Voltage, if you're being sarcastic, you do a fantastic job of masking it.
Yeah, I figure the kids should be punished, but not THAT severely. I mean jeez. The article doesn't even mention if they got a warning to stop before they got in trouble. Boys will be boys, and the school seems to be comparing a slingshot to a gun. It's one thing if the boys were intentionally trying to cause harm to other students or the teacher, but it just sounds like they were two kids screwing around and causing innocent trouble. They were doing it to have fun, not to be malicious.
I feel really bad for the kid. Maybe a note going home would have been appropriate, and then suspension if it was still a huge problem after notes had been written and several warnings had been issued. This doesn't sound like that case at all. If one of the boys was crying for hours over getting suspended, it makes me think it wouldn't have taken such a severe punishment to get him to stop. I think a detention or a page of writing sentences such as "I will not distract my teacher or my classmates by causing trouble during class."
That's how *I* would have been punished if I had done anything like that.
Freaking sentences. I used to write pages of those every day. I was just a social little girl, it's not a BAD thing that I happen to get along with just about anyone you sit me next to!!
Chelko is being much to protective of her child. Sure, the kids were morons and decided to make an actual weapon at school. Seriously, slingshots can hurt. The kids weren't thinking, and the punishment was extremely lenient. What does the mom think should be his punishment? A 15 minute time out? Before you reason with the mother, think about how you would have been punished in 4th grade for creating and firing slingshots in class, both by the school and your parents. I would have gotten expelled.
EDIT: And toys, not weapons? BB guns are "toys", paintball guns are "toys", slingshots can cause serious pain too. Lucky they fired paper clips and not paperweights.
Sounds to me like someone is just resentful because he was attacked by a slingshot. AHEM.
Maybe a note going home would have been appropriate, and then suspension if it was still a huge problem after notes had been written and several warnings had been issued.
The notes wouldn't be effective, however, because his mom thinks he is a little angel who can do no wrong. because she shelters him, he will never learn that what he is doing is wrong. The story possibly isn't as revealing as it could be, either. Perhaps the teacher knows of how ineffective parental enforcement of child punishment has been in the past this year (we are pretty far into the school ear) and the child is merely receiving deserved punishment for past enforcements.
Oh, and also, I wasn't being sarcastic. I guess I interpreted the article in a different fashion than most of the rest of you.
A Broome County, New York man wants to be paid for a lost lunch hour.
The hour in question is the time James Kauchis, an accounting clerk, was being held in his building by bosses for his own protection while a massacre was underway at the American Civic Association nearby.
The county worker has told a Binghamton newspaper he did indeed file a formal complaint last week to the county personnel department. Beyond that he says it's a matter, quote, "between me, the administration and the union."
"This is the kind of thing that makes government workers look bad," said personnel department director Michael Klein. He points out not a single other county employee, including police officers who responded to the American Civic Association emergency on April 3rd, has complained about the lack of freedom.
The county had provided pizza and beverages to workers during the time they were being confined to the government building for their own safety.
Broome County Executive Barbara Fiala said "a lot of people lost a lot more that day than just one hour." If she has her way Kauchis won't be reimbursed for his missed lunch.
Thirteen people were killed on April 3rd when a heavily armed 42-year-old Jiverly Wong entered the American Civic Association building. He would later go on to take his own life. Most of those gathered at the facility where the shootings occurred were about to become U.S. citizens.
Uhhh no the mom is just saying the school shouldn't have flipped out over it. Suspension over making a slingshot? The kids didn't consider it a weapon, they considered it a toy. Get them in trouble for using a toy in class, sure, that's appropriate, but a weapons charge? Seriously?
You really think "exile to a remote South Pacific island and 20 years hard labor" would be the appropriate punishment for a child playing with a slingshot in class? If you're not being sarcastic, wow. Good luck with that mindset throughout life; I think you're going to end up pretty upset about the way the world works.
Either way, the kid just got suspended for a day, even the school district said it could have been worse. I didn't get the impression that a note wouldn't have been sufficient for the mom; I got the impression she was upset that he didn't just get a note from school or something like that.
