Y'know how the right-wing click-bait sites publish stories about paid protesters or about the Clinton Foundation or George Soros, and it always turns out to be made-up bullshit? Well guess what's not made-up:
"Court: Switzerland’s refusal to exempt primary school pupil from sex education class did not breach convention Judges ruled today that Switzerland’s refusal to exempt primary school pupil from sex education class did not breach human rights law."
The parent claimed freedom of religion, which is obviously ridiculous. No one is infringing on her right to practice religion or believe whatever by offering mandatory sex ed, whose purpose is to protect children.
"Court: Switzerland’s refusal to exempt primary school pupil from sex education class did not breach convention Judges ruled today that Switzerland’s refusal to exempt primary school pupil from sex education class did not breach human rights law."
The parent claimed freedom of religion, which is obviously ridiculous. No one is infringing on her right to practice religion or believe whatever by offering mandatory sex ed, whose purpose is to protect children.
Intentionally trying to keep your children un-educated about this stuff is downright DANGEROUS.
"Court: Switzerland’s refusal to exempt primary school pupil from sex education class did not breach convention Judges ruled today that Switzerland’s refusal to exempt primary school pupil from sex education class did not breach human rights law."
The parent claimed freedom of religion, which is obviously ridiculous. No one is infringing on her right to practice religion or believe whatever by offering mandatory sex ed, whose purpose is to protect children.
some religions claim that you can't properly act out your religious morals if you are exposed to some "impure" thoughts like that, and therefore you can't be a proper christian, muslim etc. religion can be a bad thing. say no to institutional thought control.
Maybe my age is showing a little here, but isn't *primary* school a little early for sex education? Shouldn't that wait until 6th grade/students are 12 years old? The average age of "first experimentation" in the United States is now 12, which is why I use that age.
Maybe my age is showing a little here, but isn't *primary* school a little early for sex education? Shouldn't that wait until 6th grade/students are 12 years old? The average age of "first experimentation" in the United States is now 12, which is why I use that age.
If the average is 12 then a significant number of kids have experimented before then most likely... why would you choose the average age over the minimum age. And also "first experimentation" is not the only reason to give sex ed.
What's interesting about that case is that the sex education lessons were not compulsory and the girl in question had never attended one. This therefore was not a case intended to protect the parent's children, but was designed as a way to inflict her beliefs on all other parents.
@Mathsorcerer the information provided was not aimed at sexual activity by the young children, but covered wider issues, e.g. relationships, grooming, safety in social situations.
Maybe my age is showing a little here, but isn't *primary* school a little early for sex education? Shouldn't that wait until 6th grade/students are 12 years old? The average age of "first experimentation" in the United States is now 12, which is why I use that age.
Sex Ed at the primary school is anti-molestation education--e.g. what is 'bad touching' and who to tell if it happens.
Maybe my age is showing a little here, but isn't *primary* school a little early for sex education? Shouldn't that wait until 6th grade/students are 12 years old? The average age of "first experimentation" in the United States is now 12, which is why I use that age.
Canada had the same debate awhile back. IIRC, it was to teach the kids proper terms for the genital region and as Camdawg said anti-molestation education.
The debate here wasn't just the age, but who should be teaching kids this information. Parents? Teachers? Doctors? Religious figures? How do you qualify a person to teach this subject, especially at a young age?
Religious people might start the conversation, but it shouldn't be dismissed because of their issues with it.
The problem is that many people don't think religious freedom stops at them being able to freely worship how they want. They also think the rest of society should bend into shape around them, or their rights are being violated.
The problem is that many people don't think religious freedom stops at them being able to freely worship how they want. They also think the rest of society should bend into shape around them, or their rights are being violated.
Some ppl are most definitely like that. Same goes for banning books in schools. One of the things that has ever got me pissed more than ever was learning that some parents have refused treatment their kids for type 1 diabetes cause they want to leave in the hands of their god. I know what it feels like when one is dying from T1D because I was on the fast track to dying when a doctor almost misdiagnosed me when I was a teen. A slow lingering and painful death sentence it is. This is just one example. I have heard of more over my 35+ years as a T1D. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/03/a-diabetic-boys-parents-didnt-believe-in-doctors-now-theyre-guilty-of-his-murder/?utm_term=.237a22877890
Somebody tell me how refusing medical care for children is religious freedom? Child protection should take precedence IMO.
