the time, and allowed me to make comments to the teacher (or principal) when necessary.
I've never thought that humor "translated" well from culture to culture and language to language so I wonder in all seriousness, does Slashdot help you to get a better grasp on American (and Canadian) humor?
(note, if you've spoken English your whole life, it may not be as relevant but what do others think?)
"Saddam was however, campaigning to unify rogue terrorist organizations against the USA. "
Got any verifiable, unbiased sources for this ? Quite frankly, you sound just like one of Bush's cronies on the runup to the war in Iraq, and they were all proven wrong.
Question: Who granted authority to the US government?
Answer: We the People.
It's true, you can just burn the whole damn US constitution if we wanted to... but does that mean there would be no more unalienable rights? Does your freedom of speech only exist because of the first article of the Bill of Rights? NO. It is a right you were BORN WITH. For someone to be able to take that away from you means that you must be subordinate to them. We the people created the damn government.
Read the declaration of independance and then argue your point again.
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
A) bullshit on multiple counts. For one things, most state consitutions have similar provisions, and for another, the first amendment does apply to state and local governments.
B) If the government is going to sponser a school newspaper it cannot choose to fund some articles and not others. This is analogous to NEA precident.
C) I think this is bullshit as far as the consitution is concerned, especially since the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment does not say equal protection except for minors. However, the supreme court has made certain pragmatic dicisions that I think are inconsistent with the constitution when deciding what powers school administrators should be allowed. They made a similar error in TLO V. New Jersey, in which they significantly lowered the burden required by school admiistrators to conduct searches of students and their property (while acknowledging that school administrators are agents of the state no less). So from a current legal perspective, you are corrent that ths supreme court has sided with the schools on this one, but it is still unconstitutional.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
To me, the fact that this particular news on /. received so many different opinions on what the 1st amendment means and what "freedom (of expression)" is, would point out that there IS unclarity about it.
Um, wow.
Have you read the 14th amendment.
14
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
notice the word "and"
and don't bother tearing about arguments made by the website i referenced, because you haven't even bothered to quote court cases that show your point of view. Read the court case
Colgate v. Harvey and then come back.
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
This poster reinforced my statement more eloquently that I can in the time given: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137903&cid=115 33930
Oracle, it seems most of your arguments here are spurious in light of Article 22
These obligations are upon the State not the individual. This does not mean that the individual is exempt from prosecution, but it does mean they can only be prosecuted for interfering with these rights or hampering someone's access to exercising these rights. In short, you can't be prosecuted for "failing to provide". So don't worry, your accumulated pile of bucks is safe from the non-existant Reagan-era "lazy welfare recipient" (Fiction? Yes, a quick look at the paltry sum a person can get under American welfare shows you it is WAY below what is required to live on).
sigh.
2nd amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
hmm, the right of the people... sounds like individuals to me.
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
You started the analysis. I just pointed out that the Declaration of Independence preceeded the war,indicating that, even when going for a joke, the gun nuts can't get anything right. If you want a laugh, ask them about "well regulated."
Learn to love Alaska
Note that the current population of the United States is a little less than 300 million, so we might end up with about 6000 representatives. That's probably too big to be practical.
I think its interresting that you do not really have any rights, just that your government does neither except some very specific.
That is incorrect. Persons and citizens within the US have many rights. Some of these rights are natural rights, which all people have just because they are people, e.g. the right of free speech. Other rights are positive rights, granted by the government, e.g. copyright, which doesn't exist unless the government creates a copyright system to begin with.
Some of the more important of these rights, e.g. free speech, due process, etc. are specifically guaranteed by the government. However, merely because they are guaranteed does not mean that the others do not exist. However, they may be less secure from government interference.
An important principle is that rights must ultimately be present in, and stem from the people, as our government is something we have brought into existence, and which we can reduce or replace as we see fit.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Darwinism is a theory.
The theory of gravity is only a theory. Should we distrust it?
Science is meant to be objective is it not?
Science is an epistomology, a method of learning the workings of the natural world. This method is marked by the gathering of information, the formulation of an hypothesis, the phrasing of that hypothesis such that the hypothesis may be disproved , the devising of an experiment to test the antithesis, followed by either more testing or the formulation of a new hypothesis.
Should we look at all relevant theories on a subject or should we just scoff at those that don't fit our agenda?
If by "don't fit our agenda" you mean, "don't follow the scientific method," then yes, we should scoff at them.
Intelligent design is another theory.
No. Intelligent design is a deopolitical agenda. As it is not disprovable, it is not scientific, and cannot claim the title of scientific theory.
This is the part of the whole equation that irks those of us who have studied the philosophy of science, even in the littlest bit. The ID crowd has proposed a solution to a problem that may or may not exist. Its as if we observed the revolution of the planets about the sun before formulating the concept of gravity, and we decided that the planets must be attached to big fuck-off strings, and the sun is spinning them around like bolos.
"After all," we might claim, "that is the only possible explanation! There is nothing left in nature to explain it."
The critics bash it because it takes into account that there might be a God and that things have happened due to design and not just accident.
There are many things wrong with this statement. I will cover two.
First, we bash it not because it takes into account that there might be a God, but that it requires God. You must first presuppose the existence of God before ID works, just like you must presuppose the existence of big fuck-off strings for the Bolo Theory of planetary movement.
The biggest problem with ID is that there is no way to disprove the existence of God. There is no test we could devise that would prove that God isn't there, playing dice with the Universe as the stake. With the Bolo Theory, we could concievably leave the atmosphere and travel around the moon and see that there was no big fuck-off string attaching the moon to the earth.
The second problem with your statement is simple. Science does not claim that our being here is just an accident. Just like the formation of a beautiful crystal or a stunning sunset is no accident, the evolution of life on earth follows distinct principles of physics. The expression of those principles is complex, and we simplify that into the study of biology and chemistry, but the outcome is no accident.
It just isn't designed, either. There is no "guiding force," or intelligence behind it. Things happen because the laws of the universe provide the means.
You have to believe, when you get down to it, that something comes from nothing - a contradiction to the known laws of physics.
You don't know much about the laws of physics, do you? Current theory includes the notion of particles popping into and falling out of existence. Just like background noise, there is no net gain of matter or energy, and so the balance is maintained: imagine a particle and anti-particle pair coming into existence, interacting, and recombining to form nothing.
This is a little simplistic. For a better, more accurate description, look up the Casimir Effect on Google.
This gets more at the heart of secularism, which IMO is an extremely repressive religion in and of itself.
Nice ad-hominem / strawman combination! Very elegantly done.
Just a quick note: the absence of something is not something. The absence of religious belief is not religious belief. Just so we're clear on that litt
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
What the hell are you talking about? I don't remember stating views on firing teachers, or standardized testing, or half the other shit you attribute to me.
I'm a Libertarian, against all public school, personally.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I don't see anything wrong with it. M4s for everybody! (Or Kalishnikovs, since they are much more common and debatably more reliable.)
If you wish to take the subject to ridiculous extremes, then I will say that I believe not even the government should be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction, and that the people would be well within their rights to use force to remove the capability to destroy civilization.
High protein lifestyles (and it is a lifestyle), one flavor of which is the Atkins diet, do work. Of course, it usually only works for "active" people. So the old, tired adage that exercise is required is true.
Nonetheless, I noticed that my weight loss and "get in shape" achievements were much stronger because, in part, of my focus to eat a high protein diet. And I found it really easy because I dig on meat. In fact, I still focus on high protein now - 4 years later and haven't found it to be a pain in the ass like other people. It's pretty simple, really.
I'm not saying it will work for everyone, but count me in too. It worked for me.
I just want to point out that we don't actually have rights now either. I can't buy alcohol until I'm twenty-one either because of federally-pushed state laws that arbitrarily prohibit the sale of alcohol to adults under the age of twenty-one.
One important factor is the age of the high school students surveyed. High schoolers generally don't take government courses until senior year, where they do a cursory and meaningless overview of the American system of government that more or less completely fails at teaching anyone anything about rights; but before senior year, most kids don't even necessarily know anything at all useful about the American government.
It's important to realize that part of the problem is that these kids' parents aren't bothering to actually teach their children about how government works and that they have rights, because more often it's more important that they perform well in the bullshit football/soccer/basketball game so they can have a small chance of getting a scholarship to a third-tier school based on sports ability and go pro someday. Or go bitter, and become a coach at some school to perpetuate the system. I guess.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and too the republic for which it stands. One nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
You aren't really pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth, you are pledging to uphold the ideas that the Flag represents. (Which, btw, is why so many people get upset about flag buring. They don't see flag burning as a way of protesting the policy(ies) of the US govmnt. To them buring the flag is means something deeper. It means essentially renouncing your citizenship and your belief in the ideas and ideals of the US itself. Really, it's treason AND blatant hypocracy to them, since you are effecively renouncing your citizenship, but doing it without actually having to give up the privilidges it provides. Trying to have the cake and eat it too....etc.) You are professing certain common ideals about what it means to be american. Because if you prefer tyranny to liberty, and oppression to justice, you really can't be "american" (sorry but USian just sounds SO bad). Of course there is room for debate about what some of these ideas mean in the concrete rather than the abstract. But the rejection of the most basic ideals (at least to me) indicates that you ought to renounce your citizenship. Put another way, what these ideas mean in a practical sense, their implementation in a logistical sense, and their exercise in the political realm are open to debate. But in order to have that debate, we at least need to agree on the most basic framework within which all this can take place (a constitutional democratic republic). We at least need some starting premises or beliefs on which everyone can agree.
With regard to the "under god" part. To me personally, it is an acknowledgement that the premises upon which the US was founded sprang from a religious belief that we are "endowded by our creator with certain unalienable rights". Now you don't have to necessarily believe in God (either in the Judeo-Christian sense, or in any sense at all) to believe in the idea of natural rights, but that is where the idea of natural rights originated from in the US tradition. Thus, IMHO, when you say "one nation under god" you aren't necessarily professing a personal belief in god, you are professing that you agree in principle with the ideas that our rights are not granted by man or the government, but our natural moral entitlement. Or, as someone else said much more eloquently, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed".
Yeah, it's about much more than a scrap of cloth.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
You're forgetting that they have to submit to captialists who need uneducated folks to agree with them that sending jobs overseas will make them more money then lay them off. Captialism works best with an uneducated population.
I see the Slashdot population is equally ill informed about their rights. A school principal or administrator is indeed considered an agent of the government for these purposes.
Public schools are government institutions, funded by the people. They must act accordingly and obey the constitution.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Note to mods: the above statement is largely accurate. Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvadore - read up on what happened in those countries in the 70s and 80s.
