Native or not, your teacher was incorrect (or was misunderstood), though may have been intentionally so in order to ease basic understanding via comparison. Don't take my word for it though. Feel free to peruse the country name stamped on official Mexican items, such as their currency or national passports.
Ah yes, I can see that from the large number of people killed yearly by Christian terrorists as compared to the heyday of Christian terrorism that was the Middle Ages.
Non-violent solutions work, they just take longer so people convince themselves they're less effective even when they are more effective over the long term.
Then again, since you're actually willing to make the statement you just did, you're either trolling or you actually believe it. In either case, this is no longer worth any attention.
Hell, a cop in my city caused a wreck while driving drunk and fled the scene; he was summarily fired. The Washington State Human Rights Board ordered the city to rehire him.
There are rarely consequences for crimes committed by police officers, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Frequently, when there are consequences, the institutions put into place to protect cops from any adverse action prevent the administration of those consequences.
You don't necessarily have to go there to contest it. Some states/counties have provisions to submit a defense by mail hand have a judge review it and then rule.
I once got out of a speeding ticket from a county in Oregon by writing a not-very-nice letter to the judge claiming the cop was outright lying and the purpose of the stop was revenue generation. The judge replied and was not particularly happy about my choice of wording, but ruled in my favor despite the fact that I was inches from the line between outraged and outright contempt for the behavior of their county's deputies.
Well, it looks like certain professionals are actually over-represented in general, but it also appears my original statement is both valid and applies to highly educated people too. I guess it makes sense that the sense of hopelessness is even greater when you have no prospects despite being highly educated. So, while my supposition about their motivations for getting a specific degree could very well be wrong, the marginalization aspect at least has some evidentiary basis. Engineers in particular (doctors to a slightly lesser extent) are apparently attracted not to a guarantee of paradise but to the rigidly enforced structure of extremist religious groups. They were also in abundance in their support of Mussolini, Hitler, and are currently over-represented in the Aryan movement, the far Christian right, and Hindu fundamentalist groups (to name a couple). The whole "preaching about blowing people up getting you into heaven" doesn't carry all that much weight, since the same types of people are drawn to non-religious violent movements too. It's about circumstances and the hope of structure and order.
The point still stands: The simple act of preaching hate does not create killers. A lot of other circumstances are necessary, and foreign "adventures" are historically a major contributing factor to spikes in terrorism. Religion is not a cause, it's a symptom.
You disagreed in the first sentence, and then agreed in the last sentence of the first paragraph.:)
I did specifically mention department policy. Also, if it impacts admissibility it means there was some violation of due process. So, while the police are capable of questioning a child without representation (as in, physically and conditionally able to) does not mean they are doing so in compliance with all applicable law and procedure. If they were complying with all applicable law and procedure, there would be no risk of compromising admissibility of any evidence gathered as a result of the interrogation.
Yes, because they compose such a large percentage of converts to radical Islam/sarc. Of course there are going to be those who are more privileged. It doesn't invalidate the point that the "promise of heaven" for killing yourself is not the root cause of getting people to commit terrorist acts. It takes a lot of other circumstances working together to create a situation where that is an effective sales pitch to increase membership in an extremist group.
Usually, those educated jihadis were radical prior to getting their education (at least in most cases I'm familiar with). In fact, I would almost guarantee many of them get their education specifically to further their goals, rather than being educated and then falling in with extremists.
One of the reasons, as stated previously, is that extremist groups are attractive to those with few options because they can offer support and options. I would guarantee one of those is helping educate young jihadis who show promise in areas which are useful to a terrorist organization... such as engineering and medicine.
Let's not forget it was Repubs who voted against the bank bailout.
I don't like either side, but the bailout numbers are not nearly so one-sided as you claim. 46% of Republicans voted in support of the bailout legislation, and Bush signed it into law.
That only works when the conditions exist where people are drawn to the extremist teachers out of desperation and/or complete lack of hope for the future. It's the people who are already marginalized who are drawn to that sort of rhetoric. If you work on the root of the problem (the marginalization), the pool of potential terrorists gets drastically smaller.
I apologize, I should have been more clear what I meant when I wrote that particular section. I meant they don't distinguish between speech a student makes with respect to any given person.
Swearing or being disrespectful to any given person can be punished exactly the same way regardless of whether the student is speaking to or about another student, staff member, or visitor to the event or facility.
I don't mean to say they necessarily are punished the same way (especially in regard to inter-student exchanges), but simply that speech and conduct rules are uniform and don't distinguish between targets of improper behavior. At least, I've never seen a conduct code which does so.
You're right. Unfortunately, I wasn't taking issue with the "only one country called America" part, making the rest of this irrelevant with respect to what I actually did write.