I feel the same way about vaccinations. Vaccinations have kept diseases at bay because they in effect act like a fence for the population. But poke enough holes in that fence and we see diseases once thought gone resurfacing. We are seeing that now, esp out west. It's the same reason we see polio in the middle east with the collapse of the public health systems in war torn countries. Well, that and a mistrust of doctors because some think the west is out to kill them with an injection (understandable in a way). Im all for religious freedom but when it harms the greater population as a whole, with either health or knowledge, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. As for a happy medium I am not sure. As far as immigrants coming in I think there should some type of health screening for diseases and vaccinations given, not turned away but given the appropriate protection for their sake and the sake of the population already living here. Come on in but ya gotta get up to date on them.
I have a niece that my brother, a doc, sent to a private christian school cause of the better education given in general. He told her often though to try and ignore some of the hardline approaches to religion they taught. One of her teachers told her not even to worry bout learning too much cause she was better off learning how to get a husband and learn to keep house. She is in the air force now so I reckon he kept her clear of the anti-women like stance they taught, in a way.
As far as immigrants coming in I think there should some type of health screening for diseases and vaccinations given, not turned away but given the appropriate protection for their sake and the sake of the population already living here.
This is already required. My wife is a naturalized citizen, and to get a green card (her first step) she had to get a ridiculous number of vaccinations and a screening. They don't care where you're from or what paperwork you have from your previous doctor, you WILL BE getting those vaccinations and screening as part of the application process.
Some details of Trumps infrastructure scam have leaked. I guess in a couple days we'll know if it really is this bad.
Because of the massive corporate tax cuts funding will be a issue. So rather than have taxes from rich people pay, he has this plan to dangle up to $200 billion in federal funds that State and local governments will have to bid for. They themselves will have to raise and pay for the rest of the projected $1.6 trillion in projects and improvements he is calling for. So of the suspected $1.6 trillion price tag, only $200 billion is actually funded.
Where's the $200 billion coming from? Cuts to social programs.
"The president’s pitch to (Democratic Minority Leader Senator Chuck) Schumer is,” writes New York Magazine, “ostensibly: Help me pass a bill that rolls back environmental regulations, slashes $200 billion from social spending, and provides a little bit of seed money for state-level infrastructure projects – on the condition states agree to fund the bulk of such projects through state and local taxes (which by the way, affluent blue-state residents will no longer be allowed to deduct from their federal taxes). "
Republicans would never raise taxes in an election year so they have shifted the burden to raise taxes and fees to the states and local governments, or to other sources.
How are they going to use the money? Public and private partnerships. Mainly relying on the state and local government taxes, Trump’s rich friends and campaign donors will be able to win the contracts. Of course they will probably want to grab projects like toll roads that will pay them back for years to come, while avoiding projects like sewers in poor areas that provide necessary human services but don't provide a financial incentive or payback. There's no financial incentive for smaller, less profitable bridges and water plants to get fixed.
Small devil's advocate here: All three levels of government should help fund infrastructure costs with either States or Municipalities taking the brunt of the cost. Those are the people who are using the infrastructure being build or maintained, are the ones providing the labour force and therefore increasing the local economy, and the ones who should be maintaining it in the future. So even though Trump has 200 billion set aside (we won't discuss where he got this money here), it shouldn't cover the entire cost of the plan.
The real question is how that $200 million is going to be distributed. It'll be interesting to see, where the bulk of that money goes and why. Maybe 150 million of it will be going to Whitefish to maintain their roads. Who knows.
Before Trump left for the World Economic Forum in Davos, he told reporters that he was "looking forward" to testifying to the Mueller investigation under oath.
Before Trump left for the World Economic Forum in Davos, he told reporters that he was "looking forward" to testifying to the Mueller investigation under oath.
In the same way Mexico is going to pay for the wall and that he's going to release his tax returns after the "audit" is done??
Before Trump left for the World Economic Forum in Davos, he told reporters that he was "looking forward" to testifying to the Mueller investigation under oath.
He also reportedly asked McCabe, acting director of the FBI after Trump fired Comey, who he voted for. Because Trump wants loyal toadies to protect him from the Russia investigation.
Trump claimed he was looking forward to talking to Mueller under oath but didn't remember asking McCabe that. I'd be willing to bet most of his interview will either be claims of executive privilege, lawyer client privilege, or more "I can't remember!" That might work for Jeff Sessions but isn't Trump a stable genius with one of the greatest memories of all time?
@Mathsorcerer the information provided was not aimed at sexual activity by the young children, but covered wider issues, e.g. relationships, grooming, safety in social situations.
Ok, that makes sense. I tend to ignore younger children and school things relating to them because I have difficulty finding any way to relate to young children in general. I do not have the ability to put myself in their shoes or see things the way they do. I had already learned to read by the time I was four--my older brother was in first grade at the time so I would read his books when he brought them home--and by the time I got into school I couldn't understand why my classmates didn't know the things I already knew. But enough about me.
Trump is looking forward to speaking with Mueller about as much as I am looking forward to overseeing my parents' funerals in the future. I won't like it but it is something which must be done.
The DoJ has reported that the missing texts from Strzok were lost as a result of a technical problem which also lost texts from thousands of other FBI cell phones--not just Strzok.
I don't see how there is any way Trump can't be compelled to be interviewed by Mueller's team. I don't know why the entire media is acting like he has some kind of high-card in "negotiations" on this issue. It won't be a negotiation. There is no legal precedent for him ignoring if he is called. He CAN take the 5th, but that would imply guilt to all but his most hardcore base. If he sits down for the interview, is he even mentally capable of telling the truth?? He lies even when he doesn't have to do so, on a daily basis. He can't control himself. Under what circumstances does anyone see Trump as having the guile and intellect to avoid perjuring himself?? I can't possibly believe his lawyers (who don't seem very good, to be honest) are anything but terrified of the idea of him sitting in a room with federal prosecutors. Which is why they are basically trying to let him get away with what would essentially be a take-home test. Why would Mueller even entertain a negotiation about how this would go down?? The only thing he needs to say is that Trump is going to appear for an interview, and if he doesn't a grand jury is going to subpoena him and force his ass into one. End of story.
The DoJ has reported that the missing texts from Strzok were lost as a result of a technical problem which also lost texts from thousands of other FBI cell phones--not just Strzok.
Why does Congress even have the personal text messages that were sent between these two people?? I agree he should have been taken off the case (which he was, and, in fact, there are messages that reveal he didn't even WANT to be on this detail for this exact reason). But what happened here?? Are FBI employees required to turn over personal messages to the Bureau?? Were these messages sent on work devices??
Edit: I guess that article answers my question. Apparently they were work phones. But again, what influence could he possibly be having on the current case if he isn't on it anymore?? Mueller got rid of him LONG before this was even revealed in the media, which means he did so to avoid even the HINT of impropriety. It's not like Mueller kicked him off after he saw a bad news story. He did it when literally NO ONE even knew about it. If he was part of the "secret society" attempting to take down Trump, why would he have thrown a fellow co-conspirator overboard for something that hadn't even been revealed???
Trump claimed he was looking forward to talking to Mueller under oath but didn't remember asking McCabe that. I'd be willing to bet most of his interview will either be claims of executive privilege, lawyer client privilege, or more "I can't remember!" That might work for Jeff Sessions but isn't Trump a stable genius with one of the greatest memories of all time?
If I read about this correctly - I dont think that the President gets to invoke executive privilige during a formal interview with the Special Council (It's possible that this has to be in a certain setting, testifying before a grand jury, or something else... I'm not sure).
Trump claimed he was looking forward to talking to Mueller under oath but didn't remember asking McCabe that. I'd be willing to bet most of his interview will either be claims of executive privilege, lawyer client privilege, or more "I can't remember!" That might work for Jeff Sessions but isn't Trump a stable genius with one of the greatest memories of all time?
If I read about this correctly - I dont think that the President gets to invoke executive privilige during a formal interview with the Special Council (It's possible that this has to be in a certain setting, testifying before a grand jury, or something else... I'm not sure).
Of course, Bill Clinton had to appear before Ken Starr, and it was taped and shown to the entire country on TV. This is where we get the famous "that depends on what the definition of "is" is" line. Which was of course ridiculous. It was also an Oxford-educated lawyer trying to make sure he didn't perjure himself. Trump won't try anything clever. He'll just lie. Probably because he believes many of his lies.