Such criticism is legit, nowhere does parent say 'America is teh Devil'. The fact is we intervened in South and Central America in order to stop socialists/communists from coming to power by democratic means. Whether or not that this was a good thing is debatable, but either way it_happened.
Truely creative. You're a poet, no? Why is it that bluestaters make the rest of us look bad? Same can be said for redstaters. Why must we turn against each other? Let's live and let live and try to solve our problems.
I would like to compliment you on actually reading my whole post before replying. Something not seen on Slashdot very often.
I agree. I think tests are valuable, and they can indeed mark a trend. For example, if 50% of a school's kids fail a certain type of test - they should look into it.
But alternatively they should not take test scores for granted - especially when it can negatively impact the KIDS.
For example. One of my best friends was an extremely poor test taker in High School. He failed almost every test. He also was merely a mediocre student, making Bs and Cs. He did terrible on the ACT, and even failed the ASVAB (which you almost have to try to do).
He couldn't get in to college, so he went to community college. He worked very hard for a few years, then got admitted to a regular college. He worked VERY hard for 5 years and now has a Masters in aeronautical engineering and is a well established engineer.
If they could have just found another way to judge his potential than the ACT, he might have saved a few years and a lot of extra effort.
I have no way of knowing what an ideal system would be, but I guarantee that an ideal system would not be one that would be applied nationally.
Tests are important - but they are not very realistic in real-world sense. Things like working in groups, research, and ability to find answers to tough issues are much more applicable.
But What do I know, I am just a guy in the system... I could be wrong.
Neocons is everyone's fault for taking Christ out of Christmas, preventing fundies from forcing kids to pray to their god, stopping them from teaching creationism (intelligent design) in science classes, and forcing non-fundies to convert under threat of death or harm.
2nd Admendment anyone? No one can ban guns. Gun control is legal, yet stupid and doesn't work, but Democrats aren't the ones sending jobs to other nations so corporations can get tax breaks. Republicians are comunists but only for corporations.
Are those "natural rights" written down somewhere, or are they just taken for granted? If they are not written down and guaranteed by the government, how can they then be guaranteed to anyone, lest he defend it with force?
I think my problem with understunding this is that you can not give or not give something you don't have. The people does not have much power over the government except from what the government grants the people, as the government has _virtual_ armed force monopoly. Of course, in my country all rights given to the people has bee fought for one by one, won by general strikes, elections, good political maneuvers etc, not by a revolution all at once.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I said it before, maybe if they actually taught civics in school kids might know these answers. I also noticed that made no metion of freedom of relegion, I guess that one doesn't count anymore.
There's no shame in being a pariah. -Marge Simpson
From TFA:
Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.
That's all true as far as current law goes, but it's a gross misunderstanding to suggest that the first amendment is about protecting pr0n. The framers made, and enforced, laws against obscenity and indecency. It's only recently that 1st amendment case law started to focus on protecting deviancy.
The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect political dissent and religious freedom. The protection was made broader than "political" speech only to prevent politicians from enacting censorship under the guise of decency laws.
Ironically, political dissent is condemned by left- and right-wingers, as either "fascist" or "unpatriotic", and public expression of religious views brings down a torrent of ridicule. The only "first amendment rights" people get passionate about are exactly the ones that weren't even intended by the framers: frivolous and indecent expression that serves no decent purpose at all.
Honestly, who is going to vote for a candidate who comes off as very elitst when all of his supporters act incredibly elitist I never understod this elitist attitude and never encountered it from liberals except APA which is more elitist than any liberal conservatives can point out. I just never seen it and I'm a liberal with liberal friends.
Republicans are bible thumping rednecks Not all are but with Evangicals taking over the Republician party, it does give that impression. Then again, why ignore the Democrat Bible thumpers? I'm surrounded by them.
Apologies. It wasn't my intention to portray you as supporting something you didn't. Whining about administrators enforcing censorship struck me as someone who would support the other crap.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for.
you're totally missing the point.
for one thing the principal does not control funding, the elected members of the school board, as agents of the electoral public ( ~= taxpayers), do. the principal is acting on his/her (possibly arbitrary) judgment as an autocrat.
but besides that minor detail, the issue is that high school kids don't understand First Amendment rights, and it's because their schools either all but ignore them, or (in this and other situations) actively suppress them.
yeah, youre gonna say, "minors in high school don't have constitutional rights, its not a democracy" and blah blah blah.
while that may be true to some extent, it's not entirely so, and comes back to the real issue: kids in high school are not taught to critically examine, research and argue issues, but merely to "sit down, shut up, memorize this, parrot that, walk the line, and be on time."
with that kind of enviroment and anti-intellectual mentality of the faculty and administration, why should we expect any of our high school kids to understand what the First Amendment guarantees.
Hell, we're lucky that *half* of them got it.
"I see the Slashdot population is equally ill informed about their rights. A school principal or administrator is indeed considered an agent of the government for these purposes. Public schools are government institutions, funded by the people. They must act accordingly and obey the constitution."
You're correct in a general sense that we must all obey the constitution, but you got lost on "for these purposes." This is a specific case where you don't have first amendment protection.
To repeat an example I used in another post, if you're an employee of a government agency and your job is to produce the employee newsletter, if one of your higher-ups edits or kills a story, you don't have first amendment protection simply because that person happens to be an employee of a government agency. The government has oversight over its own output -- it has to.
I'm aware that this is a fine line and a difference that may be difficult to grasp, and I certainly haven't made any friends with high school students by pointing this out, but this is how it works. Sorry.
Other people have probably explained it better than me. Keep reading.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Will you allow the same children to read a Muslim prayer at graduation? How about a pagan one? A satanic prayer? If you answer "no" to any of these questions, you must answer "no" to all. To do otherwise would be to "respect an establishment of religion."
The point about Congress vs. the states is simply ignorance. The Supreme Court established back in 1925 that the Bill of Rights binds state legislatures too. And beside the point, most states have virtually the same wording in their own state constitutions, making the point moot.
There are specific supreme court cases on this very thing, which makes it different from your government newsletter scenario.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The US doesn't have much structure for "continuing education."
:/
i disagree. its called 'self-study'. try your local library.
Better yet, go to your nearest 4-year university, and inquire about a "Friends of the Library" or similar program whereby you can gain borrowing priveledges.
realizing that you dont know as much as you once thought you did is a good thing, but now you gotta go do something about it.
or... i suppose you could just go to sunday school and church every week, and call it even. thats what my folks do, and they seem happy
I would argue that in order to be a good citizen, it is nessesary to vote for the party you believe will fulfull your needs the most. Always challenging the existing system in hopes of a better one, I believe is also an integral part of citizenship. As a previous poster said, the First Ammendment (and the others) are not universal rights, but principles which must be fought for at every opportunity.
Goddamn do I ever get tired of this undying misunderstanding of the McDonald's Coffee Lady.
1. McD's served coffee at temperatures capable of causing injuries requiring skin grafts.
2. As a result of multiple lawsuits McD's was ordered to lower the temperature of their coffee.
3. They didn't, at least not across the entire company.
4. A lady bought a cup of their coffee and (stupidly, but hey) managed to spill it all over her lap, necessitating skin grafts.
5. She sued McD's for medical costs.
6. The jury learned about McD's history of letting this happen and decided to punish them.
7. The award was reduced on appeal.
Key points - McD's was grossly negligent and the lady was not being greedy.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Moreover, mentioning the sordid affair in Nicaragua isn't flamebait; even if you happen to disagree with the BorgCopyeditor's POV, it's a real expression of a valid point whose merits one can argue, not some totally ungrounded attack on America. Modding that as "Flamebait" is uncalled-for.
[See "shouting fire in a crowded theater".]
Share and rate p
American's really need an extended period under a really repressive dictator so they stop taking it for granted
Unfotunately, The Powers That Be have had the last 30 years (rougly since Vietnam) to perfect the science of manipulating public opinion. 50 years from now there could easily a dictater in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and the People, too high on MTV and Cable, would gladly report to thhe FBI anyone un-American enough to be a democrat-sympathiser.
She was arrested before the confession, IIRC, then read her rights and asked to confess again as far as I could tell from reading the opinions of the justices. IANAL though.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'd like to see a video of that.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
I'm a high school junior myself, and was prompted to investigate the actual research behind these findings because I was pretty sure they were bullshit. For the most part, they are.
An unsurprisingly brief examination of the methodology and response percentages of the survey itself (readily available in PDF format online at http://firstamendment.jideas.org/downloads/future_ final.pdf) reveal a truth jarringly absent from both the CNN article and the survey's own final conclusion: students are actually considerably more defensive of First Amendment rights than their own teachers, principals, and American adults in general (statistics on responses of American adults were taken from an independently run annual survey conducted by the organization Freedom Forum.) While teachers, principals and adults rather seriously outstrip students in their supposed approval of the right of a free press and the right to express unpopular opinions, they prove themselves dramatically less capable than their students and children in understanding what those rights mean.
For reference, turn to page six of the complete survey. Observe that 99% of all high school principals agree that "people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions," compared to only 83% of high school students. Yet only 43% of these exact same high school principals believe that "musicians should be allowed to sing songs with lyrics others may find offensive," compared to 70% of all high school students. The urge to use bold font or italics here is almost overwhelming. Despite their near unanimous patriotic exhortations of First Amendment rights, the interviewed principals apparently feel this right does not extend to those damned rappers. 58% of teachers and 59% of adults agree with this same statement; both percentages are dramatically lower than that of student respondents.
A good, solid eighty percent of high school principals believe that newspapers should be allowed to publish articles without government review; except in cases where that government is themselves. In that case, just 25% of high school principals agree that student newspapers should operate without the "approval of school authorities." The same pattern is found among adult and teacher respondents -- overwhelming majorities approve a free press, except when that free press consists of students whose opinions might run contrary to their own. The vested interest of schools in maintaining a degree of control over student publications has already been established by other posters, but the hypocrisy is nevertheless remarkable.
The most telling part of the survey is that only 51% of students agree that newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories, it is that 58% of those same students believe that high school newspapers should be permitted to discuss controversial issues without the approval of the school's administration. This statistic is central to the discussion at hand. Students may not be so well trained as their parents and school faculty to recognize statements they are supposed to agree with, but they are strongly defensive of First Amendment rights when they are confronted with the practical application of them -- much moreso than grown adults. There is still a need for greater discussion and understanding of the Bill of Rights in public schools, and perhaps a need to widely revive American Civics courses -- my own public school does not offer any. 58% is still an uncomfortably small majority in favor of the free press. The hysteria of the CNN article and much of this discussion, however, is unwarranted. The need for more widespread education and appreciation of the American civil liberties is not limited to teenagers. In fact, they apparently already have a better grasp on their meaning than most adults.