I was doing no such thing. With the exception of the top couple posts in this thread, the only people being snide or begrudging were those who "didn't see the point" in doing it.
If I had a critical workstation, I'd buy support. If I had (and do, and did) have one not as critical, I most certainly would do it myself. When you get past simplistic, knee-jerk reactions, you may find that the same person can support both sides by realizing that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone. There's more than enough room for more than one approach.
A school is not the appropriate avenue for criminal matters. Either the matter is criminal or it is not.
If the matter is criminal, or potentially so, it should be referred to the police and the parents should be notified.
If the matter is not criminal, and occurs within the context of a school function, the school should punish the child.
If the matter is not criminal, and does not occur within the context of a school function, the authority of the school begins and ends with notifying the parents of the situation.
In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. In the real world, it's fairly rare for an on-duty cop to be anything resembling "the voice of reason" when it comes to someone showing the slightest defiance to an authority figure. Whether that defiance is warranted or not is usually not ever something that would even cross the mind of most cops I've met.
At least in the USA police are typically not allowed to interview minors without at least notifying the parents, so it wouldn't surprise me if either department policy or state law was broken during these proceedings. However, it's hard-to-impossible to get abusive officers (or departments) disciplined for anything unless there is video and a willing district attorney (something of a rarity in itself), so it probably doesn't matter much if the former is the case.
And then they could be rightfully sued for any of those punishments as well. The issue in dispute here is whether a school administrator has the power to punish speech which is engaged in outside of a school-controlled environment.
If they have the legitimate power to punish this then students have no other rights either, whether at school or not. Since speech and behavior codes in a school do not distinguish between staff, students, and visitors, it means they are claiming the authority to punish a student for any speech, in any context, at any time. No, they're not doing it explicitly, but it is certainly implied based on the logic they use to enforce rules in this manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Native or not, your teacher was incorrect (or was misunderstood), though may have been intentionally so in order to ease basic understanding via comparison. Don't take my word for it though. Feel free to peruse the country name stamped on official Mexican items, such as their currency or national passports.
Ah yes, I can see that from the large number of people killed yearly by Christian terrorists as compared to the heyday of Christian terrorism that was the Middle Ages.
Non-violent solutions work, they just take longer so people convince themselves they're less effective even when they are more effective over the long term.
Then again, since you're actually willing to make the statement you just did, you're either trolling or you actually believe it. In either case, this is no longer worth any attention.
Hell, a cop in my city caused a wreck while driving drunk and fled the scene; he was summarily fired. The Washington State Human Rights Board ordered the city to rehire him.
There are rarely consequences for crimes committed by police officers, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Frequently, when there are consequences, the institutions put into place to protect cops from any adverse action prevent the administration of those consequences.
Only if you're a government official of some sort. If you're not, you go to prison.
The system works differently depending on whether you are the one paying for the system or the one paid by the system.
You don't necessarily have to go there to contest it. Some states/counties have provisions to submit a defense by mail hand have a judge review it and then rule.
I once got out of a speeding ticket from a county in Oregon by writing a not-very-nice letter to the judge claiming the cop was outright lying and the purpose of the stop was revenue generation. The judge replied and was not particularly happy about my choice of wording, but ruled in my favor despite the fact that I was inches from the line between outraged and outright contempt for the behavior of their county's deputies.
Well, it looks like certain professionals are actually over-represented in general, but it also appears my original statement is both valid and applies to highly educated people too. I guess it makes sense that the sense of hopelessness is even greater when you have no prospects despite being highly educated. So, while my supposition about their motivations for getting a specific degree could very well be wrong, the marginalization aspect at least has some evidentiary basis. Engineers in particular (doctors to a slightly lesser extent) are apparently attracted not to a guarantee of paradise but to the rigidly enforced structure of extremist religious groups. They were also in abundance in their support of Mussolini, Hitler, and are currently over-represented in the Aryan movement, the far Christian right, and Hindu fundamentalist groups (to name a couple). The whole "preaching about blowing people up getting you into heaven" doesn't carry all that much weight, since the same types of people are drawn to non-religious violent movements too. It's about circumstances and the hope of structure and order.
http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambetta/Engineers%20of%20Jihad.pdf
The point still stands: The simple act of preaching hate does not create killers. A lot of other circumstances are necessary, and foreign "adventures" are historically a major contributing factor to spikes in terrorism. Religion is not a cause, it's a symptom.
Mexico's long form name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos in Spanish and United Mexican States in English.
You disagreed in the first sentence, and then agreed in the last sentence of the first paragraph. :)
I did specifically mention department policy. Also, if it impacts admissibility it means there was some violation of due process. So, while the police are capable of questioning a child without representation (as in, physically and conditionally able to) does not mean they are doing so in compliance with all applicable law and procedure. If they were complying with all applicable law and procedure, there would be no risk of compromising admissibility of any evidence gathered as a result of the interrogation.