Voltage, were you such an angel in elementary school that you NEVER played with any of your school supplies in a way to distract yourself from class? Tapped pencils, glued your hands together, drew on your hands, made a paper airplane? I'd say just about EVERY kid does something like this throughout their grade school experience, and thats what the slingshots were.
EDIT: I hope that Kauchis doesn't get his lunch reimbursed. Seriously.
Lauren: I never made something that could be perceived as weapons, because I knew the punishment was going to be much worse, like expulsion. It actually happened to a friend of mine in second grade who made a slingshot out of much sturdier materials that would both allow the slingshot to use more power and fire more powerful objects. Since we are obviously at conflicting views, I will try to leave my words a that and not continue this argument.
Jakey: I think that Kauchis should get his position put in perspective. He avoided being possibly involved in a "massacre" by missing one lunch.
And finally, news of my own
3-U.S. top court upholds TV profanity crackdown
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - The Supreme Court upheld a U.S. government crackdown on profanity on television, a policy that subjects broadcasters to fines for airing a single expletive blurted out on a live show.
In its first ruling on broadcast indecency standards in more than 30 years, the high court handed a victory on Tuesday to the Federal Communications Commission, which adopted the crackdown against the one-time use of profanity on live television when children are likely to be watching.
The case stemmed from an FCC decision in 2006 that found News Corp's NWSa.N Fox television network violated decency rules when singer Cher blurted out an expletive during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards broadcast and actress Nicole Richie used two expletives during the 2003 awards.
No fines were imposed, but Fox challenged the decision. A U.S. appeals court in New York struck down the new policy as "arbitrary and capricious" and sent the case back to the FCC for a more reasoned explanation of its policy.
The FCC, under the administration of President George W. Bush, had embarked on a crackdown of indecent content on broadcast TV and radio after pop star Janet Jackson briefly exposed her bare breast during the 2004 broadcast of the Super Bowl halftime show.
Before 2004, the FCC did not usually enforce prohibitions against indecency unless there were repeated occurrences.
By a 5-4 vote and splitting along conservative-liberal lines, the justices upheld the FCC's new policy under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The high court did not rule on Fox's constitutional challenge to the policy on free-speech grounds. The Supreme Court sent that issue back to the appeals court.
"While we would have preferred a victory on Administrative Procedure Act grounds, more important to Fox is the fundamental constitutional issues at the heart of this case," Fox said in a statement.
The network said it was optimistic that it would ultimately prevail on the free-speech issue. If Fox wins before the appeals court, it would be up to the FCC and the Obama administration to decide whether to take the matter back to the Supreme Court, legal sources said.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in summarizing the court's majority ruling from the bench, upheld the new policy as rational.
Kauchis' situation is interesting, and I don't have enough of the facts to let you all know what the decision should be. If his employers put of physical barriers preventing him from leaving for his lunch hour, whether his life was in danger or not, then we've got a case on our hands.
Every human being has a right to their own time, and can do with it as they please. In many government jobs you contract out your time and get money in return. That's elementary, we all know that. It sounds like Mr. Kauchis was also contractually allowed an hour lunch time. The lynchpin to this whole case, though, is whether or not Mr. Kauchis' employment contract (or any contract, for that matter) contained a clause allowing his employer to suspend his liberty in cases where his life may be in danger.
Then there's the question of whether Mr. Kauchis was held against his will. Did his boss just say, "Don't leave," or were there actual physical barriers to him leaving the building? If it's the former, then Mr. Kauchis is just being a faggot.
You say Mr. Kauchis should not complain because his life was saved. I say he has every right. His employer does not own his life.
Give me freedom or give me death. Don't suspend my freedom to save my life, please, because neither of those things belong to you.
If you don't have freedom in EVERY POSSIBLE FORM then it is not freedom. Telling a person that they do not get to decide when they can risk their own possessions is about as disrespectful as you can get. It's telling them they are not a human being. It is telling them that they are cattle.