That's a great story--I hope someone mods it up; if I had points right now, I would. Good job--it's heartening to see that some students stood up to that.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
but they'd rather plunge a red-hot porcupine up their asses
A red hot porcupine... now there's something you don't ever see, ever.
What would Brian Boitano do?
"None of those kids will succeed." - This sums up the arogance of your post. Teachers used to tell me the same thing 35yrs ago. I never paid any attention to thier idea of success and was thrown out of high school. Having dragged 2 kids through the education system I found that many teachers still care more about asserting thier authority than anything else.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Neither do the regular social activities in a public school. I don't intend to be "regular" about it.
2. Nutcases. Many, if not most homeschoolers are homeschooled because by brainwashing religious nutcase parents.
You didn't really read my post, did you?
3. Networking. Lifelong friends are made during school years. Homeschoolers I know have a vastly smaller pool of friends and acquaintances than schoolkids, and those friends are often of a lesser quality - selected by necessity simply for being of similar age, rather than for good character or complementary personality.
My kids' best and truest friends are not from school, they're affiliated through other learning activities, the "extracurricular" stuff. Friends can come from anywhere, but it is my observation that true conviviality often arises from working on common projects. Often the friendships that arise in schools have more to do with the social ordering of the system, such as finding yourself in a particular clique through peer pressure, seating arrangements, locker assignments, detentions, etc. Worse, it is religiously and nearly universally self-organized into brutal hierarchies of peers. I believe this is a natural outcome of a socially stressed environment, and similar to prisons. Google "herbert dosadi" for a novelistic exploration of this. The social conditioning in a Taylorized school is one of the main reasons to homeschool (cf. prev. post - J.T. Gatto).
The world is full of opportunities to socialize, it's what happens during public collaboration--an important part of any education. I think you may've befriended nutbar/recluse homeschoolers.
4. Inevitablity. Assuming you want the kids to go to university, they're going to have to sit highschool exams (or whatever the institution requires), so they have the learn the public school curriculam anyway.
I think they'll manage the curriculum pretty easily as an ongoing side project. I'm pretty confident because I know my kids, and have worked in education for quite a while, like my spouse.
5. Life. To do a serious job of educating your kids, you will have to sacrifice years that you could be working,
WTF? Like teaching your own kids is a freakin' sacrifice to someone who wants to?
or developing yourself as a person,
OK, now I know you're not an educator. If you were, you'd know that education is a two-way process, and a good educator is always 'developing'--you are merely the most advanced student in the room.
or doing all those things that you're still young enough to be able to do.
Maybe I was wise and had a wild and bountiful youth, then settled down to career/kids/mortgage with few regrets. Just maybe. Thanks for the advice, though.
That's a very real, and very high price, for a gamble - there is no guarentee that your efforts will result in better adjusted kids, but you will absolutely lose a huge chunk of your life.
Like, duuuuh, if you don't want to teach your kids, get someone else to do it. :-/
(You're presumably not so naive as to think spending most of each day with your kids is going to be nothing but bonding moments :-)
You're right, I am not naive, but thanks for presuming. I have some useful experience with community-building, and I know a few excellent examples of 'healthy' families. I think we'll get on with these particular kids just fine.
We have accomplished and sensible friends with a wide range of skills, who like children. Who told you that homeschooling involved spending all your time with the kids, anyway? Maybe people who think they can teach their kids on their own.
Sounds like 'the homeschooling that you see' isn't working. Are they doing it on principles of faith, perhaps? Maybe they're good parents but not really into 'pedagogy?' Just a guess.
Damn those pesky terrorists
For the record, the description I gave of the case was largely paraphrased from the Majority Opinion.
But think of the dangerous precedent. It's difficult to legislate a "reasonable" amount of time so we usually get laws that specify an occurrence as a demarcation point. That is, anything a suspect says to police before getting Mirandized is inadmissible as evidence. If we follow your logic that the police in the above case were only reading the woman her rights to get an admissible confession after she volunteered (or was coerced into) the first one, then what do you want to disallow? Anything already said pre-Miranda reading?
So basically your argument is that because there is no bright-line, regarding treatment during pre-miranda warning statements, that police should be given nearly every reasonable doubt.
I think we both appreciate how difficult this issue is. I think that there are a number of possible solutions. However, the current approach is discriminatory on the basis of education and social class (hence arguably has incidental racial implications as well). IANAL, but my aunt is a public defender who does defend a number of indigent (sp?) individuals accused of various crimes. In general, our system is designed so that defending these individuals is very difficult.
If we want a system which recognizes equality in the application of constitutional rights, then the argument that the right must be asserted to be valid becomes problematic.
Of course this argument is largely academic on free speech issues where the right fundamentally must be asserted to be meaningful. However, imagine if you were required (as a citizen) to communicate an idea by our government and only by asserting this right were able to avoid it, then we might have an argument. Of course, this is the way it is in Public Schools with the Pledge, et. al. so I guess it is relevant after all...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Revisionist history is telling kids that America was founded by fundies so god can bless them as they force other nations into being Christian or face death from nuclear weapons.
The first ammendment does not say that we should pay for it. Those "hicks" which you have so colorfully described might not like paying to have themselves painted as backward hicks. The NEA should go simply because there is no acceptible compromise which does not 'censor' someone.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Not too worried about it. China's a two-bit communist thug dictatorship. The only thing that will save them from following North Korea into the ash pit of history is to adopt capitalism. Capitalism leads to a prosperous middle class. A prosperous middle class leads to the desire for political freedom. Good-bye Communists.
Then, if China follows the European route, they'll socialize themselves into whining irrelevance. If they follow the U.S. route, they'll become firm and fast friends in freedom. Either way, China won't be making military threats thirty years from now.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".
The goverment controls Air America? That would be news to these guys and these guys as well.
Amen!
I will point out, however, that people from the outside should be distrusted just as much as incompetent school administration -- especially business-people, who are incredibly inept at anything relating to edumahcation. (See San Diego Unified School District for an example of this. Hello, Alan Bersin.)
My point, I guess, is just that most of the people who promise reform are worse than the people already in power. In my opinion, the only people qualified to run schools are the teachers who are actually in the trenches, teaching. Parents are idiots, administrators are isolated and have forgotten whatever they knew about teaching, and business people never knew anything about education anyway.
In either case, the teachers who are actually doing the work here get caught between parents who are idiots, administrators who don't know what they're doing, and people from business who think schools can be run like businesses.
(I'm not a teacher, just a college freshman who has known enough good teachers to be angry that they're being stifled.)
I went to HS in PA, and my school offered a civics class. It wasn't required though, and wasn't in the main path that most seniors took. I don't know how complete it was.
Diversity and cultural sensitivity are bad? Hell, war wil solve that problem. It's being educated in things that create it. Living in a state with others that are cultural clones of yourself makes for ignorance of the outside world. Most people-especially the "educated classes" do not understand or believe in the First Amendment.
Without the 1st admendment, we wouldn't have universities thus no educated people. Imagine no physicians.
Why are red staters so angry at colleges they never attended?
"Because, you should be allowed to show maimed, bleeding iraqis and american soldiers on television, but not burn certain pieces of cloth."
Actually, given the recent developements in embedded American jouranlists, mutilated bodies of Iraq's and American troops are expressly forbidden; the major news networks self-censor graphic violence or any attempts to quantify civilian casualities. When was the last time you saw a dead American soldier or Iraqi civilian on domestic TV? While this isn't directly government censorship, how quickly do you think an embedded reporter is going to get kicked out if he reports about numerous Iraqi dead or broadcasts pictures of mutilated American soldiers? This is why the networks self-censor war news.
For those in the states (like myself), try watching BBC News, Deutsche Welle, or even Al-Jazeera (yes i admit they're biased, but no more than Fox News is to the rest of the world) sometimes. It puts a totally different image of the war to you; not because they're extremely biased, but because I think many Americans are beginning to lose sight of the cost of the war in human lives.
It's irresponsible of domestic news organziations to not broadcast graphic images from Iraq; war should not be filtered through lenses of political correctness - the American public deserves to see and know what's happening in the name of freedom and democracy. I'm not saying broadcast blood and gore at prime-time, but on cable news networks we at least deserve to know what's being done in our name.
If you use "Plain Old Text" mode it'll make your \n be
. You can still use a lot of htmlish tags like and too. I don't know why it's not the default.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
The wall came down because Gorby would not let the east germans shoot protesters. In a dictatorship (and Russia, like China, North Korea, Cuba et al, was a dictatorship) if you can't shoot people when they get uppity you don't have a dictatorship. One phone call was all it took:
"Hello sir, the people are rioting, we're going to shoot them, be right back. You'll send troops if we need them right?"
"You can't shoot them."
"What else can we do?"
"Glasnost, perestroika, openness, honesty..."
"OK, I'm cashing in my bullion, buying a walled estate, and bringing my bodyguards, bye now."
If they had shot protestors the wall would never have come down. It's going back up, but at least the Poles, the Czechs, the Ukrainians etc. are on the outside this time.
China is a good example. Students were asked about Tianamen Square massacre recently and they responded that the state was right to kill students. No sympathy for Zhao, either, even posthumously. They shot people, tyranny continued.
Very simple, if you have a nasty oppressive system you have to able to kill citizens on a whim. If you can't kill POed people the nasty oppressive system collapses. Too bad the USSR collapsed before Enron went down, they might have had a chance at economic succes.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
Whoa whoa whoa whoa... easy there, pilgrim. I didn't say anything about them being backward hicks. That kind of comment would poison the discourse.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Should we add an amendment that says that if a right isn't listed in the constitution, people still have it?
Should we also add a sentence that says that, other than the specific things the Federal Government is authorized to do, the states are in charge of everything else?
[[What do you think that survey would show?]]
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
I can't really say :) I'm Canadian. But as to the grasp of humour, you're relying pretty heavily on shared experience to find something funny. I'm aware enough that most of the time I 'get the joke', but there have been a few instances where I've just been left scratching my head. Often I recognize it as humour, but I simply don't share enough of the perspective to find it funny.
This is not a sig.
"1862 A.D." instead of "1862 A.C.E."
Dude, both of those are wrong.
It should be written "A.D. 1862" or "1862 C.E.".
Jesus is believed to have been born sometime between 4 and 8 B.C. (Or, B.C.E.)
So it's not really centered on Jesus' birth, although that was the plan.
BTW the whole thing sucks since there is no year zero in either system.
I think there's a misconception the power over which people control how their taxes are spent. You elect people to decide how that money is spent, you have no other say than that. I don't like the fact that some of my taxes are going to pay for guns, and other people don't like their taxes paying for art. It doesn't mean I can force the government to spent my taxes in ways I want, I can just vote for someone who will spend my taxes the way I want them to be spent.
Sleep is for the weak!
I get the impression that our government is simply trying to have us limit our own freedoms because of fear.
They want us to be afraid of everything these days. Things like "homeland security" and there idiotic "terrorist threat level" are examples of this. What is your average joe suppose to do? Board themselves up in there house and hide in the basement everytime the stupid color scale hits red? This is America, we are suppose to laugh in the face of terrorist and there attempts to make us fear, not run and hide.
The worst part about it is that it seams to be working. Lots of people do seam to be afraid of things... and not just terrorism.
News flash... Seeing a bare ass on TV isn't going to make your child a sex offender. Hearing an expletive won't turn a kid into a degenerate loser.
Education is, and always has been, the best method for making sure kids keep on the right track. I think it is a parents responsibility to make sure there children aren't scared to ask them questions about anything and everything. If your kid sees a word written somewhere (like the inside of a bathroom stall or the back of the seat on a bus) he/she should know they can always ask there parents and get a straight, correct, answer without any chance of getting in trouble. We should teach our kids about sex. We should tell them about "alternative" lifestyles they might be exposed to.
Anyway... I know when I was 13 my friends and I had already gotten our hands on numerous dirty magazines and other things of that nature and all of us managed to grow up, go to college, and live a decent life.
If you want censorship then get the hell out of this country, there are plenty of places you can go live if you want others making all your decisions for you. You don't deserve to live here if you believe in limiting others freedoms.
I graduated last year and in 10th grade we had both "Citizenship and Government" and another history class. Of course, half a quarter (about 22 days) isn't nearly enough to cover everything.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
I think someone needs to clarify that terrorism in today's context means "terrorism against white people." Ironically enough, groups like the KKK, the skinheads, and the Neo-Nazis are not considered terrorists despite the fact that they are alive and thriving in the US (when was the last time $200 Billion+ was spent to combat the KKK). In 2004 alone there were more than 9,000 victims of hate crimes and over 41% of those were against people of color. Forget beheadings, people of color have been "terrorized" in the US for hundreds of years, unless you in the US don't consider slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and lynchings, acts of terrorism. If the US want to kill the terrorists, it should start in its own backyard.
This is the extreme opposite of the military-religious "war on/of terror" approach, but it is almost as far from solving the issues that cause all that hatred that leads to terrorism.
Bunch of Irish guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the IRA. They had their reasons for fighting the British establishment.
Bunch of Basque guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the ETA. They had their reasons for fighting the Spanish establishment.
Bunch of Arab guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the Al-Qaeda. They had their reasons for fighting the American establishment.
Bunch of Chechen guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create their liberation army. They had their reasons for fighting the Russian establishment.
Bunch of Tibetan guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to... oh wait, they're freaking non-violent freedom-fighters so they can be conveniently ignored in favour of doing business with their occupiers...
Anyway, there is a certain pattern that would suggest that nations (often large and with imperialist tendencies) which insist on controlling people and territories outside their natural domain tend to be more affected by terrorism ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter") than smaller, democratic states which do not project their power outside their natural borders.
Perhaps recognizing and supporting all peoples' right of self-determination would help remove one of the major root causes of "terrorism"? If you lived under foreign occupation, what would you do?
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
Some of you will probably flame me for this, but I think political correctness is behind a lot of this attitude. More often than not, when first amendment rights are trampled, political correctness is at the bottom of it.
Proverbs 21:19
INSERT = "white, male, usually upper-class and married"
Which is why every president since Lincoln has been a $INSERT church-going Christian.
Let's not forget Latervia. They've had a pretty good run too ;)
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
It's easy to get people to donate to charity for some extraordinary crises, like the tsunami. But getting them to donate for some recurring cost like running a school system for less forunate -- well lets just say that England tried that during Charles Dickens' time -- it didn't work very well.
I'll grant that our public education system could benefit from some entrepreneurial spirit. But selling off the system to a bunch of robber barons is not going to give the least fortunate among us anywhere near equal opportunity.
You might be greedy enough to think that you don't owe anything to the well-being of your fellow citizens. I for one am happy to pay, accoring to my means, to support services provided by my goverment of and by the people that I may potentially need at some future time.
Could be. Perhaps I completely misunderstood your point(s)... maybe I read too much into your commment, grouping it with "but public-funded education is EVIL" group, and assuming that was the context of the comment.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Go back to your mama, little one, grow a bit, and come back when you have something more interesting to say.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Must you remind me of the results of my Government class (high school senior talking) taking the INS test? It was horrible. About 5% of us got better than 95%, and about 20-25% of us passed.
And this test... was asking things like "How many stars are there on the flag", "what do they represent?", and "the three branches of government are called what?" How in the name of all that is good does one fail such a test? The only question on there that natural citizens shouldn't be expected to know is what INS form you use to apply for naturalization. (The teacher gave that one to us...)
(For perspective, myself and my class were from a generally middle to upper-middle class city of 250,000 in the Southern California area).
Should have talked to the ACLU - for a while (I think it has since shut down), my high school had exactly that - an independent paper, published by students, and distributed on school grounds without prior restraint.
The case would be "Independent Emery" vs. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Michigan courts circa 1992 - I couldn't find anything to link to online, though.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
At some point? That's the attitude that's they want you to have. Eventually someones going to have to stand up and do something (not you of course, somebody) or it's going to be too late.
Oh look, several years from now, it IS too late and nobody did anything. How bout stepping up NOW?
Actually, he presented actual proof of no such thing. There was no meeting in Malaysia, at least not one that proves anything the troll above is claiming. The Bush admin has admitted that this claim was a mistake based on confusion over names they thought sounded similar. The poster above - or his blogger friend - likely is well aware of this, but continues to spread this falsity because it helps his argument, even though he knows it is false. Check out his blatant lie about riverbend (the Iraqi blogger) at the end of this post. This guy is a troll, which explains the moderation.
Feel free to argue if you like, but personally, I think it a reasonable assumption that the Swiss government knows what its own gun laws are.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I never understod this elitist attitude and never encountered it from liberals ... I just never seen it and I'm a liberal with liberal friends.
...)
...
Well, since you asked. (Not trying to flame anyone here, just trying to illustrate what it looks like from the other side
elitist = condescending, arrogant, we-know-better-than-you: After the election, liberals were complaining that conservatives voted against their own best interest when they voted for Bush. Not a great way to win friends and influence people. If you want someone's vote, you have to win it by showing some respect.
elitist = smug, self-righteous: Liberals are oh, so proud of how diverse and "correct" they think they are.
elitist = putting on superior airs: Liberals are so certain that they have absolute truth (which for them is, "the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth"), and so sure that they're smart and everyone else is a moron.
Just a few examples
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Freedom from religon
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
Only an educated populace can appreciate the freedoms. It always was so and always will be.
"Teaching" about the First Amendment is pointless. The understanding of its role and importance can only come from reading the great books of Plato, Voltair and Hegel and learning about world history from books and museums. Watching History Channel (if even that) is not a valid substitute.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I also found a string that Google said was a cheat for a Windows game...
How did that get into my RAM?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Bullshit. If parents were responsible for the education, we would still be living in the Stone Age. The society is responsible for children's education and public schools funded by taxes are just one of the ways of cattying out this responsibility.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
OK, another elitist with hidden class prejudice, even though he probably doesn't realise it...
You can't teach students to be good citizens. You can't make a "functional citizen" by giving a few classes on civics and basic math. The only way to achive this noble goal is to develop the kids as humans as much as you can in the 10+ years they are at school. You need to give them all the knowledge of human civilization, the philosophy, the art, the great literature, fill them with the ideas of Kant, Plato, Marx, make them think, make them understand all that. With the same intensity you must give them natural sciences, explain everything we already learned about the Universe and how it works. Only after you do that can a person become a "functional citizen".
P.S. This applies to all kids, even young black drug pushers from the ghetto raised by single moms on welfare. Good education does wonders to everyone.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
It's funny, really, seeing the first amendment be invoke as some sacred right to troll a privately own bulletin board, or cheat in an online game (apparently duplicating quest items is a form of speech, don't you know), or whatever. And the ones who scream the loudest are the ones who have no fscking clue at all what that ammendment says.
In fact, I'll go one step forward and say: they seem to interpret it as actually meaning anyone _but_ the government. You ban them off a game for cheating, and they'll scream for months about how you violated their first ammendment righst. But if the government decides that it's unpatriotic to say this or that, or imprisons someone for saying non-patriotic things... hey, that's ok. It's the government, after all. They're allowed to do that, right?
Sad.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Could you please point out the section that says the Bill of Rights only applies to US citizens? I'm having trouble finding it.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Back in the 1970s, people on the left used the term "ideologically sound", first as something of a compliment, and later as a semi-sarcastic put-down applied to people who took themselves and their political positions too seriously.
Eventually "ideologically sound" gave way to "politically correct", which better expressed the sense of ludicrousness that many on the left felt for other lefty's self-seriousness.
And then, out of nowhere, the right somehow overheard the term, and began using it in a completely serious way to disparage the left. What had formerly been a term one lefty used to poke gentle fun at another lefty became a serious weapon in the hands of the right.
The bizarre thing is that this transformation in the way "political correctness" began to be used coincided with the rise of the right, and the withering away of the public left. The ironies were too much - at a time when mainstream politics lurched to the right, the right began using a left-wing term of irony to attack the left for their supposed dominance. Absurd, and yet it worked for the very reason that the left were so weak and the right so strong.
The only reason that the term "politically correct" became so popular is that it was precisely wrong. Had it been correct, the right would never have the cultural power to make it stick.
Conclusion: Today, "political correctness" means the opposite of what is intended. It is evidence of the dominance of the right.
Here in NZ, our tax law is quite clear. There are very few loopholes, and corporations are taxed at the exact same rate as human beings. Yet still they manage to thrive and multiply. In fact, R&D is not considered a pre-tax expense. It's just a cost of doing business, yet still we innovate (e.g. WETA Digital)
Despite the US making loads of mouth-music about "Free Trade" it props up its Corporations with the most generous corporate welfare of any other country (currently adds up to $150 billion) as well as tarrif protections and price controls.
If corporations have the same rights as an individual (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), they should have the same obligations -- but they don't, do they? They are taxed less, they can't be arrested or do jail time even if they knowingly and willfully kill purely to protect already their over-inflated profit margin (Ford Pinto).