Of course, Bill Clinton had to appear before Ken Starr, and it was taped and shown to the entire country on TV. This is where we get the famous "that depends on what the definition of "is" is" line. Which was of course ridiculous. It was also an Oxford-educated lawyer trying to make sure he didn't perjure himself. Trump won't try anything clever. He'll just lie. Probably because he believes many of his lies.
Yup. Everything I've read suggests Trump believes 100% that there was no obstruction of justice and there was no collusion. Which means he wont be nearly as guarded as he probably ought to be.
I want to know when Peter Strzok's calendar is going to be called before Congress to testify. This is what you are going to get in perpetuity on this nonsense. Congressional Republicans taking the language of any one of thousands of personal text messages between two people having an affair and try to twist them into a byzantine conspiracy:
The whole conspiracy theory is based on a single text?
And that was the text?
Who calls their secret society "the secret society?"
The article says the text wasn't even given in context; the texts that preceded it and followed it weren't included for some reason.
The text doesn't even say what the "secret society" was about. I can't even tell what it's supposed to be saying about "calendars," or what Page found "depressing."
The whole conspiracy theory is based on a single text?
And that was the text?
Who calls their secret society "the secret society?"
The article says the text wasn't even given in context; the texts that preceded it and followed it weren't included for some reason.
The text doesn't even say what the "secret society" was about. I can't even tell what it's supposed to be saying about "calendars," or what Page found "depressing."
Every secret society I have ever been a part of has immediately printed up calendars. Can't have a secret society without the official secret society calendar on the wall. But they also make me depressed. But if i keep typing, Ron Johnson or Devin Nunes might find this post and enter it into the Congressional record as more evidence of the conspiracy.
In all seriousness though....I think this should maybe put the lid on anyone taking the shit Republicans are leaking from these text messages at face value. Or any value at all. The real question is, are they this cynical, or are they this dumb?? Because on FOX News and AM radio, none of this stuff is being given any context at all. It is being presented as gospel.
Maybe my age is showing a little here, but isn't *primary* school a little early for sex education? Shouldn't that wait until 6th grade/students are 12 years old? The average age of "first experimentation" in the United States is now 12, which is why I use that age.
High School is secondary. Primary is everything from pre-K to, basically 8th grade before HS. So...4-5 to...13ish? College/University is termed post-secondary.
As far as Sex-ed topics. Well, I live(d) in Texas. Closest I ever saw to a Sex-Ed course would have been health class in high school.
Comments
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/370417-alabama-state-house-votes-to-end-special-elections
Wonder why Republicans seem to fear Democracy.
"Court: Switzerland’s refusal to exempt primary school pupil from sex education class did not breach convention
Judges ruled today that Switzerland’s refusal to exempt primary school pupil from sex education class did not breach human rights law."
http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2018/01/court-switzerlands-refusal-to-exempt-primary-school-pupil-from-sex-education-class-did-not-breach-convention/
The parent claimed freedom of religion, which is obviously ridiculous. No one is infringing on her right to practice religion or believe whatever by offering mandatory sex ed, whose purpose is to protect children.
@Mathsorcerer the information provided was not aimed at sexual activity by the young children, but covered wider issues, e.g. relationships, grooming, safety in social situations.
The debate here wasn't just the age, but who should be teaching kids this information. Parents? Teachers? Doctors? Religious figures? How do you qualify a person to teach this subject, especially at a young age?
Religious people might start the conversation, but it shouldn't be dismissed because of their issues with it.
I know what it feels like when one is dying from T1D because I was on the fast track to dying when a doctor almost misdiagnosed me when I was a teen. A slow lingering and painful death sentence it is.
This is just one example. I have heard of more over my 35+ years as a T1D.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/03/a-diabetic-boys-parents-didnt-believe-in-doctors-now-theyre-guilty-of-his-murder/?utm_term=.237a22877890
Somebody tell me how refusing medical care for children is religious freedom? Child protection should take precedence IMO.
I feel the same way about vaccinations. Vaccinations have kept diseases at bay because they in effect act like a fence for the population. But poke enough holes in that fence and we see diseases once thought gone resurfacing. We are seeing that now, esp out west. It's the same reason we see polio in the middle east with the collapse of the public health systems in war torn countries. Well, that and a mistrust of doctors because some think the west is out to kill them with an injection (understandable in a way).
Im all for religious freedom but when it harms the greater population as a whole, with either health or knowledge, a line needs to be drawn somewhere.
As for a happy medium I am not sure.
