Trent 0 #26 November 9, 2005 QuoteBecause back when they used to be required to, many teenage girls would do it themselves with a coat hanger and die...or just plain commit suicide, rather than tell their parents. Really? How often did that happen? I guess parents who give a shit will have to start giving their girls a monthly EPT along with their drug tests.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #27 November 9, 2005 QuoteDo you go to church? I had phone calls from 3 entities wanting me to vote for it, and one wanting me to vote against it. And my impression is that I saw a huge acceptance that OF COURSE it was the only reasonable thing to do. I haven't been to church in over a decade, so I didn't get any of that business. I have a feeling that my church (that I used to go to) wouldn't have said anything about it. It never seemed like they did before anyway. But I DO listen to the radio, watch the news, and see billboards. Almost everything I saw was anti-prop2. I got no phone calls, though... they can't solicit on my cellphone yet!Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #28 November 9, 2005 I understand the abortion proposition had wording problems... according to another poster. If that's the case, there's one of those exceptions I was talking about. I still think that parents should know, and the state should not facilitate hiding medical issues like this. Like you said, it's NOT up to the government to parent... including deciding what parents should or should not know. QuoteNobody lives in 'the real world' other than wild animals. We live in an artificial world we create. Right now teachers get tenure, and IMO teachers are one of the most important professions out there. They are worth special consideration. Actually, we do live in the REAL WORLD. We're a part of this world as much as animals, and the changes we've made have changed the REAL WORLD. But you were just saying that, right? Teachers should get tenure to keep them around. But giving someone an almost permanent job after 2 years is crazy in almost any workplace. What would have been wrong with increasing pay until a 5yr mark before deciding that they were worth having permanently? Having tenure AT ALL would still be a special consideration, which is deserved by some teachers who showed a real commitment. QuoteNone at all! If you prefer that, join a union that does that. Why would you want the government to make decisions like that for you? The government decides many other areas require full-disclosure when it involves investing and donations. Why should a union be any different. The real question is, Why would YOU want to be a part of a union that DIDN'T tell you how they were spending YOUR money?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #29 November 9, 2005 QuoteClinton himself was kind of centrist. Yeah, the tax-and-spend type. Eroded American manufacturing, military, political, social and economic presence around the world. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #30 November 9, 2005 QuoteEroded American manufacturing, military, political, social and economic presence around the world. How's that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #31 November 9, 2005 > I still think that parents should know, and the state should not facilitate > hiding medical issues like this. Like you said, it's NOT up to the > government to parent... including deciding what parents should or should > not know. I agree. They should not hide the info. They should not force the infomation on parents. Parents and their children should decide. >Actually, we do live in the REAL WORLD. We're a part of this world as much >as animals, and the changes we've made have changed the REAL WORLD. How many times have you heard skydivers referring to 'the real world?' Or military people? Or fans of country music, or people in college? To many groups, 'the real world' is the world 'out there,' not part of the little reality they've created. But there is no one real world. I live in the real world, but I don't have to deal with snow. My sister lives in the real world, but she doesn't have to work. Steve lives in the real world but skydives all the time. My boss lives in the real world but doesn't have to work and will never be fired. Are you going to define one of those as fake? >But giving someone an almost permanent job after 2 years is crazy in > almost any workplace. As Kris pointed out, it's not a permanent job. They can be fired like anyone else. Getting tenure is like getting through a 90 day probationary period they have in many jobs. It's already an absurdly long probationary period (2 years) - why make it longer? >Why would YOU want to be a part of a union that DIDN'T tell you how >they were spending YOUR money? I wouldn't. I wouldn't join a union. I don't like them. But I would not impose my feelings on the matter on other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #32 November 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteBecause back when they used to be required to, many teenage girls would do it themselves with a coat hanger and die...or just plain commit suicide, rather than tell their parents. Really? How often did that happen? I guess parents who give a shit will have to start giving their girls a monthly EPT along with their drug tests. Or maybe foster a communicative relationship with them. Tell me, how many teenage girls are getting abortions without telling their parents and what the consequences are? Don't you think you should justify why a new law SHOULD be passed, rather than the other way around? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 November 9, 2005 Quote>Nobody lives in 'the real world' other than wild animals. Doesn't the attitude that we are special and 'artificial' etc, directly conflict with a general anti-religious stance? Either we are special and allowed to own the planet through devine intervention but we must be responsible about it as the 'chosen' masters of the planet; or we are part of nature and survival of the fittest and most 'evolved' means we can do whatever we damn well please if we are part of nature, then everything we do is part of the real world this is more of a retro 'back to nature' stance that is interesting but not practical edit: nevermind, you are spinning the semantics game already with trent ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #34 November 9, 2005 QuoteYeah, the tax-and-spend type. psssst....Bush spends more than Clinton ever did (even ignoring defense spending)...he just borrows instead of taxes. How is that better? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #35 November 9, 2005 QuoteSteve lives in the real world but skydives all the time. You say that like it's a bad thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #36 November 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteYeah, the tax-and-spend type. psssst....Bush spends more than Clinton ever did (even ignoring defense spending)...he just borrows instead of taxes. How is that better? LALLALALALALALALLA.....can't HEAR YOU!!! Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 November 9, 2005 QuoteReally? How often did that happen? I guess parents who give a shit will have to start giving their girls a monthly EPT along with their drug tests. Those of us who DO Remember the days before Roe V Wade.... remember a LOT of this. If you were well to do... there were Dr's who would help.. if you were not... there were butchers who could and would take your boyfriends or your parents money. If that was not an option.. there were suicides.. and there were deaths from self inflicted attempts at abortions. That was an all too vivid reality for those of us who grew up in the 50 and 60's ( since I have personal experience with that era) and before. The alternatives were being sent off to relatives and have the baby and then put it up for adoption.. or being thrown out on the street by your loving parents for dishonoring them and then hopefully ending up in an unwed mothers home...or a real favorite... the shotgun wedding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #38 November 9, 2005 >Doesn't the attitude that we are special and 'artificial' etc, directly >conflict with a general anti-religious stance? I don't know. That seems like saying yogurt conflicts with sequoia trees. They don't seem to be similar things at all to me. >Either we are special and allowed to own the planet through devine > intervention but we must be responsible about it as the 'chosen' > masters of the planet; or we are part of nature and survival of the > fittest and most 'evolved' means we can do whatever we damn well > please . . .. ??? I can't follow you here. Having a big brain doesn't mean we're 'chosen', and being part of nature does not mean we have to shit on the carpet. You're getting a third into religion, a third into philosophy and a third into conservation here. Our intelligence gives us an edge, which we have used to make it easier for us to survive. We are still evolving, but today we are evolving in different ways. For example, being too dumb to use birth control when you don't want to get pregnant is now selected for, but being able to store lots of fat for lean times is selected against. So it's still survival of the fittest, but the definition of 'fittest' has changed for humans. So if your point of view is that 'the real world' is one where all the 'original' pressures and threats are still real, where you still have to scrabble to survive, our world is now artificial. We don't fear starvation, we fear getting so fat we die of coronary disease. We don't fear being dismembered by a predator, we fear getting audited. We have almost none of the same pressures that we used to have (on an evolutionary timescale.) Things are, in a word, unreal. If your view of 'the real world' is a social one, then everyone lives in a fake world of their own making, and the 'real world' is the one out there, the one that everyone else lives in. Teachers don't live in the real world because they have (supposedly) cushy jobs and work with kids, not adults, all day. Engineers don't live in the real world because we just have lots of meetings, design stuff and play in the lab. Skydiving instructors don't live in the real world because they jump for a living. It ends up being a pretty meaningless concept when used in that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #39 November 9, 2005 QuoteI agree. They should not hide the info. They should not force the infomation on parents. Parents and their children should decide. So you'd be in favor of a "MinorsWhoGotAbortions.org" website where parents could query based on social security numbers or something to see if little Jane had an abortion. That wouldn't be forcing the info on them, and it would be private unless the parents cared to look. I don't think minors should be able to undergo any optional medical treatments without parental knowledge at least. QuoteHow many times have you heard skydivers referring to 'the real world?'... blah blah blah.... What a shitty argument to have. Really. I'll concede here and say that the real world is whatever you say it is, Bill. I vote for Pangea as being the real world though. QuoteThey can be fired like anyone else. Getting tenure is like getting through a 90 day probationary period they have in many jobs. It's already an absurdly long probationary period (2 years) - why make it longer? Well, educate me then. What does it take to fire a teacher with tenure? Does tenure mean they stop getting evaluated regularly? Does tenure mean, short of molestation or gross misconduct, they won't get fired? If so, why do they need tenure at all? If it is just means that they "made it" past 2 years... why not just call it a "raise"?