<sarc>Obviously we can't ask these "people" to share the burden while they reap all those benefits. They are too poor, too weak, too frail, too moronic to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world.</sarc>
from the right means lim x+ of some funciton. that is a RIGHT HAND LIMIT and ALL 3 of my calc teachers said it goes this way: - . There because you can't get bigger than it's impossible. O thank you about my english, im a science person. would you make fun of Einstein because he sucked at school. Not saying i'm one of thesmartes people ever, but would you?
Well, just remember the motivation behind the school's banning of the flags.. that motivation is the fact that SOMEONE is always whining about SOMETHING to the school... they will look at you as just another whiner.
The way to fix schools is not to complain, but to get reasonable people onto school boards. School boards all too often are local folks with too much time on their hands that neither know the value of their freedom nor are willing to defend it. Consequently, they won't go out of their way to defend your younger brother's freedom to wear an American flag.
Getting people on school boards who have the nads to tell the whiners to shut up and put up will do a lot to get rid of the idealogue of intolerance that is the problem in the schools. By the way, guess which end of the political spectrum is in control of schools?
The US supported dictatorships in Argentina and Uruguay, too, that's part of Plan Condor (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operat ion_Condor/.
.
In Uruguay, the left (FA) was the minority in that time, but they made the mistake of having a 350k+ people public gathering, in a country with 1.5 million voters.
The elections were stolen from the favorite a center-leftist to say the least, with a little help from the CIA (e.g.: dead people voting, burned votes, it's not clear who would have won otherwise), and were won by the the authoritarian extreme right that later gave the government to the military for 11 dark years
"Special forces" got trained in Panama by US forces, in special "intelligence" techniques, like the ones you have seen in iraq performed to prisoners. They used them on comunists and tupamaros (a guerrilla group that was already completely in jail), and on everybody they didn't like.
Those military groups wouldn't have ever attained that power without the lots of support from the outside that they got. Of course, the US were not as important in Uruguay as in other countries, but it shows the kind of support they had for such regimes in south America.
Ironically, after 1991, the weapons inspectors found Iraq was much closer to having a nuclear weapon than the intelligence community believed. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of the result this time. I wonder if they had known how close Saddam actually was to producing nuclear weapons in 1991 if the decision might have been different. Remember, they knew Saddam had a weapons program, they just thought that he was years away from having the capability of building nuclear bomb and further from a long range delievery system.
9/11 didn't really "change everything" so much as it made people realize that the "stability" that they were protecting wasn't stable. It's didn't change the world, it changed our assumptions about it. If you want to argue about how much freedom is worth in terms of dollars and lives, and whether the US has any obligation to risk it's people and money for the freedom of others, then that's a debate worth having. Just remember that US history isn't to kind to that proposition. (Just look at how many other countries the US fought in, and how many wars were actually fought IN the US.)
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Gay repression is a matter of opinion and students should not be forced to agree with it.
Abstinence is really the only safe way in many people's opinions, including my own. Shouldn't that have more of a focus? Handing out condoms encourages children to have sex pretending it is "safe". Is it the job of the school to encourage such behavior?
We all have our own opinions but who has the right to judge what my children are taught and exposed to while they are in public education? Isn't this still my right? I will not let my child be taught the benefits of oral sex just as I will not let my child be taught the benefits of drug use from a dealer.
If my children have questions about things then I encourage them to come and talk to me about it. I am not squemish about these things but there is are proper times and levels as to when this information should be presented.
The first amendment only goes so far. I don't believe it gives us the right to force others to listen to our opinion. It does not protect all speech at all times and all places. It is not to let the minority oppress the majority with their opinions. Instead it is to allow the minority to speak up and let them be heard by those who will listen.
Isn't the real question who funds the groups that are trying to push homosexuality and sex? I know the ACLU and other such groups are bought and paid for by the pornography industry. Since we love to accuse politicians about strongly having the agenda of its supporters that it would be fair to say who these people really work for? Homosexuals make much better customers and it is all really about the money for these guys.
Please keep this discussion going.
"A TEACHING JOB IS COMPLETELY CUSHY"
Spoken like someone who thinks manual labor is the only kind that matters. Probably because it's the only kind you're good at.
Incidentally my teaching job requires me to wrestle (and sometimes be assualted by) students with severe emotional and mental disabilities. You couldn't do it. I worked as a roofer for my dad every summer in Florida until I was 17. You couldn't do that either.
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.
Nonsense.
Well, at least it seems as nonsense.
If your paper does not belong to the highschool, then what is the principal doing reading it before it is posted?
Anyway, if you already have the articles, you can always publish it independently, previous talk to the sponsors.
That is not a free speech issue, it's just someone using the power they have.
Firstly, I was a teacher. I left because the administration continued to let good teachers leave, and hired poor ones.
I have never had perfect grammar or spelling, and am not concerned about it. Actually, the English language is far more complex than, and less logical than any of the computer languages I have taught/used. This is a forum, not a thesis. A place to debate. When people use typos and spelling as ammo, it just shows what is wrong with the mentality of our culture.
"If I can find a spelling mistake in a teachers writing, then I am not part of the problem, I am smarter than the teacher."
Heck, I can't tell you how many times a parent has told me I was a terrible teacher because I couldn't answer one of their childs questions right away. I once had a student ask me the date that a certain president was born. Because I didn't know, I was a bad teacher. I offered to show her how to find that information, but that wasn't good enough. Our entire culture is like this. Find one flaw, and now that is the cause of all problems. I just get annoyed by this, and then also by people who go and defend these people. It just goes to show where our younger crowd learn their mentality.
Oh yeah, and I didn't sit and spell check this either.
This is true. Overall I don't think i had any lousy teachers. I think the number of those increases as the average income of the area the school is in decreases. Its almost like poor = stupid. And I'm not convinced that being poor causes stupidity, because it also seems to work the other way around too...you're poor b/c you are stupid. Some schools might not be as high quality as others, but it doesn't justify dropping out either I'd think.
The 'jesus is god' teacher should be fired if he's working for a public school. Thats his personal belief and he shouldn't be trying to force it onto others' children.
I'm not sure why you'd want to legalize cannibalism (or even what it really has to do with this topic). Most people don't want to be someone else's lunch so killing them for that is denying them their rights.
I think you'd have to study the effects of it first. True, if you setup your will to allow your friends to do so,and they want to, it probably should be ok.
However, given that no other living creature i'm aware of will 'eat' its own species tells me something. Look no further then mad cow disease to get an idea of why this might be a bad idea.
If you could walk to your meeting place in the 18th century, you can walk there in the 21st. The car just makes it more convenient, and there is no amendment that gives us a right to convenience.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
The US has also refused UN weapons inspections.
Indeed, but we didn't sign a cease-fire that said that we would allow them.
Taking and holding Baghdad was judged impossible in 1991, and it's probably impossible now. The difference is that Bush Sr. had the sense to listen to his military advisers.
And what does that have to do with the fact that Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors, on the condition that if you keep fooling around we were going to come back.
Warning someone 200 times that you're going to kill them doesn't make it legal to do so. The same principle applies to nations.
No, and warning them we are going to hold up our end of a bargain that they made with us earlier doesn't make it legal either, the bargain they made earlier does.
Saddam has been kicking inspectors out of his country, then saying "Oh, come right in," for the last 10 years. Then he wonders why people were getting annoyed with him.
Sure they were making progress, he said that right after Saddam kicked them out again. And then Saddam offered to let them come back in. More stalling tactics.
The thing is, I agree that our current President Bush went about it the wrong way. He really should have built more of a coalition, since everyone else should have held up their end of the bargain as well. The problem is indeed that we were sending the wrong message. The message we should have been sending is that the UN does still have teeth. Unfortunately, we sent that the UN is toothless, since they won't hold up their end of the deal, but the US might come in the UN's place.
The parent post is an illustration of the point of the original article, that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it and forget the truth.
Yeah, I noticed that about your post.
People say rights are inherent, but that's just according to their moral viewpoint. It's silly to pretend that other moral viewpoints don't exist.
There are some rights that virtually everyone agrees upon, but, the principle is the same. The only way you get a right is if everyone agrees you should have it.
Part of being a child is being told what to do. Probably as a consequence of this, children tend to be quite illiberal. Their model of the world seems to be based on authority figures who decide what 'should' and 'should not' happen. Media aimed at children or teenagers seems to reinforce this - a children's news programme will tend to lead with a story like 'Activity X is bad because Y. Should it be banned?'. This is the main angle on many opinion polls of younger people; should something or other be forbidden. It's not until adulthood, and getting more freedom for yourself, you realize how important it is to protect the freedom of others.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
this will get you a third answer:
should the government be able to restrict internet contents for obscene material?
Asking if they should have the power is different from using the power. "Should the government have the power to outlaw [x]?" is a different question than "Should the government outlaw [x]?" and it is certainly different than "Can the government outlaw [x]?" which is asking for the current state.
That could certainly also be reported as "X% of students feel government can strict obscene material on the internet." using "can" in the "I think this is an acceptable power for the government to have" sense.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You didn't really read my post, did you?
I did. You gave no indication that you had no need of homeschooling networks and support systems to give your kids wider social interaction while most kids are off limits at school.
Ignoring the stupider barbs, your added info makes it sound like you're far from the surefire disaster of many homeschoolers, and perhaps a little likely to do well than your initial post suggested (though it also makes you sound blaise about some real problems; "It'll never happen to me" sort of thing, but that's your and your kid's business, not mine.)
No, none of the homeschooled people I know were based on principles of faith, it was parental dissatisfaction with public schools. All of them seem worse off. There will always be exceptions, and I genuinely hope your kids do well (it sounds like they're better off than most).
given that no other living creature i'm aware of will 'eat' its own species tells me something. Look no further then mad cow disease to get an idea of why this might be a bad idea.
That is definitely not a given. Many, many, many animals eat their own kind. Sharks, insects, frogs, snakes, wolves, weasels, birds, etc. all eat their own. The prion issue as demonstrated by mad cow disease is a real concern. I'm sure that proper cooking can degrade them far enough to be safe, but I'm not sure what that cooking would entail. Eating any animal after it has died of natural causes is a little iffy, so there would really need to be either very careful food preparation, or a great deal of selectivity when selecting who is used for meat. These are, however, just health risks, and in a culture that eats undercooked beef on a regular basis and has no legal problems with fu-go, I think the risks assessment should be in the hands of the diner.
No, no... you are forgetting the fact that Clinton is the source of all evil, and so is retroactively at fault for all these issues...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Its almost like poor = stupid. And I'm not convinced that being poor causes stupidity
I think their are two issues; ignorance and stupidity. These are often mistaken for one another. An ignorant person can seem very stupid or foolish, but they can be acting on the best information they have. The amount of misinformation that can be assimilated by an intelligent person is astounding. The poor quality of education delivered in some schools can ruin a person for life.
The 'jesus is god' teacher should be fired if he's working for a public school. Thats his personal belief and he shouldn't be trying to force it onto others' children.
Heh, I take it you did not go to public school. They did not even fire the teacher who was regularly drunk and assaulted one of the girls. (Some classmates of mine busted is nose though.)
I'm not sure why you'd want to legalize cannibalism (or even what it really has to do with this topic). Most people don't want to be someone else's lunch so killing them for that is denying them their rights.
Cannibalism was a tangent used to provide an extreme example of how a teacher grades on their opinions, not on the assignment. I never mentioned anything about repealing the murder laws. The eating of human flesh, however, is a taboo and is illegal even with the consent of all parties. Why is that? Who exactly is getting hurt? This is a religious practice in some parts of the world, and was one in several more before being exterminated by another prominent, violent religion that I won't bother to name.
/me still clueless :)
Well, you certainly can't make a "functional citizen" by *failing* to teach them civics and basic math. And here is the problem-- everyone wants to jump ahead and teach their kids the "high" ideas of Kant, Plato, and Marx without first teaching them civics and basic math. You get a bunch of illiterate kids hearing lectures on "the forms" and "spacial intuition" and "capitalist pigs", and guess what, they don't understand it.
If you read my post, I am *not* saying anything like, "Great works of literature should be restricted, for only the elite should read them." I'm saying, get your priorities straight and understand that education is a process, and you need to walk before you can run. Teach kids to read (yes, all kids) *before* you wax poetic about "the joys of reading" and "the enlightening nature of great literature".
If you teach kids about "the joy of reading" and they can't read, they'll never understand it. However, if you teach kids how to read and don't quite get around to hearing the "joy of reading" lecture, well, they might discover the joy of reading for themselves anyway. Hey, you know what, they might even *read* about it on their own.
P.S.- You might want to tone down on the racism in your post script. Not all black people are poor, and not all poor black people are drug-pushers. The statement "This applies to all kids, even young black..."-- well it seems to imply it's somehow profound that black people can benefit from education. As though that's surprising. As though you assume they shouldn't. It's a terrible thing to say.
The "old way" explicitly said, "hey, Buddhist, this is the 2005th year after Jesus birth." The new way says "hey, Hindu, this is the 2005th year of the friendly world-standard numbering scheme based on the birth of the Christian leader." I fail to see how the latter is less offensive to those that "Common Era" was designed not to offend. :-)
That, or perhaps the birth of Stallman (unlike the Christian story, whereby the saviour was born TO a virgin, in the GNU story, the saviour was born to STAY a virgin - see below)
<Larry The Cable Guy>I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.</Larry The Cable Guy>
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Your points are so 1984--"We are at war with Iraq--We've always been at war with Iraq."
Its nice that you drink the kool-aid and think this is about protecting the freedom's and liberties of others. Interestingly, we are very choosy about who's freedoms we protect. Could there be other interests?
...is that people had to pay for this info when all they had to do was tune into Jay Leno People Say The Funniest Things bit. :~(
A hand up and a foot on every chest...
Captialism works best with an uneducated population.
How, please explain?
Capitalism is a two-way street that involves both the selling and buying of goods and services. Thus, capitalism works best WITH educated people. Remember, someone who buys your product also must be educated enough to work and earn the money from another corporation whom him/her works for (or self employeed).
Life is not for the lazy.
You would have been 100% correct, except that you are 90% wrong. :) You see, the 10+ years that are allocated to compulsory education in most societies is enough to teach the students everything. We should not be discussing whether they need civics in grade 10 - they should know so much more by then that this question itself would appear ridiculous.
If you are saying "at 18 years old kids should know basic math and be able to read the labels in the supermarket" (exaggerating), we have already lost. And the capitalist opressors have won.
People are capable of discovering the joy of reading. It just so happens that the society sometimes prevents in through a variety of ways. The most obvious one being, of course, television. It's hard work to grow and develop yourself, it's not something that just "might" happen. And without some help from the society most people never get to it.
P.S. It was intentionally phrased that way. The point is that even those people, who are so often considered "evil", "uneducable" and "hopeless" and who are condemned to poverty, illiteracy and disproportionally harsh prison sentences, can "see the light" and become good citizens, purely through the magic of good education.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
OTOH, if they did, then you should have done as I suggested. You would find that the principal couldn't have stopped the activity in this instance.
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. What did you think I meant when I said advertising supported? The only funds we needed were to print the paper, and that was done by a local newspaper. Furthermore, the distinction of on or off school grounds is irrelevant. If I want to distribute religious literature before or after classes this is allowed. They can't stop it. In fact we had a little group of those "apocalypse is coming" crazies who would lecture and leaflet outside school every day (they were students).
Section 1 of the the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Nothing you quoted there contradicts me in anyway. No state shall abridge those protections... the protection is specifically that "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech"... therefore states cannot make a law allowing Congress to abridge freedom of speech. But the state can still do so on its own, because the Constitution has no protection against it.
Note that in the Bill of Rights, only 1 of the 10 amendments applies to national, state, and local governments equally: the right to bear arms cannot be infringed by anyone. All the other rights are protected solely from infringement by the federal Congres.
Note further that most states of the USA provide their own guarantee of freedom of the press, but this is not "the First Amendement". In New York, for example, it's the eigth amendment.
Hmmm, that's not quite the right interpretation. The crux of the decision was disrupting the school day. The same rules apply to school sponsored papers and non-school sponsored papers. I don't think the funding of the paper ever factored into it.
The lesson here is that the rules change in a school, until the Supreme Court decides otherwise (which I think is doubtful).
Anyway, if you already have the articles, you can always publish it independently, previous talk to the sponsors.
That is not a free speech issue, it's just someone using the power they have.
Let me answer these one by one. 1) Because you'd be suspended otherwise. 2) You could, but you would be suspended. 3) Of course its a free speech issue, if you're being punished for exercising your free speech by the government it obviously isn't free!
Oh wait Congress sends federal funds to local schools.
In the event that the administrator is acting as an agent of Congress, then the instructions Congress can give him are indeed limited by the first amendment. However, the specific comment to which I was responding was: "Once you talk government, you talk first amendment", and it is emphatically false.
The first amendment ONLY applies to the federal government. There are other levels of government that are completely immune to it.
In your view, the police department could walk in to the local newspaper
No. In my view, the police department is a function of state government, and the state constitution provides it's own promise of freedom of speech completely separate from the first amendment of the national constitution.
Indeed, the fact that each state independently created it's own Freedom of Speech right proves that I'm correct: because if the national Constitution's Bill of Rights applied to all levels of government, there would've been no need for the states to provide a Bill of Rights as well! It'd have been redundant.
The fact that it needs to be said, I agree, is depressing. However, kids *do* graduate from high school every year who don't understand how to do basic arithmetic, can barely read street signs, can't balance a check-book, don't know how to write a resume, can't speak proper English, don't know how to fill out a basic application, don't really have any understanding of the laws they are expected to follow, can't find the US on a map, and generally don't know what society expects of them. And it's not just occasional. It's a systemic problem that continues to fail an unacceptable portion of kids graduating from public schools.
So if you say, we've already lost, then we've already lost. Now, how do we get back in the game? I say, get back to focussing on those sorts of *functional* skills and understandings first. If it takes 10+ years for a given kid to learn that much, then that's what the kid should learn during those 10+ years. However, I think we'll find that focussing on those functional skills will create more functional students earlier, thereby letting us spend a greater portion of the 10+ years on "high" ideas.
So just because the immediate focus is on functional skills does not mean that the eventual aim of "enlightenment" won't be reached.
Besides, contrary to popular belief, you cannot *force* enlightenment on people. You can expose them to ideas, talk to them, and try to show them other ways, but curiosity and willingness to learn are not teachable. That moment where the words you're saying become an internal idea that your students understand is *beyond your control*.
P.S. It was intentionally phrased that way.
I know that, but your post seemed to assume that I was being elitist and racist, and simultaneously condescend to poor people and black people. I understand the condescension was meant to be sarcastic, but none the less, it was *you* who was bringing condescension into this, and not me.
Does it count when they've *all* been left behind?
Excuse me, but I find it easier to Lead when, like, everyone falls in behind me. Doh!
Besides, what kind of messages does that send to our troops and to our enemies, to question my Leadership?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Who is preventing unpopular opinions from being expressed?
The article, and my post, was referring to high school students. In school the teachers and principals frequently come down on the kids for expressing opinions.
The parents do the same. Some want the Bible removed from the library because they are atheists. Others don't want their child to study Mark Twain because his books have the word "nigger" in them. Still more don't want the kids reading Of Mice and Men or other novels because they are too "graphic".
Growing up in this kind of environment, the kids have a tendency to think that free speech is somehow wrong, and that ideas in and of themselves are dangerous.
BTW, I apologize to everyone for misspelling "blame" in my original post.
Proverbs 21:19
and not the second one?
Gee, that's funny. I have no idea what your position on the issue was, and what your teachers was, because you cannot seem to communicate clearly. However, it seems to me like you argued that right limits of a function don't exist at infinity, because infinity is the biggest number possible. However, infinity can be bigger than infinity. You're wrong.
Einstein could communicate clearly. I'm an engineer, focused in math - this doesn't excuse me from trying to write proper English. In fact, it makes it more necessary; no one cares if their server in a cheap diner can speak proper English. But if you ever want anyone to actually give credence to the research you do, being able to communicate that research clearly, properly, is a given.
So yes, if Einstein couldn't *write* properly, couldn't do math, and was fucking dumb enough to mouth off to a teacher when he was wrong... I would, in fact, make fun of him.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
For those who are interested, here are links to the full results for the study and the Executive Summary and Key Findings
If you actually paid attention, you would know Saddam listened to the warnings. He let the weapons inspectors in. Hans Blix was there looking for the WMD the US claimed was there. Then the US told him to get out and invaded anyway.
I am trolling
The point being that ignorance (not to mention ignoring) of the constituion isn't limited to high school students. That failing goes all the way to the top.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
They're not a surprise to those who remember what you're saying. But too many people don't, and need to be reminded. I'm just emerging from the state schooling system. There is no way any kids of mine are going to school without major reform happening. (I know, typical slashdotter and all, the chance of this actually mattering is very small, but hey)
I am trolling
1) If you make your own newsletter, in your own time, with your own resources, paid by your advertisers, you are an independent publisher, it's ludicrous that some principal at some highschool requires to read it and pre-censor it, just because you go to that school, or distribute it to people that go there.
Of course, if you were using school resources to publish it, he would have the right to do so, but there was some talk about it having its own ads.
2) I don't see how.
3) you can be punished because of exercising free speech, and it can still fail to be a free speech issue. For example if you use your free speech to confess something punishable, or to incite people to commit some crime.
In this case, _if_ the newsletter is representative of the school, and controlled by the school, for example, the school would be just excercising editorial rights. No free speech issue. Go make your own pamphlet, kids.
The article, and my post, was referring to high school students.
;^)
In the '80s, when I was in HS, the term politically correct didn't exist and wouldn't for some time. But I remember several discussions in several classes regarding the First Amendment rights of students. The upshot was that the Bill of Rights didn't entirely apply to students on school grounds, especially during school hours. Our school newspaper was subject to administration review/approval, we could not use profanity in school, and we could not wear t-shirts with alcohol company logos or profanity on them. Our lockers and belongings could be searched and/or siezed.
Again, "politically correct" wasn't yet defined and we were no more free than today's students to express certain ideas (i.e. a classmate was suspended for presenting a paper titled "Acid is Good For You").
Our school rules regarding student rights/privledges were actually very liberal compared to most other public and private schools at that time and we were well aware of that.
The parents do the same. Some want the Bible removed from the library because they are atheists.
Bad parenting does indeed screw kids up. But that's not an issue of political correctness or not, that's an issue of bad parenting.
BTW, I think your example is a straw man. If, in fact, there are atheists who believe in censorship, then they're as foolish as any theist who believes in censorship. Movements to ban your literary examples (Twain et al.) significantly pre-date the rise of "political correctness" in our country. On a wider scale, book-banning has been many a fool's errand since before public libraries came to exist.
BTW, I apologize to everyone for misspelling "blame" in my original post.
Kno swet.
I disagree with the premise that some kids may need 10 years to learn 2+2. All the information I have suggests that in 10 years anyone (except a small percentage of kids with various "complications") can learn trigonometry, calculus and at least the basics of differential and integral calculus. And at least the basic of statistics and probability theory. And by "learn" I mean understand and be able to use, not just memorize and train to mindlessly solve similar tasks. The same level of performance can be achieved in all other important fields as well. All this doesn't even require expensive equipment and super-teachers. The available assets would do just fine, if only someone sane could set some basic rules in stone (i.e. "not lying", "not training for the tests", "finding out whether kids actually understand stuff", etc.). This isn't rocket science, any book on pedagogy has all the necessary techniques and approaches.
So if we decide to make sure that the kids "at least know functional skills", we are missing the point. Yes, we can fix the education system to make sure they learn at least that, but it won't place us closer to the goal - having schools produce "good" citizens. This problem is common - people presume that education is already too complex and we need to simplify it. The reality is that we just need to honestly and openly fix the education system, stop the lies and make it work honestly again. That's the real problem, not that we didn't teach enough basic math in grade 1 (I mean, parents would sometimes do the homework for grade 1 pupils so that they can get better grades).
"curiosity and willingness to learn are not teachable" - they are. You just create the right environment, add a good teacher, remove/neutralise those few students that want to disturb (this becomes unnecessary at later stages) and it works with all, but the most complicated kids (i.e. mentally unstable, cretins, drug addicts, horribly abused kids, etc.).
Re P.S. Sorry if that appeared that way. It was actually inspired by the article in Harper related to the topic that I read recently, it wasn't really targeted at your post. But if I look at your post more closely, it's actually clear that you claim schools should not be focused on being "ground for enlightenment" and should teach functional skills first. It isn't about condescension, it's also about elitism (i.e. "don't think that some people are 'inferiour' in that they don't need advanced education"). My point was that even the poster kids for your position (i.e. totally uneducated minorities who do not appear to be in need of some Plato or Didrot, but 2+2=? and "do not eat this" skills) would in reality benefit immensely from "enlightment". And, as the linked article neatly illustrates, enlightment would lead to personal development that would lead to fixing their lifes, getting professional education and stuff.
The 1977 Soviet Constitution said it best - "The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all".
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
This discussion is all about freedom of speech and the influence a government can have on what is to be published in journals ; but I feel the matter of "sponsored speech" -as you've put it- is actually quite related to this problem and often overlooked.
I'm French (this isn't flambait or offtopic) and the recent rise of free (as in beer) daily journals in our capital city has a few of us worried about the quality of information that these provide.
One reason for worry is the accuracy of the information published: such 'journals' are run with minimal staffs that could never do fieldwork, historical perspective or even simple fact-checking, even if they somehow wanted to. But the real trouble is that a journal is only as free as it is independent of financial pressure: if your financial survival depends on ad revenue, you are subject to implicit -or explicit- pressure not to alienate those revenue by pushing a story that would hurt the company behind it too badly.
If you think that's just being paranoid, then hear this: the two gratis daily journals were the only one that did not cover the South-East Asian tsunami. You read that right: not one word about that human tragedy in any of those journals (one of which is actually the 4th newspaper in our country, by the number of people reading it). Why so, you wonder? Because the journals were closed between Christmas and New Year's eve due to lack of advertisement during that period.
This last bit of info comes from a paying journal that is the exact opposite of the gratis ones: it is called "Le Canard enchaîné" (useless website, unfortunately http://www.canardenchaine.com/) and is a satirist weekly national paper purely funded by its sales. It does not contain a single advertisement and frequently pushes information not published elsewhere. It's usually quite worth a read, and I've long been wondering whether it is truly a French exception or if there are other countries with nationwide truly independent newspapers...
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
Without putting forward my personal views, I'd like to point out that Israel routinely demolishes the houses of those it deems "terrorists" (I use quotation marks in the absence of a clear, accepted definition for terrorism). Would you agree that this is effectively state terrorism?
Tierce
Who sponsors your feelings?
I said 'if'. IF, by some disaster, they need 10 years to learn 2+2, they should be sure to learn 2+2 before you try to teach them calculus. I agree that they shouldn't need so long.
So if we decide to make sure that the kids "at least know functional skills", we are missing the point. Yes, we can fix the education system to make sure they learn at least that, but it won't place us closer to the goal - having schools produce "good" citizens.
Well, we'll be closer to the goal of having *functional* citizens. If by "good", you mean well-behaved, the key to that is good conditioning. No matter what you do, school is providing kids with "conditioning". The question is, conditioning towards what? If we want "well-behaved" citizens, then we'd need conditioning towards being well-behaved, which we DO NOT have now.
If, on the other hand, by "good" you mean enlightened, it is impossible to control. What history/experience teaches us is, you can give people all the freedom and resources possible, and they may not become enlightened. Likewise, you can keep people in the most slavish conditions, and you will not be able to keep them from becoming enlightened.
Who's the elitist now? Don't you want to help these people too?
It's ridiculous that you get that from any of my posts. I'm not claiming that any social/political group should be segregated and given a lesser education. I am saying that all groups should work FIRST towards functional skills, and once the kids are functional, THEN you move on. One would hope that ALL kids move beyond being merely functional.
However, ultimately, how far "beyond" each child goes does have something to do with the potential and desire of each child. This is not an issue race or political or economic grouping, nor is this an issue of the way things "should" be. No matter what you do, some people will excel where others flounder. However much we want to equalize opportunity, we shouldn't try to equalize achievement.
So what I'm suggesting isn't that we teach "poor people" only basic functional skills. I'm suggesting we try to make sure your "mentally unstable, cretins, drug addicts, horribly abused kids, etc." are helped to be AT LEAST functional.
The 1977 Soviet Constitution said it best - "The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all".
Ah, yes, the Soviets. The models of efficient society and humanitarianism.
How familiar are you with the public school systems in the US anyhow? I mean, you're not exactly from the US, are you?
Quoting BBC:
The series are encoded in xvid placed in an .ogm (opposed to .avi) container. (Defiler Pack)
Funny how this article reminded me exactly of the documentary.
I think I now see the fault in your strategy. You say kids should get basic skills required to be functional first, but you ignore that the education systems is actually trying to do that. Ignoring for the moment the subject of the article - their familiarity with the First Amendment - we can safely say that all kids are taught addition and multiplication quite well in advance, as well as reading and lots of other basic skills. Still, if you look at the graduates, it is not uncommon to find people who can't multiply 17 by 10 without a calculator as well as people who can read a 1 page of text and not understand a single sentence of it.
Your suggestion "let's teach the basic skills first" ignores the fact that basic skills ARE taught first and that the schools are failing at that. Think for a second - how would we proceed with your suggestion of ensuring that kids are functional. We probably need to fix whatever it is that prevents those basic math lessons from working.
But I am convinced that once you find out what the problems are and fix them (the problems are rather obvious and it's not like nobody wrote about them 20+ years ago), we would get the "good" education system back, where any subject can be taught effectively, meaning that we can have our enlightened kids again.
Now it would be all fine and dandy if our goal is to "fix the system", because once we fix it, it works. But if our first goal is to make sure only that functional skills are taught well, then we risk rebuilding a 100-year old education system that could teach everyone basic skills instead of fixing the relatively modern one that can teach everyone everything.
Any reform is a very complex task, so you can't easily switch between goals on a whim. If we decide we need functional skills, everyone would tend to ignore other goals.
Ah, yes, the Soviets. The models of efficient society and humanitarianism.
Well, they deserve some credit for trying. Nobody forced them to add this line to the constitution and it was really backed up with real actions and resources. Not to mention that the education system in the Soviet Union was indeed very efficient and very humanistic.
How familiar are you with the public school systems in the US anyhow? I mean, you're not exactly from the US, are you?
No, thanks luck, I am not. But I am very familiar with the problems of the US public school system, because most of them are not specific to the US.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
My main problem with Air America radio is they can't seem to go two minutes without talking about how liberal they are.
What I'd really like to see is a political talk radio show where the host does not use the terms "liberal" or "conservative" or left, right or generalizes about "Democrats vs Republicans" and any caller who uses such terms is given a BZZZZZ and disconnected.
Another problem I have with Air America is that Al Franken is a putz, and he just isn't that funny, at least not on his talk show.
Randi Rhodes is OK, but even she tends to divide everything into Democrats and Republicans, to the point of contradicting a caller who described Code Pink as non-partisan. I don't know of the rest of the country, but where I live the front of the Code Pink T-Shirts say "What Would Emma Do" and a picture of Emma Goldman. She isn't exactly an icon for the Democratic party.
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
Federal laws supercede state laws, and state laws in turn supercede local/municipal laws.
City says that you need a permit to freely assemble.
People freely assemble anyway.
Police indiscriminately, and liberally use peperspray against people assembled people.
People successful sue the city for violation of constitutional rights.
maybe that's why there is such a big push for "tort reform."
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism"
Not to be a dictionary fascist, but I think a better term would be "collective punishment."