As far as immigrants coming in I think there should some type of health screening for diseases and vaccinations given, not turned away but given the appropriate protection for their sake and the sake of the population already living here.
Come on in but ya gotta get up to date on them.
I have a niece that my brother, a doc, sent to a private christian school cause of the better education given in general. He told her often though to try and ignore some of the hardline approaches to religion they taught. One of her teachers told her not even to worry bout learning too much cause she was better off learning how to get a husband and learn to keep house.
She is in the air force now so I reckon he kept her clear of the anti-women like stance they taught, in a way.
Because of the massive corporate tax cuts funding will be a issue. So rather than have taxes from rich people pay, he has this plan to dangle up to $200 billion in federal funds that State and local governments will have to bid for. They themselves will have to raise and pay for the rest of the projected $1.6 trillion in projects and improvements he is calling for. So of the suspected $1.6 trillion price tag, only $200 billion is actually funded.
Where's the $200 billion coming from? Cuts to social programs.
"The president’s pitch to (Democratic Minority Leader Senator Chuck) Schumer is,” writes New York Magazine, “ostensibly: Help me pass a bill that rolls back environmental regulations, slashes $200 billion from social spending, and provides a little bit of seed money for state-level infrastructure projects – on the condition states agree to fund the bulk of such projects through state and local taxes (which by the way, affluent blue-state residents will no longer be allowed to deduct from their federal taxes). "
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/trumps-infrastructure-plan-is-almost-done-already-dead.html
Republicans would never raise taxes in an election year so they have shifted the burden to raise taxes and fees to the states and local governments, or to other sources.
How are they going to use the money? Public and private partnerships. Mainly relying on the state and local government taxes, Trump’s rich friends and campaign donors will be able to win the contracts. Of course they will probably want to grab projects like toll roads that will pay them back for years to come, while avoiding projects like sewers in poor areas that provide necessary human services but don't provide a financial incentive or payback.
There's no financial incentive for smaller, less profitable bridges and water plants to get fixed.
The real question is how that $200 million is going to be distributed. It'll be interesting to see, where the bulk of that money goes and why. Maybe 150 million of it will be going to Whitefish to maintain their roads. Who knows.
Trump claimed he was looking forward to talking to Mueller under oath but didn't remember asking McCabe that. I'd be willing to bet most of his interview will either be claims of executive privilege, lawyer client privilege, or more "I can't remember!" That might work for Jeff Sessions but isn't Trump a stable genius with one of the greatest memories of all time?
Trump is looking forward to speaking with Mueller about as much as I am looking forward to overseeing my parents' funerals in the future. I won't like it but it is something which must be done.
Edit: I guess that article answers my question. Apparently they were work phones. But again, what influence could he possibly be having on the current case if he isn't on it anymore?? Mueller got rid of him LONG before this was even revealed in the media, which means he did so to avoid even the HINT of impropriety. It's not like Mueller kicked him off after he saw a bad news story. He did it when literally NO ONE even knew about it. If he was part of the "secret society" attempting to take down Trump, why would he have thrown a fellow co-conspirator overboard for something that hadn't even been revealed???
If I read about this correctly - I dont think that the President gets to invoke executive privilige during a formal interview with the Special Council (It's possible that this has to be in a certain setting, testifying before a grand jury, or something else... I'm not sure).
I want to know when Peter Strzok's calendar is going to be called before Congress to testify. This is what you are going to get in perpetuity on this nonsense. Congressional Republicans taking the language of any one of thousands of personal text messages between two people having an affair and try to twist them into a byzantine conspiracy:
And that was the text?
Who calls their secret society "the secret society?"
The article says the text wasn't even given in context; the texts that preceded it and followed it weren't included for some reason.
The text doesn't even say what the "secret society" was about. I can't even tell what it's supposed to be saying about "calendars," or what Page found "depressing."
In all seriousness though....I think this should maybe put the lid on anyone taking the shit Republicans are leaking from these text messages at face value. Or any value at all. The real question is, are they this cynical, or are they this dumb?? Because on FOX News and AM radio, none of this stuff is being given any context at all. It is being presented as gospel.
Primary is everything from pre-K to, basically 8th grade before HS. So...4-5 to...13ish?
College/University is termed post-secondary.
As far as Sex-ed topics. Well, I live(d) in Texas. Closest I ever saw to a Sex-Ed course would have been health class in high school.