John. Police were responding to protect those at the location. If that jackass decided to take a stroll outside during teh shooting, they would have been obligated to risk their lives to keep him safe. I know, he can die if he wants, but unless he had a way of communicating that decision, he had no right to leave that building and put those officers' lives in danger. He didn't miss his lunch hour, either. He may not have had his choice of meal, but he was fed and he obviously wasn't working. That is a lunch break. And what did he do after the shooting? Did he have to go back to work? Did he work 8 hours straight without any break? If not, he had his lunch and he deserves nothing more.
Yes. They would have been obligated to risk their lives to keep him safe. This does not change the fact that it's his choice to leave the building during a firefight or not, not his employers. Because when you come down to it, nobody but that man owns his life. Make no mistake, I think this guy sounds like an asshole and a retard. Him staying in the building was probably the best thing for him and everybody else involved. It's still his choice, though, and it would have been on him if he got himself hurt. If we don't have freedom in every situation then we don't have freedom at all.
Fuck, those police could have gotten hurt. Now I feel like if I were in that situation I would want to tackle that guy and punch him a few times to prevent him leaving. MORALITY IS CONFUSING.
basic balance, man. That's all. he has freedom, but with it comes responsibility. If someone refuses to act responsibly, then it is up to those around him to make sure his actions don't hurt others. Such as stopping a gunman from exercising his freedom to fire his weapon in a public place.
During the Texas State Board of Education hearings on science standards for Texas schoolchildren, BoE member and staunch creationist Barbara Cargill decided that the age of the Universe was up for vote. Oddly enough, I had some issue with that. You may vote on issues all you want, and you can even vote on morality if you’d like, but scientific reality is not a matter of opinion and cares not for the majority vote.
The National Center for Science Education has video of the moment where it becomes clear that Ms. Cargill, not happy enough to destroy biology for students, proposes an amendment to creationize astronomy as well:
Listening to her gives me the heebie-jeebies. About the astronomy standards, she says "…there are different estimates [of the age of the Universe]… they will be taught about 12 - 14 billion years ago, but this leaves it open a little bit to discuss how many billions."
It is absolutely clear from what she is saying that she is deliberately trying to weaken the teaching of the old age of the Universe. Another member queries her specifically, asking if this will open up astronomy to the teaching of literal Biblical creationism. Cargill then completely dodges the question, saying she is simply taking the language of the recommendations. But that language is clearly saying the Universe is old, and there is a small amount of uncertainty (actually, only about 120 million years) in the age estimate of the Universe.
What she did, to put it simply, is a crock. It is perfectly transparent what she wanted: to wedge open the door to allow the teaching of young-Earth creationism in the classroom, using the standard "strengths and weaknesses" creationist propaganda tactic.
Need I say it? Her amendment passed, 11 to 3.
I honestly feel bad for any child entering the Texas public school system over the next ten years, and I sincerely hope that the Legislature of the Lone Star State is able to take away the ridiculous amount of power the BoE has. They are flaunting their violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United State of America (not to mention bending or breaking that pesky "false witness" Commandment), and their influence reaches well beyond their own state borders.
She didn't make any sense at all. I'm not entirely sure what she actually did there. She make a motion to amend the Astrology book to say that since the age of the universe is not exactly known that the students should be made aware of other theories? I honestly did not understand what she was even saying. She was just stringing together words that didn't seem to have a point. What motion did they pass, exactly?
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minnesota judge has ruled that a 13-year-old boy with a highly treatable form of cancer must seek conventional medical treatment over his parents' objections.
In a 58-page ruling Friday, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" and is in need of child protection services.
Rodenberg said Daniel will stay in the custody of his parents, but Colleen and Anthony Hauser have until May 19 to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist
The judge wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."
Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.
"I feel it's a blow to families," he said. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."
Elbert said he hadn't spoken to his client yet. The phone line at the Hauser home in Sleepy Eye in southwestern Minnesota had a busy signal Friday. The parents' attorney had no immediate comment but planned to issue a statement.
Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.
Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect; but in court, his mother insisted the boy wouldn't submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons and she said she wouldn't comply if the court orders it.
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.
Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.
The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.
After the first chemotherapy treatment, the family said they wanted a second opinion, said Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist who recommended Daniel undergo chemotherapy and radiation.
They later informed him that Daniel would not undergo any more chemotherapy. Bostrom said Daniel's tumor shrunk after the first chemotherapy session, but X-rays show it has grown since he stopped the chemotherapy.
"My son is not in any medical danger at this point," Colleen Hauser testified at a court hearing last week. She also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band.
The family's attorney, Calvin Johnson, said Daniel made the decision himself to refuse chemotherapy, but Brown County said he did not have an understanding of what it meant to be a medicine man or an elder.
Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read.
The Hausers have eight children. Colleen Hauser told the New Ulm Journal newspaper that the family's Catholicism and adherence to the Nemenhah Band are not in conflict, and that she has used natural remedies to treat illness.
Nemenhah was founded in the 1990s by Philip Cloudpiler Landis, who said Thursday he once served four months in prison in Idaho for fraud related to advocating natural remedies.
Landis said he founded the faith after facing his diagnosis of a cancer similar to Daniel Hauser. He said he treated it with diet choices, visits to a sweat lodge and other natural remedies.
John. Imagine a scenario wherein you know this kid, right? He's not a very bright kid. He does some things at times that seem downright foolish. I'm not good at coming up with good metaphors, but bare with me here. Let's say that he can kinda sorta juggle. Now lets say he thinks he's good enough to juggle a few very sharp knives. Now let's say you can also juggle. In fact you can juggle very well. Far better than this kid can. You KNOW he'll hurt himself doing this. But then, he won't hurt anybody else...
So, you have the opportunity to take these knives from him and make him not do this. Do you? Do you?
This isn't a simple question. It's a matter of weighing the value of a human life with the value of freedom. Maybe I put an awful lot of value on life, but it seems like a good thing to protect people from harm. Yet, what do you do when the danger comes from the themselves? Do you protect them from themselves? Remember that this "medicine man and elder" is 13 years old. Would you have trusted your 13-year-old self with a decision where your life is on the line?
How does it affect you if a total stranger is gunned down? It's murder. This child does not have the ability to make an informed decision in this matter. His parents are willfully ignorant of the truth. The mother claimed that her son was currently healthy when he was not. They are murdering him. It's the same as if a parent withheld food and water from their child.
In most areas I agree with John in the government leaving us the hell alone, but I do think there are a few areas where the government should step in for the greater good. For example, when two parents are so goddamn retarded that they are going to kill their misinformed son. Normally I would think that these parents have absolutely no business breeding, but that's a moot point now. They have a kid, and there's no reason to condemn the kid to death because the parents think a couple weeds are going to cure cancer.
This is one of those cases in which you have to ponder the right ofreligious freedom with the State's duty of promoting public health. If the kid was 18, then there's fuck nothing to be done, but being as it is a child the judge's decision is alright with me, at least.
Exactly. Once you reach a certain age you are expected to have the mental capacity to make these kinds of important decisions. Of course every person is different, I've known 16 and 17 year olds to be much wiser and knowledgable than people in their 20s, but that's besides the point. If the kid is 18 it is his responsibility to not stupidly off himself, but before that it is his parents' responsibility.
He's still a child, and if his parents aren't going to take care of him then someone else needs to. I still prefer it weren't Big Brother, but there's really no better option at this point.
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.
This is really the most misleading part of this story when what they really mean is that he has a 90% chance of surviving five more years if he completes the treatment.
Then you have to ask yourself is it worth it to extend life at the cost of quality of life.
This is really the most misleading part of this story when what they really mean is that he has a 90% chance of surviving five more years if he completes the treatment.
Comments
Yeah, I figure the kids should be punished, but not THAT severely. I mean jeez. The article doesn't even mention if they got a warning to stop before they got in trouble. Boys will be boys, and the school seems to be comparing a slingshot to a gun. It's one thing if the boys were intentionally trying to cause harm to other students or the teacher, but it just sounds like they were two kids screwing around and causing innocent trouble. They were doing it to have fun, not to be malicious.
I feel really bad for the kid. Maybe a note going home would have been appropriate, and then suspension if it was still a huge problem after notes had been written and several warnings had been issued. This doesn't sound like that case at all. If one of the boys was crying for hours over getting suspended, it makes me think it wouldn't have taken such a severe punishment to get him to stop. I think a detention or a page of writing sentences such as "I will not distract my teacher or my classmates by causing trouble during class."
That's how *I* would have been punished if I had done anything like that.
Freaking sentences. I used to write pages of those every day. I was just a social little girl, it's not a BAD thing that I happen to get along with just about anyone you sit me next to!!
Sounds to me like someone is just resentful because he was attacked by a slingshot. AHEM.
The notes wouldn't be effective, however, because his mom thinks he is a little angel who can do no wrong. because she shelters him, he will never learn that what he is doing is wrong. The story possibly isn't as revealing as it could be, either. Perhaps the teacher knows of how ineffective parental enforcement of child punishment has been in the past this year (we are pretty far into the school ear) and the child is merely receiving deserved punishment for past enforcements.
Oh, and also, I wasn't being sarcastic. I guess I interpreted the article in a different fashion than most of the rest of you.
You really think "exile to a remote South Pacific island and 20 years hard labor" would be the appropriate punishment for a child playing with a slingshot in class? If you're not being sarcastic, wow. Good luck with that mindset throughout life; I think you're going to end up pretty upset about the way the world works.
Either way, the kid just got suspended for a day, even the school district said it could have been worse. I didn't get the impression that a note wouldn't have been sufficient for the mom; I got the impression she was upset that he didn't just get a note from school or something like that.
Voltage, were you such an angel in elementary school that you NEVER played with any of your school supplies in a way to distract yourself from class? Tapped pencils, glued your hands together, drew on your hands, made a paper airplane? I'd say just about EVERY kid does something like this throughout their grade school experience, and thats what the slingshots were.
EDIT: I hope that Kauchis doesn't get his lunch reimbursed. Seriously.
Jakey: I think that Kauchis should get his position put in perspective. He avoided being possibly involved in a "massacre" by missing one lunch.
And finally, news of my own
Every human being has a right to their own time, and can do with it as they please. In many government jobs you contract out your time and get money in return. That's elementary, we all know that. It sounds like Mr. Kauchis was also contractually allowed an hour lunch time. The lynchpin to this whole case, though, is whether or not Mr. Kauchis' employment contract (or any contract, for that matter) contained a clause allowing his employer to suspend his liberty in cases where his life may be in danger.
Then there's the question of whether Mr. Kauchis was held against his will. Did his boss just say, "Don't leave," or were there actual physical barriers to him leaving the building? If it's the former, then Mr. Kauchis is just being a faggot.
You say Mr. Kauchis should not complain because his life was saved. I say he has every right. His employer does not own his life.
Give me freedom or give me death. Don't suspend my freedom to save my life, please, because neither of those things belong to you.
But hey, if this guy ran out during the shooting spree and a cop went to save him - it's not the guy who shot the cop, it's still the shooter's fault.
Video at the link
Two + two = five. Seriously.
I vote yes, but my main experience with Texas teaching styles being retarded is the abstinence only education.
*sigh* And I'm probably going to be teaching in Texas at some point. Awesome.
Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
So, you have the opportunity to take these knives from him and make him not do this. Do you? Do you?
This isn't a simple question. It's a matter of weighing the value of a human life with the value of freedom. Maybe I put an awful lot of value on life, but it seems like a good thing to protect people from harm. Yet, what do you do when the danger comes from the themselves? Do you protect them from themselves? Remember that this "medicine man and elder" is 13 years old. Would you have trusted your 13-year-old self with a decision where your life is on the line?
He's still a child, and if his parents aren't going to take care of him then someone else needs to. I still prefer it weren't Big Brother, but there's really no better option at this point.
Then you have to ask yourself is it worth it to extend life at the cost of quality of life.