It doesn't officially happen to US Citizens by US Law Enforcement (I imagine there are unofficial uses of it. But I digress.) It is banned by the geneva conention, but it is repeatedly used by a country that receives a lot of US Foreign aid that I'm thinking of in particular.
I think it was used in most Latin American countries at one time or another in the past 20-30 years too.
I remember when I was in grade school, seeing protestors protesting President Carter and the Shaw, and seeing them being arrested. I thought that it must be illegal to boo the president. One time in grade school there was an assembly and the principal came up to speak, and a bunch of people booed, maybe half the school. People got in trouble for that. I'm not sure if this incident happened before my seeing the protestors arrested on the TV or after, but I connected the two.
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
As to "No-one, and I repeat NO-ONE has ever died for a flag."
I would say that that is incorrect, until armies stopped carrying their battle standards (usually flags, one of which would normally be the nations flag) into battle, they often died to protect or capture those flags.
It could however be argued that they were dying for the pride of their regiment, or perhaps if they were intellectual for the morale effects, but I suspect at least some would have quantified it as "for the flag".
It seems you haven't found the "fault in my strategy", but have found the exact point I was trying to make in the first place. Passing kids along and trying to teach them calculus when you've failed to teach them addition isn't going to work.
Now it would be all fine and dandy if our goal is to "fix the system", because once we fix it, it works. But if our first goal is to make sure only that functional skills are taught well, then we risk rebuilding a 100-year old education system that could teach everyone basic skills instead of fixing the relatively modern one that can teach everyone everything.
And what of the idea of fixing the current modern system so that "functional skills are taught well" BEFORE going on to "teach everyone everything"? In US public schools, basic/functional skills are taught... sort of. They aren't taught well, and sometimes they're outright *skipped*, and this is based on the idea that the basic ideas aren't as powerful as complex ideas, and so kids don't really need to learn basic ideas so long as they know the complex ideas. The problem is, you can't understand complex ideas BEFORE you understand the basic ideas they're built from.
When, exactly, did we have "enlightened kids" the first time?
Well, they deserve some credit for trying.
...and perhaps some condemnation for failing? I mean, if they failed, then surely there must have been something sub-par about their methods, no? If their education system was so terrific, and you suggest a good education system will yield good, enlightened citizens, then why wasn't *everything* hunky-dory?
But I am very familiar with the problems of the US public school system, because most of them are not specific to the US.
Are you sure about that? I mean, I agree that there are some universal elements to the challenge of creating a "good education system", but how do you know what "most" of the problems are the same as those you're familiar with, without being familiar with the US public education system?
Of course there are other interests involved, I'm certainly not suggesting that the US is wholly motived by unselfish concern for the oppressed everywhere. So why Iraq and not some other country? Partly it's beacause even the US has limits to its military resources. How many oppressive dictators are there in this world? In the case of Iraq, it appears to be a combination the prolonged nature of the problem (12 years of UN resolutions and fights over weapons inspectors), percieved threat, and level of repression. And that just covers the direct effects of any action or inaction. So I don't at all deny self interest. Just like the reason for the US civil war wasn't only about freeing slaves. Most events of this nature has a multitude of causes. Just because a war isn't only (or even primarily) about protecting freedom doesnt' mean that freedom isn't one of the objectives.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Of course the goal with the Iraq Iran war (for the US) was to prevent the more powerful (and Soviet aided) Iran from gaining a major victory and achieving regional dominance.
"Soviet aided"? The no. 1 seller of weapons to Iraq was the Soviet Union, with China coming in second.
I'd be interested to know what it is you mean. I'm not sure where I alluded to the first amendment, and I'm pretty sure I know more about it than most high school students by now.
What I was talking about was the cease-fire and treaty that Saddam signed. Oh, I see, you must be saying that the name of the treaty was "First Amendment." My, what a curious name. Thanks for clearing that up.
And if you had paid attention, you would know that Saddam had done the same move 15 other times. He's kicked the inspectors out, then let them back in, then kicked them out, then let them back in. That's the problem with the boy who cried wolf. Eventually no one believes you anymore and ignores your plea.
Any idea how long it takes to start the inspection path again? Do you think that maybe Saddam thought that he could continue delaying the inspector's work by kicking them out and then letting them back in after dragging his feet for a while so that inspectors couldn't get the work done, and he could just delay the UN time and time again?
The problem is that no one knows what he's hiding when he kicks them out. A decent explanation, true or not, is that he's hiding WMD. Now, we're pretty sure that's not true NOW, but I'd like to think that we could agree that the general consensus by the people involved at the time (not just Bush, mind you) was that he was hiding them.
Oh, I meant 'kids who just accept what the government spoon feeds them... NEXT ON FOX!!"
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
maybe that's why there is such a big push for "tort reform."
So the Republicans running our government can abuse our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms? Wouldn't surprise me one bit. >:(
I'm inclined to think it's more a matter of piles of donations from industries bearing the brunt of the legal industry, e.g. the gun industry, the insurance industry, etc., but the social conservatives (read: religious right) are probably a considerable influence there as well...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
If the kids don't see anyone who writes with proper spelling and grammar, how are they going to learn it?
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Ahh, thanks. That is kinda funny though, considering I don't even have Fox (Dropped the waste of time that is known as "TV" a long time ago) I generally have to get my news through blatantly liberal news sites.
So, in your opinion, which is based on the complete truth, what DO you think ended the first Iraq war? Politically speaking, that is.
Then make that the last time. But he hadn't kicked them out again. The US had given him an ultimatum: let the inspectors back in or else. So he let them back in. And then, for no apparent reason, the US invaded a couple of weeks later. If he had kicked them out again and then the US had invaded, that would have made sense, but as long as he was co-operating there was no excuse for an invasion.
I am trolling
That is true, he was letting them in again right as the US told the inspectors to get out, they were being let in again. And yes, I actually do agree that they really should have let the inspectors do their job and avoided the whole thing.
I realize that we should have just told him "Okay, we let them try this one more time, but if you kick them out again before their job is done, we're coming in, regardless." You can't just continually say "If he lets the inspectors back in, you don't have an excuse for invasion," because he can continually only be letting inspectors in to the country, not allowing them to see anything.
However, as much as I would have liked them to wait, I also realize that we may not have been getting the whole picture. I'm really not sure if we had already told Saddam that we weren't giving him any more chances. I do suspect that we might have. And we had to make sure that doing what Saddam was doing as far as wasting inspector's time was known to be not acceptable. Perhaps there was good reason to believe that Saddam was close enough so that he could make it to nuclear before the inspectors could get find it. I don't actually know, and unless you were involved, you probably don't actually know either.
I'll admit I voted for Bush (thought it felt like it was a vote between Twiddledee and Twiddledum), but I don't believe it was a cut-and-dry case like they were trying to make it out to be. I also believe we haven't heard the full truth yet. Not from Bush, not from Kerry, and certainly not from CNN or Fox.
Perhaps, but in it's defence, the idea came out of interfaith dialogue. It may still cause offence that the calendars are based around the birth of Christ, but this seems to be a relatively simple way of adressing the balance somewhat. I mostly hate political correctness, but this is simply redressing the balance somewhat between the spiritual and the secular.
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Probably depends on your state. The folk I know who do it do not feel that way.
While I don't home school (as I don't have kids), I know several who do and I have been involved in locating materials, researching state requirements (and will be providing guest lessons on my areas of knowledge).
In New Hampshire, the requirements are pretty flexible. They do require you tell them you are home schooling (so they know that the student isn't a truant), you give them some idea of what you are teaching (a one page summary is ok) and once a year you have someone whom YOU choose review your material with your kid. This is not a formal process. (This is to make sure the kid is actually learning the material intended to be learned.) That's it.
I haven't known anyone who was told the material was inappropriate, but I think that is probably self-selection from the sort of folk I know who do home schooling. In other words, submitting "we'll read from the Bible - or Koran, etc. - from dawn to dusk" likely would get questioned. So would "we'll commune with nature all day." In other words, there has to be some GENERAL education in the material.
In New Hampshire, at least, a home schooler has full access to all the local school's resources. So, if you need access to a school lab, you can get it. You can also send a home schooled kid to regular school for any portion of the year (like every Wednesday or whatever). You do need to tell the school beforehand so they can include it in their planning.
Other states may be more difficult (or even easier) to deal with. So, YMMV.
-- Dan Jenkins, Rastech Inc.
I don't know any better than you, but I know that my government (UK) took us to war on some grounds which, at the lower levels at least, were known to be simply untrue. (I think it's incredibly unlikely that the lower levels passed on the intel but not the warnings about its reliability, but that's what Blair claims and in the absence of other evidence we have to give him the benefit of the doubt). Which to my mind implies that the government thought there was no good reason to go to war; otherwise they would have used the real justifications. And I'm lucky enough to have the BBC, which for all its faults does its very best to present the truth as it sees it, and will not shy from criticising the government if it needs to. I certainly think the BBC's version is likely to be closer to the truth than any politician's.
I am trolling
Just because they sold to Iraq in the 1990s doesn't mean that they didn't sell to Iran in the 1980s.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Example: some time ago I was working on a project involving truck clutches, picking up some work which had been done by others. I had no access to the original workers, and I was confused by repeated references to the "warn condition". Some time later I realized that they meant the "worn" condition, but only after a lot of frustration. I got a lot of grief because a bunch of teachers decided to let someone's grammar errors slide.
This is compounded in a world of electronic knowledge bases. An automated search for "worn clutch" is unlikely to find "warn clutch", because they are so semantically different. Writing with such errors becomes useless because it cannot be indexed correctly.
There's an easy way to solve that. Give them once chance to pass the test before entering ed school, and if they fail they spend a term in remedial classes before they can take it again. (If someone's skills are so weak that they can fail it because they had a bad day, they probably need remediation anyway.) Are you labouring under the misconception that regional differences deserve no respect? Sod off, you bugger!To me, term-paper rigor means having one's argument airtight, research complete and references done properly. Spelling and grammar require no work beyond getting things right as they come off the fingers; they are basic, not frills, and shouldn't be shorted.
The citation is implicit in the structure of the forum, and ALL CAPS for emphasis is valid usage according to my in-house style guide.Here is a sentence with two spaces between words.
Here is a sentence using non-breaking spaces ( ) to add extra space between words.
They all look the same, because Slashdot edits out the formatting (they did this sometime in the last two years, it used to work decently). I put in the codes to space properly if they'll ever go back to letting people show what they want.
Hammer 'em on their errors (with copious use of hyperlinks to references) and you'll be surprised how often they fold up and disappear. You often get modded up, too.Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
They sold to Iraq in the 1980s.
. . . which depraved faction of retards inhabits the majority party of the Congress and the White House.
:)
That line earned you a fan
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.