Yeah, it was a brain-to-keyboard translation error. I was thinking 2:1 -> 50% less, and ended up writing out the reverse instead.
Yes, because they compose such a large percentage of converts to radical Islam /sarc. Of course there are going to be those who are more privileged. It doesn't invalidate the point that the "promise of heaven" for killing yourself is not the root cause of getting people to commit terrorist acts. It takes a lot of other circumstances working together to create a situation where that is an effective sales pitch to increase membership in an extremist group.
Usually, those educated jihadis were radical prior to getting their education (at least in most cases I'm familiar with). In fact, I would almost guarantee many of them get their education specifically to further their goals, rather than being educated and then falling in with extremists.
One of the reasons, as stated previously, is that extremist groups are attractive to those with few options because they can offer support and options. I would guarantee one of those is helping educate young jihadis who show promise in areas which are useful to a terrorist organization ... such as engineering and medicine.
Let's not forget it was Repubs who voted against the bank bailout.
I don't like either side, but the bailout numbers are not nearly so one-sided as you claim. 46% of Republicans voted in support of the bailout legislation, and Bush signed it into law.
---------
TARP votes:
Yea
Democratic: 172
Republican: 91
Nay
Democratic 63
Republican: 108
That only works when the conditions exist where people are drawn to the extremist teachers out of desperation and/or complete lack of hope for the future. It's the people who are already marginalized who are drawn to that sort of rhetoric. If you work on the root of the problem (the marginalization), the pool of potential terrorists gets drastically smaller.
The hell with improvising. High quality polymer weapons are cheap.
http://www.coldsteel.com/nightshadeseries.html
Eh, lots of countries prove you can call yourself a republic and be a dictatorship at the same time.
Anyway, since we have a two-party dictatorship we're obviously 50% more free than a single-party dictatorship like North Korea.
Damn, I skimmed through the replies looking for one of these and somehow missed yours until after I posted.
No, they're not using the wrong cable. They're obviously using a Denon, which has directional markings for optimum electron flow.
It very much depends on the pixel density. Resolution doesn't always tell the whole story.
I apologize, I should have been more clear what I meant when I wrote that particular section. I meant they don't distinguish between speech a student makes with respect to any given person.
Swearing or being disrespectful to any given person can be punished exactly the same way regardless of whether the student is speaking to or about another student, staff member, or visitor to the event or facility.
I don't mean to say they necessarily are punished the same way (especially in regard to inter-student exchanges), but simply that speech and conduct rules are uniform and don't distinguish between targets of improper behavior. At least, I've never seen a conduct code which does so.
You're going to have to elucidate a bit, since I haven't the slightest clue as to what this comment is supposed to convey.
You're right. Unfortunately, I wasn't taking issue with the "only one country called America" part, making the rest of this irrelevant with respect to what I actually did write.
I was doing no such thing. With the exception of the top couple posts in this thread, the only people being snide or begrudging were those who "didn't see the point" in doing it.
If I had a critical workstation, I'd buy support. If I had (and do, and did) have one not as critical, I most certainly would do it myself. When you get past simplistic, knee-jerk reactions, you may find that the same person can support both sides by realizing that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone. There's more than enough room for more than one approach.
A school is not the appropriate avenue for criminal matters. Either the matter is criminal or it is not.
If the matter is criminal, or potentially so, it should be referred to the police and the parents should be notified.
If the matter is not criminal, and occurs within the context of a school function, the school should punish the child.
If the matter is not criminal, and does not occur within the context of a school function, the authority of the school begins and ends with notifying the parents of the situation.
In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. In the real world, it's fairly rare for an on-duty cop to be anything resembling "the voice of reason" when it comes to someone showing the slightest defiance to an authority figure. Whether that defiance is warranted or not is usually not ever something that would even cross the mind of most cops I've met.
At least in the USA police are typically not allowed to interview minors without at least notifying the parents, so it wouldn't surprise me if either department policy or state law was broken during these proceedings. However, it's hard-to-impossible to get abusive officers (or departments) disciplined for anything unless there is video and a willing district attorney (something of a rarity in itself), so it probably doesn't matter much if the former is the case.
And then they could be rightfully sued for any of those punishments as well. The issue in dispute here is whether a school administrator has the power to punish speech which is engaged in outside of a school-controlled environment.
If they have the legitimate power to punish this then students have no other rights either, whether at school or not. Since speech and behavior codes in a school do not distinguish between staff, students, and visitors, it means they are claiming the authority to punish a student for any speech, in any context, at any time. No, they're not doing it explicitly, but it is certainly implied based on the logic they use to enforce rules in this manner.