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #40 November 9, 2005 Quote>You're getting a third into religion, a third into philosophy and a third into conservation here. Do I win a prize? QuoteIt ends up being a pretty meaningless concept when used in that way. After reading your post, the term "real world" ends up being a pretty meaningless anything - so I agree with you there. Who brought this up anyway? They should have to discuss morals on a thread drift - that's painful enough. edit: As a complete aside, did you know in some doctor's offices that the wife has to sign a consent form for the husband to get a vasectomy? where's the rage? where's planned parenthood? Someone tell me how this doesn't relate to abortion rights. Someone else will tell me how it does. Again, we're talking law vs courtesy here..... And another thing - Should the parents get notified before their son gets a voluntary vasectomy? Should the government pay for it while we're at it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #41 November 9, 2005 As a point of information, in most schools tenure does not provide protection against firing for cause (insubordination, abuse, etc.) or if your program is discontinued. It only protects someone already found to be competent during a probationary period, against firing for arbitrary reasons (such as replacing an older teacher with a younger one at a lower salary) in a program that is ongoing. Untenured teachers have no protection from arbitrary firing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #42 November 9, 2005 QuoteUntenured teachers have no protection from arbitrary firing. Kinda like the rest of the working world. I thought that since qualified teachers are in short supply that supply and demand would dictate that they'd be pretty protected anyway. Do they still get scrutinized on their teaching abilities and effectiveness?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 November 9, 2005 QuoteDo they still get scrutinized on their teaching abilities and effectiveness? Not if the union has anything to say about it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #44 November 9, 2005 Quote So you'd be in favor of a "MinorsWhoGotAbortions.org" website where parents could query based on social security numbers or something to see if little Jane had an abortion. That wouldn't be forcing the info on them, and it would be private unless the parents cared to look. I don't think minors should be able to undergo any optional medical treatments without parental knowledge at least. Why does the government need to be involved? You want your children to talk to you? Raise them in such a manner that they will. Sorry, I don't buy the whole "there should be a law!" thing. I have a 17-year old daughter, and I don't need a law governing our discourse. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #45 November 9, 2005 QuoteSo you'd be in favor of a "MinorsWhoGotAbortions.org" website where parents could query based on social security numbers or something to see if little Jane had an abortion. That wouldn't be forcing the info on them, and it would be private unless the parents cared to look. I don't think minors should be able to undergo any optional medical treatments without parental knowledge at least. Why so complicated? There must be a signed consent form from the parent. The kid will have to get that signature. For extenuating circumstances/exceptions - that'll have to be defined. The action outside of the kid and parents is the doctor doesn't perform the procedure without the form. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 November 9, 2005 Quote I don't think so, although I'm sorry 80 failed. Why - it looked pretty hostile to alternative energy, with protection for the established providers. That and past history made a no vote pretty easy for me. I don't like seeing the initiative (in a special election, no less) being used to solve our state energy policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #47 November 9, 2005 >So you'd be in favor of a "MinorsWhoGotAbortions.org" website . . . Nope. It should be treated like any other medical information, subject to the usual constraints with respect to privacy. >What does it take to fire a teacher with tenure? A hearing and documented instances of incompetence. Happened several times while my parents were working in the NY school system. >If so, why do they need tenure at all? Same reason some companies 'need' a probationary period. So they can find out early if someone is incompetent, and not waste time with the documentation and the hearing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #48 November 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteEroded American manufacturing, military, political, social and economic presence around the world. How's that? Were you not here when the US Army had 20+ divisions, and now has 8; when the US Navy had 7 carrier battle groups (with infrastructure for more), and now has 5? The cuts weren't supposed to be that deep. Clinton accelerated them.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #49 November 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteEroded American manufacturing, military, political, social and economic presence around the world. How's that? Were you not here when the US Army had 20+ divisions, and now has 8; when the US Navy had 7 carrier battle groups (with infrastructure for more), and now has 5? The cuts weren't supposed to be that deep. Clinton accelerated them. I got my first briefing on the Reduction In Force (RIF) when Bush Sr. was still commander in chief. From what I recall throughout my time in uniform, including under Clinton, momentum of the downsizing more or less kept pace with what was laid out at that time: I don't recall an acceleration under Clinton, even though we weren't very appreciative (read: near-mutinous) of his election. Believe me, I was shocked to all hell when they showed us the present force strength (1992) and the downsized goal. I was sitting there thinking, "How the fuck are we supposed to handle any more than one front at any given time? Is fucking technology supposed to do it for us?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #50 November 9, 2005 QuoteWhy so complicated? There must be a signed consent form from the parent. The kid will have to get that signature. For extenuating circumstances/exceptions - that'll have to be defined. The action outside of the kid and parents is the doctor doesn't perform the procedure without the form. No, I agree with you here. I was just responding to Bill saying that the state shouldn't hide info from the parents about abortions. It seems that that's what is happening if parents don't have to give consent for the procedure now.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites